Confusing Fantasy With Reality
I am a fan of the television show '24', having seen all of the previous 5 seasons, so perhaps I am a bit biased, but I was amused by the stupidity of this article on Alex Jones' website Infowars:
The new season of 24, that is to air this coming weekend, is to prepare the American people for the idea of concentration camps, detention centers and the rounding up of people in times of crisis.
The opener depicts an America besieged by mass terrorist attacks and public paranoia, with 11 cities, including New York, Atlanta, San Antonio and L.A., having been attacked in the space of a few weeks. Watch it:
Much like Richard Andrew Grove, he is confusing reality and fantasy. Uhh guys, it is a basic foundation of drama that you put your protagonist, in the deepest darkest hole that he can find himself, that way the good guys can save the day and leave you breathless on the edge of your seat (I am intentionally mixing metaphors there). To somehow view this as propaganda, is well, just silly. Did Steven Spielberg film Jaws to prepare America for a wave of shark attacks?
So get out your popcorn and prepare for the New World Order, Sunday at 8 PM, 9 Central.
Correction: Much like truthers and Payne Stewart, I confused the time zones. That should be 7 Central.
posted by James B. @ 9:57 AM
42 comments
42 Comments:
Didn't 24 also prepare us for a future African-American president? (Bama?)
Isn't there suppose to be a biological attack next, according to 24?
Didn't the X-Files movie prepare us for 9/11? (Total building collapse due to explosives.)
Didn't Enemy of the State, in the scene where Hackman is about to blow up the building, state the date of the assistant director of NSA's birthday was 9/11/44. And the next scene is the building blowing up and falling in a pancake collapse?
I don't agree with AJ, but kawinkydinks are sweeeeet!
Ok, my perosnal opinion, now on the record...
Alex Jones has the mind of a child.
TAM
Swing:
there are hundreds of thousands of ideas out there put forward by thousands of wouldbe writers, screenwriters, etc...from all of those, we sometimes have reality imitating art (lol). I hope it doesnt surprise you that out of the hundreds of thousands of novels and scripts that get sent to hollywood each year, that occasionally one will have a reality based similar occurence, does it?
TAM
Tam Of course I realize that. I thought I might lighten the mood a little. I apologize if you took my examples too seriously.
Tam, since I haven't talked with you for sometime, what is your opinion of this analysis? Yours I take more seriously than others as you appear to be the most educated out of all of us.
Let me know your thoughts on this issue. I will highlight the most relevant points.
From the Seattle Times
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
Business: Saturday, February 27, 1993
Eric Nalder
Engineers had to consider every peril they could imagine when they designed the World Trade Center three decades ago because, at the time, the twin towers were of unprecedented size for structures made of steel and glass.
"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Skilling, (head Structural Engineer of the WTC based in Seattle), is among the world's top structural engineers.
Ok, lets see what one of the best in the world have to offer.
He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center.
Apparently a person in the know! After all he was the head honcho in the design of the building.
Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.
Remember, the date of the interview is 1993. To remove the size matters arguement. The planes although different in size are marginalized based upon the difference in length: 6 feet and the width of 10 feet. And actually the building was designed to withstand the 707's greater crusing speed of 607 mph versus the 767's 530mph. (data from FEMA's report)
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
So even after a crash, and the fire, the head designer states the building would still be there. Let me repeat, the building would still be there. This ends all debates wether or not the designers took into consideration the impact of fire on the structures.
Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
Well I guess an structural engineer expert who isn't a nut bar agrees with old Swing about what could bring down the towers. Is there any evidence of explosives at the WTC complex? See my above posts of course. Was any testing done for explosives? Of course not. See the Gatekeeper posts.
He took note of the fact that smoke and fire spread throughout the building yesterday. He said that is possibly because the pressurizing system that stops the spread of smoke didn't work when the electric power went off. Skilling, 72, was not involved in the design of the building mechanics.
Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
Apparently if not him, somebody or some people.
Well I guess is what is left is to get the top experts in the world, round them up, interrorgate them by whatever means and determine who was in around the WTC complex in the months and weeks prior to the event or who they trained?
No quotes were taken out of context as might be suggested.
If that isn't expert analysis of what would bring the Towers down, I don't know what is.
Enjoy debunking the Head Designer of the WTC towers.
Yet more expert analysis of the design of the WTC:
The Richard Roth Telegram
On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, (Maybe this is where Woods gets the tree scenario?)
THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. 7. City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 133
Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8. How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, ENR, 4/2/1964
Enjoy debunking the Head Designer of the WTC towers.
