 |
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk, alt.conspiracy.jfk
From: mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com>
Date: 10 Oct 2012 15:28:43 -0400
Local: Wed, Oct 10 2012 3:28 pm
Subject: Re: 9/11 Required Reading: "500 Days"
On Oct 9, 8:40 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 10/8/12 8:03 PM, mainframetech wrote:
Hmm. You don't think that finding incendiary chemical mixed everywhere > > On Oct 8, 5:23 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> ? For another scrupulously honest site dealing with the fall of the
> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.ae911truth.org/
> >>>>>>>>>> ? ?Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC
> >>>>>>>>> Really? ?More than 1700 architects and engineers have specifically said
> >>>>> No, they didn't 'specifically say that', however, they signed a
> >>>>>>>> Here is the petition and the names. Come back and tell us what you
> >>>>>>> Thank you, and I have no idea why it took me six days to see this reply
> >>>>> Chris interjects:
> >>>>>>> Richard Gage says:
> >>>>>>> 'The WTC Twin Towers and Building #7 appear to have been brought down not
> >>>>>>> He says he believes that the buildings were brought down by controlled
> >>>>> As a convinced person myself, I sometimes forget that newbies to
> >>>> You must not have looked at any of the arguments against the utterly wacky
> >>> I will be happy to look at your resource, though I've spent a lot of
> >>>> Try the resources here:http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
> >>> Oh my! A hotbed of conspiracy theories! Who'd want to believe any
> >>>>> Obviously, the 1,700+ signatories have looked far enough to convince
> >>>>> On top of that discovery, they (as architects and engineers) have
> >>>>> The freefall that tower 7 took when it went was (to me) impossible
> >>>>> Now much of the above information I learned from looking into the
> >>>>>>> Daniel B. Barnum says:
> >>>>>>> 'I have "known" from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that
> >>>>>>> Nowhere does he say he himself can prove it, however.
> >>>>> Think how foolish that is. If he is an architect, then he has the
> >>>> Well, somebody has to prove it, or you have no reason to believe it,
> >>>> Of course, I know that's a fallacious assumption when it comes to
> >>>> And of course, nobody's proved it, because it's a manifestly ridiculous
> >>> Ah. You say it can't be proved because YOU think it's ridiculous!
> >> Well, the main reason it can't be proved is because it isn't true.
> > Yep! Like I said, you think you have 'proved' it isn't true because YOU
> There's absolutely no reason to think that it *was*.
with the dust from the collapsed buildings is a reason to think it was? Were you even aware that the incendiary chemical called nano-thermite (or thermate) cannot be found anywhere in normal cities including NYC? You don't think it's a reason when they find tiny spherical globules of melted steel in all the dust from the towers everywhere in NYC? When melted steel is impossible from jet fuel or office fires? You don't think that finding many pools of molten steel in the basements of the 3 towers weeks after the collapses means anything? When jet fuel and office fires cant't reach the softening point of steel? None of these things is a reason? You don't think that huge explosions and rapid fire machine gun explosions (often used in 'controlled demolition') heard and felt in the basements of the 3 towers BEFORE they fell means anything? Are you asleep or just closed minded? > > Meaning that I must be right as far as any debate on the matter because
I've answered that. You put up a link to the Randi site, which is full > > you are unable to mount a decent viewpoint. Your own personal opinion > > counts only in your house, not here where you have to prove your point. > > Do you have any facts to support your view? So far you've produced > > nothing but your personal opinion, which carries no weight here. I'm able > > to produce scientrific proof and studies backing up my contentions and > > those of the architects and Engineers. > >> It can't be proved any more than, say, the theory that Neil Armstrong
> > Hmm. I think I see your problem. You think we're talking about a
> Have you perused any of the helpful links I pointed you toward?