Memories differ, and NIST was unable to find any direct evidence of the pre-construction impact studies which would tell us whose memories were correct. Les Robertson said, among other things, that "(i)t was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark," that is, going more slowly than its cruise speed. He also said, "To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."
If it is true that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 at full crusing speed AND to survive the fuel-fed fires which would follow such a crash, than either the design or the construction was not correct. Because no matter what "inconsistencies" you find, no matter how much obfucstation you do, no matter what slime you throw at the victims or other innocent parties, no matter how much you try to divert attention from the real perpetrators of the attacks, what happened was that hijacked aircraft piloted by Islamist radicals hit the towers of the World Trade Center and the damage of the impacts combined with the damage of the ensuing fires caused those towers to collapse.
Now, how many of you, just from reading SD's post, would guess that John Skilling has been dead since 1998?
Nothing taken out of context my ass. Making it appear as is someone backs you up on events which happened 3 years after he died is just a wee bit dishonest.
Not YOUR bad. HIS bad. The fucker is probably quite aware of Mr. Skillings demise, yet has worded his post in a way as to allude to the man not only being alive, but being of the professional opinion that the towers were demolished with explosives. It's not your fault that Kid Diddler over there is a slimy little bastard.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT
There's a better show on Sunday.
Rome.
OMG AMERICA IS AN EMPIRE LIKE ROME THEY'RE PREPARING US FOR AN EMPEROR EVEN THOUGH THE SHOW IS MADE BY BRITS.
Making it appear as is someone backs you up on events which happened 3 years after he died is just a wee bit dishonest.
Hmmm. I distinctly stated the article's age in my responses. To be honest, I didn't know the guy was dead, but considering his age, I suspected as much. Of course that doesn't discredit his statements about his building a single bit.
Nothing taken out of context my ass. Excuse me, but the entire article is in my post. I did that of course to counter that particular claim you just issued.
It reaffirms what I believed and most likely happened on that day, which is exactly why I posted it.
Manny, because the NIST couldn't 'find' the reports, does not mean they don't exist.
Memories differ?? They differ over the design of the tallest structure of the world at that time?
Now that is reaching! LOL! I would expect something like that from a tin hatter, but you?
I will take the head designer's and expert structural engineer's direct statements and his own firm's report over an assumption by his underling posted on his corporate website. I love where LERA throws in the "We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land."
So if it is not an accident, it won't withstand the impact? Don't you love how impact survival depends upon motive?
Did he forget the specs of the building he helped to design?
Do they place such specific specifications on buildings to withstand such distinct criteria?
Why didn't they design it to withstand take off speed in unfoggy weather? Why not impact at crusing speeds with the sun's glint at high noon? Why not cruising speeds on a windy day of 12 knotts with heavy cloud cover? Oh wait, they did for cruising speeds despite the weather and despite the intent. My bad!
I find it simply amazing that he contradicts his boss to fit the official story!
"The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel."
Well, Les, your boss stated otherwise! Now I might be inclined to believe Les if they actually removed the fire resistive systems, but they didn't.
They made it BETTER than buildings at the time!
"For the first time, fire-rated partition walls, now an industry standard, replaced standard masonry and plaster enclosures for elevator shafts and stairs."http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/
labnotes/
1101history.html
Contradicting his boss yet again to fit the OS, you just have to love that guy!
"To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance."
I find that highly unlikely considering the Empire State Building crash and the direct statements of his boss contradict that stament as well as the improvements designers made in face of the current technology.
If it is true that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 at full crusing speed AND to survive the fuel-fed fires which would follow such a crash, than either the design or the construction was not correct.
It is not a matter of truth, Manny. IT IS FACT:
"A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."
City in the Sky, Times Books page 131
Let us not forget...
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Back to Manny....
1. Lets point out Manny's arguement fallacy first. He makes a monumental error by asserting that there are only two options avaliable when in reality there are more. That is the old False Dilema you commit there, Manny.
What is a fallacy? By definition a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief or unsound argument, deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness ...any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
I should stop there because his fallacy renders his entire statement erroneousness and now the readers can see it as such. The third viable option that Manny leaves out by totally ignoring all evidence and the head structural engineer of the WTC towers as well as prior actions by terrorists, the possiblity that explosives were used in the destruction of the WTC towers. This is also supported by the head structural engineer, who stated explosives devices could bring down the buildings, not fire and damage alone.
No diversions...no lies...no fraud...just facts. You can believe your experts, I will believe mine.
The original design called for the towers to take a hit from a 707 that was lost in the fog, it seems that 30 years later that opinions differ. Perhaps because the towers seemed to be very well built that one could speculate that they could take more but a 707 lost in the fog was what they were designed for.
He also designed the buildings so they would be able to absorb the impact of a jet airliner: "I'm sort of a methodical person, so I listed all the bad things that could happen to a building and tried to design for them. I thought of the B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. The 707 was the state-of-the-art airplane then, and the Port Authority was quite amenable to considering the effect of an airplane as a design criterion. We studied it, and designed for the impact of such an aircraft. The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but I don't know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it. Now we know what happens-it explodes. I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."
On September 11th, each building took the impact of a 767 (which is nearly twenty per cent heavier than a 707) and stood long enough to allow most of the people below the crash sites-the ninety-fourth floor to the ninety-ninth floor in the north tower, and the seventy-eighth floor to the eighty-fourth floor in the south tower-to escape. Had the buildings toppled immediately, nearly all those survivors would have died, and there would have been huge losses as well in the buildings and streets around the towers. The fact that the terrorists chose to hit the buildings on opposite faces suggests to some that they intended to knock the buildings over-which would have increased the destruction and loss of life. "Ninety-nine per cent of all buildings would collapse immediately when hit by a 767," Jon Magnusson said.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT
But did the special structural characteristics of these buildings, qualities that made them so resistant to attack from without, also make them vulnerable to collapse from within, once the fires started? If one of the airplanes had hit an older skyscraper, like the Empire State Building, which has a frame structure instead of a tube structure, would the total disaster have been greater (the building falls over immediately) or lesser (the concrete in the building lasts longer in a fire, and the frame structure protects the building from complete collapse)? Of all the difficult questions that the FEMA investigators need to ask about the disaster, this is one of the hardest.
Swing:
I have read that article before. While I appreciate a highlight or two for your emphasis, I find it hard to read the article with your comentary interspersed.
What I make of the article is this.
Skilling says that the building was designed to withstand the impact of a jet airliner. There is, whether you want to admit it or not, dispute even amongst those who worked on the design of the building, as to whether it was designed to withstand multiple or single impacts, whether it was at full speed or reduced speed, as would be expected if trying to land in the fog.
All this said, one can make the argument that the design was correct...the buildings stood for nearly and hour, and over an hour, after the impacts.
Skilling does not discuss if the fireproofing removal was considered in the design conditions re: surviving a jet impact, the fires, AND the fireproofing removal.
All this, regardless, is a discussion on the design of the building. It is kind of like saying, well the space shuttle was designed to withstand reentry, but does it always? Every possible factor cannot be accounted for.
For instance, did they do calculations on what would happen it the floors failed, allowing the trusses to pull on the exterior columns...we do not know. We do not know what detail they went into with regard to different scenarios, within the jet impact scenario.
The fact is, as far as I am concerned, the planes hit, they did the damage, they removed the fireproofing, the fires were enormous, and wide, and the combination of all of it, IMO, and that of the vast majority of the scientific community, contributed to the collapse of the buildings nearly an hour later, and over an hour later in the case of the second tower.
TAM
TBH even Nist says that the design was for a 707 hitting the WTC at 600 MPH.
See page 6(56) of this report.
But SD the buildings did survive the impact from the planes, and that was not what caused the buildings to collapse.
Jay The link does not work but I have see ones including an NIST report that clearly said a slow moving 707 that may have ben lost in the fog. I think it was from 2003 but I can't find it
Its the report from NIST.
NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers
On page 13 (63)from the same report they found a 3 page document where it said it was 600 MPH.
Oops, it doesn't mention the 600 MPH on page 13, but they found a 3 page document about the 707 hitting the WTC.
When they designed towers nobody ever concidered anybody crashing an airliner at full speed into them
In NCSTAR1.1 there is some more info about aircraft impact on page 70(132)
Thanks for the info Jay. It puts things into perspective a bit. It'd be pretty amazing if a structure which was only designed to absorb less than half a billion joules of kinetic energy managed to absorb more than 4 billion. If your info is correct (as it seems to be), then what occurred isn't nearly as amazing - the towers simply performed as they were designed/expected to.
Imagine what Swing would have said if this were 1912 and the "unsinkable" Titanic had just gone down.
You don't believe that OS "iceburg" claptrap, do you? It was obviously a practice run for the Lusitania.
On a more serious note, SD, others have already covered any response to you I might have made, and far more politely. You got nothing, except for your pathetic attempts to implicate Les Robertson. You are beneath contempt and should contract bone cancer.