of conspiracy theories of the people he hinks are out to fool him. I'm not into theories. I'm into facts. If Randi is what he says he is, then he will appreciate the facts in the 9/11 case. But I'm not into theories about mystery planes and all sorts of conspiracies, I'm into facts and evidence. > Your problem is exactly that you take to be facts what are nothing but
Now you're going to attempt to psychoanalyze me too? :) How were you > delusional misinterpretations of the Truthers. These delusions didn't > start with the evidence but with the Truthers paranoid suspicion. Now, > knowing the Cheney/Bush administration, I could see where they were coming > from. But rationally considered, they didn't make a lick of sense. able to determine that the facts that I looked up on my own are "nothing but delusional misinterpretations of the Truthers"? Especially since I didn't get them from the truthers! How did you determine that my seeing videos of molten steel in the basements of the collapsed buildings were only delusions? How did the truthers delude me when I looked up the melting point of steel and the maximum temperatures reached in jet fuel and office fires? Now who's talking 'conspiracy theories'? On top of all that direct knowledge I went and got, you've finally stumpoed me. What in hell has Bush/Cheney got to do with facts and evidence of the collapses? Are you feeling OK? Any problems walking, or balancing? > That was back when people were coming out with the CD theory and it was
LOL! You decided that it was debunked? Why? Because it sounded > being debunked. intellectual? Sounded knowledgeable? Were you aware that the 'controleld demolition' method was not debunked in the 3 towers case, it was proven. Any 'debunking was strictly 'theories'. But I'll be happy to look over any of them you'd like me to, and give you my opinion. Just put it out there...:) Remember ing of course, I'm only interested in facts not guesses. > >> Next you'll be telling me there weren't even any planes.
There was no 'nick of time'. There are witnesses to the warnings given > > I've seen videos of a plane that hit into each of the 2 tall
> Of course not. Whoever said that there was?
> That building collapsed because of damage from debris that fell from the
that were scheduled for a particular time. They gave the information to the news media an hour ahead of time. There was a countdown and large explosions and the building came down exactly like a controlled demolished building would into it's own footprint. The key there is that it is impossible to simply 'pull' a 47 story building on a moment's notice. It takes weeks and sometimes months to accomplish that. So how did they do it? How did they go through the whole building setting explosives to bring down the building in a few hours, when it takes experts weeks and months? Sheesh! The things people believe! > >>> Now that's not too evidential a base for believing anything...:)
If you're still pretending that the 'Amazing Randi" is evidence, it > >>> That's closer to theories than anything I'm looking for. Actually, > >>> they HAVE proved 'controlled demolition' with science, not theories. > >>> It sounds like you didn't research the subject, you looked at sites > >>> and information that will bolster your view of the world, and avoid > >>> evidence that scares you out of your pants. That's not very > >>> scientific. With science, you start with the data and information, > >>> then form a belief from that, testing it against all other > >>> possibilities. Try it...:) > >> I've seen both the bunk and the debunking, of course. I have long been
> > Odd that you would say all that and produce NO evidence of any kind.
> I gave you a source for all the evidence you would need.
ain't. I would like evidence or facts relating to the factual discussion that I'm trying to have on the 3 towers. I looked at the link provided and found that, like the PopMech attempt at debunking, they cherry picked a few cases that they could say something negative about and declared that they had proved something. An example would be when they spoke of molten pools of steel in the The firemen in the video described something very different thasn a few Here's your link to the Randi site,
Compare for yourself.
> > I'm an evidence person. I'm NOT interested in your theories of
True, I agree. We now need to collect and review those facts and
> > conspiracies or legends. Where are your facts that prove conclusions? > > If you have no facts, then you've lost your point and are howling at the > > moon. > >> Some theories are so ridiculous that a person capable of believing them in
> > So far you've done nothing. I understand that many 'right thinking'
> This is old news. All the facts are out there. I can't add a whit to it.
determine what they are saying. > You have either looked at only one side and there's still hope for you.
So once again you revert back to your attempt to depend on your past > That's why I gave you the link to the resources. beliefs with no effort to prove anything to me, who you must consider an oddball for wanting evidence and facts instead of your opinion that the facts are all ridiculous. Can you actually say WHY you think they are ridiculous? > Or you have looked at both sides, and this is still your conclusion. In
You haven't made any effort to convince me of anything other than > which case, I am certainly not going to convince you by arguing on this > newsgroup, and it's not wasting any time trying. putting up one link. It appears that you looked only at the things you believed that supported your own feelings and ignored any evidence to the contrary as 'conspiracy theories', which is handy when you don't want to get involved. The reason people shy away from the truth is that they see a large responsibility if they accept the evidence. It means they have to do difficult and sometimes unpleasnt things to make it right, and many don't want to face that sort of effort, they just want to sit in fron of the TV and be lulled by car commercials. > >>>>> Barnum's resume is here:
Perhaps it's true. I haven't seen any statistics on it, have you? I > >>>>>http://www.hbl-architects.com/team/daniel_barnum.html > >>>>>>> David Paul Helpern says:
> >>>>>>> "The speed and symmetry of the collapses is not consistent with the
> >>>>>>> Now wait, he does not specifically say here that controlled demolition
> >>>>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the
> >>>>>>> Kevin A. Kelly says:
> >>>>>>> "The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the
> >>>>>>> Well now wait. I thought you said that all these people have said that
> >>>>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> >>>>>>> Paul Stevenson Oles says:
> >>>>>>> "There appear too many unexplained events and unverified circumstances
> >>>>>>> He's definitely unsatisfied with the official explanation, but nowhere
> >>>>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> >>>>>>> Eason Cross says:
> >>>>>>> "The third building evidence is truly troubling. The 'why' is very hard
> >>>>>>> I guess he means WTC 7, but he just says he's very troubled by it, and
> >>>>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> >>>>>>> Harry G. Robinson III says:
> >>>>>>> "The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated.