CHF I will no longer be answering any of your questions. I have proven in an earlier thread (details below) where you purposely lied about what I stated in a post in order to mislead readers and Iexposed you as a fraud. Enjoy your life.
CHF-Looks like you'll have to find another WTC engineer who says there were in fact explosives used on 9/11.
Swing-YOUR NEXT LIE No where on this blog did I state that Skilling said there were explosives used in the World Trade Center on 9/11.
To the rest of you...
This is a repost from an earlier thread...
Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says
By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer
Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C. Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers. Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.
(C) 2001, Albuquerque Journal
Remember that was his opinion!
10 days later he makes this comment:
Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.
"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."
But under careful reading, explosives is exactly what Romero thought was used at least in his opinion. But on 9/21 prior to any official report or study, it is fire and planes. What would cause some one to have a professional expert opinion on WTC 1 and 2 and then change their mind before any studies are released 10 days later? http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/
retractions/romero.html
Finally, Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer (where would this be located in relation to the impact) or other source of combustion within the building.
What other source of combustion has the energy to trigger a collapse?
The primary source material from the numerous news footages supports exactly what the experts thought it looked like including Romerro.
To disprove that explosives were used in the attacks, you have to test for the presence of explosives.
Was that done? No. Hence explosives remain a viable theory which is the only theory that Skillings said woudld bring down the towers: explosives.
Experts do not have the ability to make an informed decision because there was only one hypothesis tested despite their first observationis which of course ignores all the primary source material that points two a second alternativeThe use of explosives. Which is exactly what the designer said would bring the building down.
Murdervillage I don't quite understand what you are getting at.
No, swing, the engineers don't agree with you. Try speaking with one rather than taking their words COMPLETELY out of context.
I dont' recall taking anything out of context. The entire article is there online, and please post a refute to my information if you have one so I can destroy it as well.
If your info is correct (as it seems to be), then what occurred isn't nearly as amazing - the towers simply performed as they were designed/expected to.
Which is exactly what they did.
I've come to this website to educate myself on the issues of 9/11. As a mother of 2 infant children and a daughter of a veteran who served in WWII, I feel I have a responsibility to seek answers to ongoing questions of this catastrophic event. My efforts, while I'm only one person, is to stop history from repeating itself. While I consider myself neutral on this topic, I am open minded enough to know: 1. that I am not well versed or knowledgable in all the facts and 2. receptive to others opinions. (90% of what we hear and see must fit into our mental schema in order to be acceptable to our line of thought. In some cases, there is no give whatsoever. Many persons who posted seem to be at that level.) Obviously, this topic is one that we all have been impacted by on so many levels, and feel passionately about. But, I must say in reading the blogs on this posting, I am offended by people's remarks. If you are going to present a point to an argument, you do not make character attacks, nor use foul language. While you may present intelligent information, you cheapen your ideas and the memory of those who have died in this attrocity by utilizing these poor strategies. I feel a personal responsibility to honor those lost by researching the conditions that allowed such event to occur, and while Swing Dangler's opinion may not reflect mine, SD has prompted me to do more research to think more diversely of the topic. This is the foundation of our country, to challenge the accepted. This holds us accountable to our belief systems, and those responsible to justice. Finally, the ongoing remarks about "child molestation" truly demonstrates how small minded persons are. Challenge the citations, challenge authors of the quotes, challenge the relevancy of the information, challenge the points made...but do not bash with poor analogies and bring issues that are irrelevant when you do not have an educated argument to present.
CHF I will no longer be answering any of your questions. I have proven in an earlier thread (details below) where you purposely lied about what I stated
...
No where on this blog did I state that Skilling said there were explosives used in the World Trade Center on 9/11.
Fine, you want to be an idiot? Two can play at that technicality game:
He never SAID that you stated that Skilling said there were explosives in the building. He merely implied it. Much like you implied that Skilling thought there were explosives in the buildings, without actually saying it. Now, since you're probably confused by now, I'll break it down into logical steps for you:
1) CHF implied that you implied something.
2) You called him a liar, saying you "never said that".
3) Since you seem to think this a valid defence against implying something untruthful, his defence would also be that "he never said that you did".
4) So far, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, we've shown that neither of you has directly lied, since neither of you actually SAID a lie. You merely implied them.
5) Unfortunately, by saying that you have proven him to be a liar, you in fact prove yourself to be a liar, since BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS, he never lied.
Clear as mud?
Didn't think so.
That's ok, maybe you can get your 8 year old niece to explain it to you.
10 days later he makes this comment:
Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.
"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."
Great. So why are you posting the rest of that junk?
Remember what I said before about you CT lunatics having "impossibly high standard of proof"? Well, this is a big part of it. In your world, anyone who disagrees with you has been bought off or threatened. Therefore, it becomes impossible to "prove" anything to you. No matter how many witnesses or experts testify, you won't believe any of them unless they agree with you. And hey, that's fine. Just stop spamming these comments sections with your useless dreg. We don't need to hear you or anyone else imply that some guy in Mexico was threatened by the Illuminati or some other shadowy organization.
The primary source material from the numerous news footages supports exactly what the experts thought it looked like including Romerro.
What experts? So far Romero is the only one, and from some of the things he's said he sounds a bit flaky. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points"? Please. The guy obviously either doesn't understand demolition at all, or has never actually seen the WTC. Anyway, if you're going to put that "s" on the end of "expert", you better provide at least one more.
I dont' recall taking anything out of context.
You make it sound as if the guy was commenting post-9/11. The timeline makes a big difference. I'll grant that you may have made this implication unintentionally, since you're definitely no linguist, but you DID imply it.
Which is exactly what they did.
HEEEEEY, OPA! You finally agree with me on something. Amazing. Now if only you didn't split off there and start on some unrelated tangent, we'd be good to go.
If you are going to present a point to an argument, you do not make character attacks, nor use foul language.
Sorry mom, but if you'd been exposed to that dimwit as much as the rest of us have, you'd feel the same way. Judge me if you wish, but understand that most of us started off quite civil about a year ago, and over time evolved into what you see now. It's impossible to argue with the lunatics for that amount of time without developing quite a bit of disdain for them.
As for the child molestation remarks, they're a comment on his reasoning ability rather than his sexuality/criminality. It's sort of an inside joke. He was arguing that it's possible to prove a negative, so we said "Ok, prove you're not a child molester". Ofcourse, he couldn't do it, but refused to back down on his original insanity. So I feel perfectly justified in calling him Kid Diddler until he finally acknowledges being wrong - after all, by his own logic, we've proven that he really is a child molester.
I'm sorry that your experience with him has not been positive, but there you go continuing to diminish the quality the blog/intellectual experience by referring to him as "dimwit". This blog is to stimulate thought. Elevate the intellectual quality of this by modeling appropriate behaviors rather then condoning it. And yes, I get the "prove the negative" remark...As a sexual abuse therapist, the only way to prove the "molestation" negative argument is for him to strap on a biometric device and not demonstrate a physiological response to children. (It can be proven with the right instruments.) Again, unrelated information....but I'm not privy to the inside joke. So, now that we've distracted enough from the purpose of the topic...Rewind and take it back to the quality a year ago.
Dylan,
Wow...thank you for modeling exactly what I was referring to. My last post here.
Didn't realize new people weren't welcome.....first time I've ever blogged. A collegue referred me to this site. No need to change names or anything...thank you for being clear that diverse opinions were not welcome, or individuals seeking the truth. Good luck all in your pursuits.
Give 'er a chance Dylan, she seems like a reasonable person. There's absolutely no need to immediately jump on every new person that shows up here.
Sue:
I'm sorry that your experience with him has not been positive, but there you go continuing to diminish the quality the blog/intellectual experience by referring to him as "dimwit".
Does it diminish the quality of this blog to call a rock a rock? A spade a spade? He has, through his conduct, demonstrated a clear inability to think logically, asses new information, or admit an error. Moreover he has continually insisted on presenting information out of context, has been caught in numerous lies, and continues to bring up claims which have been disproved ages ago. On top of all that, you'll notice that even his NAME is inflammatory - when people refer to a "troll" online, they're not talking about a little creature with funny hair. "Troll" comes from the act of trolling - as in fishing. One dangles the bait and drives around, waiting for the fish to snap it up. In that context, the meaning of "Swing Dangler" should be pretty clear. So what am I supposed to call him, exactly? I'm sorry if you find me too forward or outspoken, but such is life. Some people are appreciative of truthfulness, accuracy, and a certain amount of zeal. Others prefer a "polite" society of gossip, half-truths, and bask-stabbers. If you fall into the latter category, don't expect me to change just to meet your desires.
This blog is to stimulate thought. Elevate the intellectual quality of this by modeling appropriate behaviors rather then condoning it.
Generally speaking, we do. If you have valid questions or wish to discuss some things you've heard...as long as you phrase your question politely we will certainly answer in kind. I know that Dylan's response to you wasn't the best example of this, however, that was rather unusual. If your first post had not been all criticism and condemnation, I doubt he would have jumped on you like that. In any event, I and others are more than happy to have a civilized discussion with you - just don't expect me to extend the same courtesy to those who have shown that they do not deserve it.