> >>>>>>> Well, he certainly seems to believe that controlled demolition was
> >>>>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> >>>>>>> Abby Goodman's statement at this moment is "pending review."
> >>>>>>> Alan Anderson, Jr. says:
> >>>>>>> "? Why were two extremely tall buildings (110 stories - 1,362 feet),
> >>>>>>> Heh, well he sure has a lot of questions, and especially like his last
> >>>>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> >>>>>>> Alan Haymond says:
> >>>>>>> "Suspicious on 9/11 about the collapses and the size of the original
> >>>>>>> He says he's suspicious of the collapses, and was convinced well under a
> >>>>> See above. The implication that he satisfied himself as to the reason
> >>>>>>> I've cited only the first ten here, but I've spent quite a lot of time
> >>>>>>> I haven't even found one yet, however, who specifically says that he or
> >>>>>>> Your original statement that I first replied to was this:
> >>>>>>> "Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the WTC 9/11
> >>>>>>> In my reply I was obviously asking if it was really true that more than
> >>>> Did you know that Richard Gage at one point admitted that he and
> >>>> How many of the 1,700 are architects and how many are "engineers"? What
> >>>> And what proportion of the total number of architects and engineers in the
> >>> LOL! Talk about 'conspiracy theories', you 've created one right
> >> There are crackpots in any field.
> > Is that one of your 'facts'?
> It is indeed true.
would think that people working with explosives can't be too crackpottish or they would blast themselves quickly into oblivion. "Controlled Demolition' is not toys for kids. > > That people that have stated that the
I looked over the one link I was able to find, which I commented on
> > fall of the towers was 'controlled demolition' were crackpots? > Yessiree.
> > Even
> Have you perused *any* of the helpful links I offered.
above. My question stands...What do > > you base your 'fact' (crackpots) on?
So it's easier for you to slide away from the discussion by saying it's > >> The way-out theory is your thinking that 99.99999 percent of the
> > Ridicule doesn't work with me. When are you going to try factual
> When a serious subject is under discussion.
not serious? Thousands of lives lost, and it's not serious? If it were caused by planes hitting buildings and the resultant fires, wouldn't we want to know how it happened and get into the guts of it and find out what could be done to save lives the next time Al Qaeda steals planes? Wouldn't we save the steel and other parts of the buildings to find out why they came down? It was the law BTW. All those answers haven't been worked out yet, no matter what you were told. They still can't explain the falling of building 7. They gave specific reasons for the fall of the twin towers, but simply left out any explanation for building 7. http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm
> >>> Interestingly enough, I presented 2 'controlled demolition' experts
> >> (Not sure if you're blaming me or an earlier poster, I didn't delete
> > Odd than that those items that others might want to look up
> If it happened in my reply, I may have deleted what came after my
> >> Is someone not wanting that EVIDENCE to get out?
> >>> Here they are again, try to leave them available for those who think
> >> Have you perused the helpful links I sent?
> > Of course, and I left a comment on them. They looked like conspiracy
> They are, of course, the very opposite of the kind of "conspiracy
could try dealing with. It's obvious that Randi didn't try to deal with the WTC facts, he linked to another group that did it, and they cherry picked some facts they thought they could argue with. Turns out they couldn't, and I put my comments above on their attempt, with an example and witnesses. Real facts are hard to deal with, even for self-proclaimed experts. > > The inevitable Randi sees
> He sees conspiracy theorists out there who really do a good job of
when corroborated. Theories don't interest me, nor do their websites. Of course, the many blogs out there that purport to have solved the whole 'conspiracy' thing are in the business of convincing people too. As much as the CTs...:) > > However, I
> > You might want to watch the effort on the part of Popular Mechanics as
> I am not going to argue with anyone who could say that. If that's the
face, especially if it suggests that we have a responsibility to act on the facts. You think that saying that PopMech was wrong is a crime? Are they the holy bible? Or do they want rreaders and the fact that many of the population believe the 'official' story means they will get read becasue they support that belief. Come back when you have learned more...:)
Chris
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||