So, now that we've distracted enough from the purpose of the topic...Rewind and take it back to the quality a year ago.
I wish it were that simple. If Pat would ban BG and Swinger, things would calm down a lot and become more civilized. Otherwise....it's like trying to stop a riot in progress by saying "hey guys, please stop". It just won't work.
I honestly don't know the categories and what they mean. I also do not know what I believe....as I'm seeking information about the facts. Didn't come here to be called names though...only hoping to get some sources to research and make my own decision. Thank you for the welcome though, chf. Don't think this is the place for me. Take care.
The problem is, Sue, that any properly organized debate is always moderated, and has basic rules of conduct. Also, most civilized debates feature individuals who are fairly rational, and are able to think logically. They may disagree, but they are able to make an argument, support it, and back down if they are shown to be wrong.
On the other hand, imagine walking into an insane asylum and attempting to have a debate with the inmates. Do you seriously believe that this would work out well? Probably not, right? So why would you expect us to have a rational debate with these two lunatics?
If you stick around long enough, you'll find that I'm not exaggerating about the intellectual (dis)abilities of these two individuals. I can give you plenty of examples if you want, but there's really nothing quite as effective as actually seing them in action. Go back to a couple threads and you can watch BG argue that the people who jumped off of the WTC did so because Bush set up a microwave-beam device in the towers to force them to jump. Like I said, they're absolutely nuts.
Let me make clear, I'm not here to serve as BG or SD's cheerleader. Nor am I here to support their belief systems. (Sounds like they're able to handle this on their own.) Only here to gleen insight, not offend or judge. If everyone had the same opinion, it would certainly make life less interesting and educating. I just appreciate divergent opinions. Makes me think about what kind of opinion I have. I'm certainly not to this overall group level when it comes to research and information. That I certainly have realized. Perhaps when I become more educated, and feel I can argue one way or another on anything I'll return. LOL
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
If the only problem was a difference of opinion, we'd be having much different discussions.
If you wish to do your research elsewhere, good on you. Feel free to drop in any time and ask for clarification on things you may have read elsewhere. Also, if you jump back through this block to between 2 and 6 months ago, there's a LOT of information there provided by James and Pat. Also try:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
Or go straight to the source:
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/
http://wtc.nist.gov/
Suebee88:
The issue you have addressed, is one that we continually are not only aware of, but constantly try to minimize. However, it is exceedingly difficult or all posters here on either side, to always be civil.
The topics are very emotional, to some personal, and always contraversial. As well, you have to realize, that some of the long time posters here have been arguing with hundreds of different other people on this site over the SAME TOPICS, with the same so called EVIDENCE, that usually turns out to be nothing more than opinion and speculation, rather than actual solid FACTS.
So before you fall into the same catagory, and begin to judge others, realize that you may not know the history of this blog or of the arguments that are discussed here.
That said, welcome to the blog, and I hope you honestly do as you said, and research the topic more. As you do, please take a great deal of time to investigate the "sources" of the information you find and judge them on their reliability. Anyone can say 9/11 was an "inside job" but demand more than that...demand solid facts and proof that it was. Anything less should be unacceptable.
TAM
He never SAID that you stated that Skilling said there were explosives in the building. He merely implied it.
Liar!
To those new on this blog and the regular rift raft:
One, he did state I said that, as I posted that as such as to the reason why I called him a liar. He tried to imply I was a child molester in an earlier post, but quickly changed his reasoning when I appealed to Pat and James jumped into the mix. I implied no such thing regarding Skilling. I stated I agreed with Skilling's statements about his own building.
Alex, I've proven you have lied about what I have posted as well, making you a fraud as well. Trying to lie for CHF is yet another example of your nature.
Suebee88, I have never used 'cover up' as some suggest. I've simply pointed out that the NIST never tested for explosives when the available evidence supports the use of explosives in the destruction of the twin towers. The head structural engineer in 1993 stated that the combination of jets and fuel would not cause its destruction, but explosives would. Vast amounts of data point to the use of explosives in 2001, from mainstream media, eyewitnesses reports, expert opinions, etc all primary source material that could be used in the publication of an official record of the day. To deny this fact is to deny reality. It doesn't get much more clearer than that. Little did Skilling know the exact same scenario he discussed in 1993 would take place in 2001. It is sad that the deniers on this blog ignore such facts or deny the truth. It is sad they cannot produce any experts to refute the Head Structural Engineer of the WTC towers.
I have also provided evidence from an expert in the destruction of buildings who stated that further combustibles could have triggered the collapse.
Are there any experts that support the OS that explosives were not used in the destruction of the towers or do they state that the WTC towers were not a controlled demolition?
Of course it is a sort of loaded question, because the Federal Government did not test for explosives in their examination. They ignored or were unaware of the evidence of the use of explosives.
The deniers on this blog might try to tell you otherwise. But as I've already shown, they have no qualms about lying to support their position, much like the Federal government and the EPA report lied on the quality of air after the attacks, which has already resulted in the deaths of several people and surely many more.
Alex...He has, through his conduct, demonstrated a clear inability to think logically, asses new information, or admit an error. Please post the relevant facts to support your statement, or else it only provides further evidence that you continue to lie about me and the relevant facts to the discussion at hand.
Alex, please do provide an example of my lunacy, or else you provide evidence to Suebee88 and others that you are a fraud and liar.
Go back and examine my sources for the topic at hand.
1. Mainstream media and primary sources.
2. Firefighters, first responders, victim's and survivior's testimony, their published statements, and/or their video appearances.
3. Mr. Skilling, the lead designer of the WTC towers and his direct statements.
4. The statements of the lead construction manager after the 1993 attacks.
5. The white paper created by Skillings firm when faced by a lawsuit.
6. Independent video and audio sources.
Now please explain to the world where the above sources classify me as a lunatic?
Your not dealing with a no-planer or a beam weapon believer, Alex and others. You are dealing with a very rational intelligent person who has formed his own opinion based upon the historical record, which in turn was formed by the above sources.
You can't deny the above sources, you can only lie. It is of your opinion that all of those sources listed above either errored, lied, or was faked. Since none of the above is true, you can only lie about the above sources.
Have you ever wondered why the owners of the blog haven't chimed in to attack the sources as they did in BG's personal theory of jumpers?
In a structured debate, Suebee88, you will find that attacks of character are quickly pointed out by an opposing side, which of course is a popular arguement fallacy that is used for less than honorable purposes. If you trace the historical record of this blog, you will note posters like Alex, CHF, and Lying Dylan do this frequently.
The few that don't are the owners of the blog, James and Pat, TAM, and perhaps a few select others who do not post as frequent as the above.
When I first came to this blog, I refused to do such a thing. But when dealing with the continued attacks, I stooped to their low level and committed such fallacies myself. Not to discredit their arguement, which is easy to do with out name calling, but to reflect that which they reflect upon me.
So in conclusion, Suebee88, I'm a person that believes that the WTC towers were destroyed by the combination of structural damage, fire, and explosives. I have reached this conclusion based upon the above information.
Others deny such information exists, but it is in the public domain. If you believe as I do, so be it. If you believe the as the majority on this blog do, so be it. Either way, welcome to Screw Loose Change.
Suebee88, I also believe that WTC7 was destroyed by the result of controlled demolition. I base that upon the very unique similiarities between WTC 7 and other buildings that have been demolished in a controlled manner. I also have spoken with a construction engineer with a degree from Purdue University who is a co-worker of mine that after viewing videos of the collapse, stated "There are some issues with the collapse of that building that can't be explained by strucutral damage and fire." To be fair, she didn't know WTC 7 had collapsed in the first place. There is also another expert who explained the destruciton of WTC 7 as a controlled demolition even though he didn't know it was WTC 7. The name of the building or the date of its destruction of course has nothing to do with his professional opinion.
In fact many of my co-workers were not aware of the collapse of this building. As you will note, I have yet to point fingers at the perpetrators, and will refuse to do so. The NIST is also investigating hypothetical blast scenarios as cause for the destruction of WTC 7, as even they do not understand why it collapsed.
To counter some of the websites that Alex posted, I would encourage you to examine the following websites either before or after you review the websites he posted above:
A word of caution: there are several high profile websites on the 'net that attempt to show:
1. No planes hit the WTC towers and that video's used CGI technology to fake the impacts.
2.Claim beam weapons were used to destroy the WTC towers without any primary source material.
Many will try to lump individuals such myself into the same group that believes the above, when in fact I have formed my beliefs based upon facts and primary resources. Of course some on this blog will attempt to convince you otherwise.
3. Although numerous websites highlight important material, they also attempt to point the blame to select individuals within the U.S. Government be it the President, his advisors, etc. it is important to remember that up to this point, there is no direct evidence proving such. Apparently, however, there is enough primary source material to raise very serious questions that have yet to be answered by the United States Government. Some of which the owner of this blog attest to.
I won't post any of those questions, per se, but will allow you to discover those on your own.
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://911truth.org/
http://killtown.911review.org/
(Many relevant questions pertaining to the events of 9/11- be careful however as many of the quotes have been taken out of context)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
There are some excellent videos as well.
9/11 Mysteries (video)
9/11 Eyewitness - Hoboken (video)
9/11: What We Know Now that We Didn't Know Then(video)
Terrorstorm
http://911blogger.com/
http://schol.digitalstyledesigns.com/
Crossing the Rubicon is also an excellent book in relation to 9/11.
The one video that appears to have started it all including this blog is the video, Loose Change. The video, although entertaining, is filled with errors and unsubstantiated facts, opinions, and theories. There are facts littered throughout the video, however, be wary of forming any opinions based upon this one video.
Do not accept any site as the ultimate truth as to what happened on that day. The official story will not allow that to happen. Case in point, the Federal Government has two theories for the collapse of the WTC towers.
A case could be made that Bush and Co. have attempted to cover up a bi-partsian, independent, investigation into 9/11. Stonewalling the investigation, underfunding the Commission, and statements by the Commission itselfwould leave one to believe such a thing. Of course this doesn't prove guilt, only coverup.
The simple fact that they would not appear before the 9/11 Commission under oath or Bush would not speak to investigators without Cheney or on the record lead some to believe a cover up had taken place.
In conclusion, I will encourage you to do what Alex did not: examine as much information as possible on the events of 9/11 as it is a piece of U.S. history. Form your own opinion and judgement, let the facts speak for themselves, and remember, your mind is your most powerful resource. Exercise it by contemplating all of the facts surrounding the attacks of 9/11.
"Troll" comes from the act of trolling - as in fishing. One dangles the bait and drives around, waiting for the fish to snap it up. In that context, the meaning of "Swing Dangler" should be pretty clear.
ROFLMAO! I've never thought of my username as that, but dam that is a funny conspiracy theory.
Liar!
To those new on this blog and the regular rift raft:
One, he did state I said that, as I posted that as such as to the reason why I called him a liar.
That was the most contextually confused sentence I've seen in a while. Regardless: if he said that, then prove it. Show a quote. Because I certainly haven't seen it, and I'm pretty sure nobody else here has either. Your word alone does not qualify as "proof". Show me a quote.
He tried to imply I was a child molester in an earlier post, but quickly changed his reasoning when I appealed to Pat and James jumped into the mix.
No, actually, using your own logic, we "proved" that you're a child molester. Ofcourse, nobody took it seriously, since we have zero respect for your brand of logic, and would only use it in order to construct a joke or a parody.
Alex, I've proven you have lied about what I have posted as well, making you a fraud as well.
....what the hell have you been smoking?
Nice catch CHF
Alex Of course you didn't. All you have to do is read through the course of that thread and you will find I destroyed you and CHF's logic, because frankly I don't believe you and your ilk are educated in the use of logic to effectively use it.
I defended every attack that you presented trying to use logic when in fact you used it erroneously over and over again which again resulted in me explaining to you why it is wrong. Spend your time getting an online degree somewhere because what you have now has failed you miserably.
Only a denier liar as yourself would think otherwise.
Stevew you should buy pom poms and a skirt as you serve as a fine cheerleader for liars and deniers on this blog.
And if you think I am throwing in the flag to CHF's questions you couldn't be more mistaken. I have proven he lies on this blog to further his own agenda be it to confuse new readers, prove me wrong, or in a failed attempt to try to debunk experts. It is dishonest and blantanly purposeful, which is why he may type as many lies as he wish, but I will no longer be responding to him despite the 'boo hoo's and 'list' comments. I have shown where Alex has done the same as well, but he is Canadian and he makes me laugh with his predictable behavior and elementary analogies, and I also respect him for serving his country even though it isn't on the frontlines of battle.
And if you think I am throwing in the flag to CHF's questions you couldn't be more mistaken.
The phrase is "throwing in the towel", idiot, and that's pretty much all you ever do. Like here:
All you have to do is read through the course of that thread and you will find I destroyed you and CHF's logic, because frankly I don't believe you and your ilk are educated in the use of logic to effectively use it.
See, that's you "throwing in the towel". Instead of trying to back up your assertion, you simply repeat the original assertion, throw in an insult, and basically ask us to prove a negative. Not only are you an idiot, but you're intellectually lazy as well.
AND your English sucks! Throwing in the flag indeed.
SD you are simply nothing but a blowhard, end of story
Post a Comment
<< Home