Why don't you question the claims of blog spots?Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
Printable View
Why don't you question the claims of blog spots?Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
All the relevant ons checked out. Why dont you tell me which claim you found was an error and we'll go from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
So in other words, you want to start the entire conversation over again?Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
I was just wanting to hear a reason for your statement. You never give reasons for your unfactual statements. Why dont you ever give any sources in your posts? It like you just make things up....Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
You claimed there were errors of fact on a website I just linked: Coincidences about 9.11.
Can you substantiate that claim? Heres some of the facts and the links used to substantiate them. There are too many for me to check, but the most significant ones appear to be verified -such as that Bush's uncle was head of a bank that was found guilty of money laundering for some of the 911 hijackers, and that dozens of FBI agents have claimed that some of their top officials are helping the terrorists. Why are the investigations into these allegations being blocked by the Bush administration?
----------------------------------------
Coincidence Theorist's Guide
"That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.
That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.
That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.
That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.
That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.
The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.
That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.
That so many influential figures in and close to the Bush White House had expressed, just a year before the attacks, the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" before their militarist ambitions could be fulfilled, demonstrates nothing more than the accidental virtue of being in the right place at the right time.
That the company PTECH, founded by a Saudi financier placed on America’s Terrorist Watch List in October 2001, had access to the FAA’s entire computer system for two years before the 9/11 attack, means he must not have been such a threat after all.
That whistleblower Indira Singh was told to keep her mouth shut and forget what she learned when she took her concerns about PTECH to her employers and federal authorities, suggests she lacked the big picture. And that the Chief Auditor for JP Morgan Chase told Singh repeatedly, as she answered questions about who supplied her with what information, that "that person should be killed," suggests he should take an anger management seminar.
That on May 8, 2001, Dick Cheney took upon himself the job of co-ordinating a response to domestic terror attacks even as he was crafting the administration’s energy policy which bore implications for America's military, circumventing the established infrastructure and ignoring the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, merely shows the VP to be someone who finds it hard to delegate.
That the standing order which covered the shooting down of hijacked aircraft was altered on June 1, 2001, taking discretion away from field commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of Defense, is simply poor planning and unfortunate timing. Fortunately the error has been corrected, as the order was rescinded shortly after 9/11.
"That in the weeks before 9/11, FBI agent Colleen Rowley found her investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui so perversely thwarted that her colleagues joked that bin Laden had a mole at the FBI, proves the stress-relieving virtue of humour in the workplace.
That Dave Frasca of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit received a promotion after quashing multiple, urgent requests for investigations into al Qaeda assets training at flight schools in the summer of 2001 does appear on the surface odd, but undoubtedly there's a good reason for it, quite possibly classified.
That FBI informant Randy Glass, working an undercover sting, was told by Pakistani intelligence operatives that the World Trade Center towers were coming down, and that his repeated warnings which continued until weeks before the attacks, including the mention of planes used as weapons, were ignored by federal authorities, is simply one of the many "What Ifs" of that tragic day.
That over the summer of 2001 Washington received many urgent, senior-level warnings from foreign intelligence agencies and governments - including those of Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, Egypt, Israel, Morocco, Afghanistan and others - of impending terror attacks using hijacked aircraft and did nothing, demonstrates the pressing need for a new Intelligence Czar.
That John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft in July 2001 on account of security considerations had nothing to do with warnings regarding September 11, because he said so to the 9/11 Commission.
That former lead counsel for the House David Schippers says he’d taken to John Ashcroft’s office specific warnings he’d learned from FBI agents in New York of an impending attack – even naming the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and the targets – and that the investigations had been stymied and the agents threatened, proves nothing but David Schipper’s pathetic need for attention.
That Garth Nicolson received two warnings from contacts in the intelligence community and one from a North African head of state, which included specific site, date and source of the attacks, and passed the information to the Defense Department and the National Security Council to evidently no effect, clearly amounts to nothing, since virtually nobody has ever heard of him.
That in the months prior to September 11, self-described US intelligence operative Delmart Vreeland sought, from a Toronto jail cell, to get US and Canadian authorities to heed his warning of his accidental discovery of impending catastrophic attacks is worthless, since Vreeland was a dubious character, notwithstanding the fact that many of his claims have since been proven true.
That FBI Special Investigator Robert Wright claims that agents assigned to intelligence operations actually protect terrorists from investigation and prosecution, that the FBI shut down his probe into terrorist training camps, and that he was removed from a money-laundering case that had a direct link to terrorism, sounds like yet more sour grapes from a disgruntled employee.
That George Bush had plans to invade Afghanistan on his desk before 9/11prepared.
The suggestion that securing a pipeline across Afghanistan figured into the White House’s calculations is as ludicrous as the assertion that oil played a part in determining war in Iraq.
That Afghanistan is once again the world’s principal heroin producer is an unfortunate reality, but to claim the CIA is still actively involved in the narcotics trade is to presume bad faith on the part of the agency.
Mahmood Ahmed, chief of Pakistan’s ISI, must not have authorized an al Qaeda payment of $100,000 to Mohammed Atta days before the attacks, and was not meeting with senior Washington officials over the week of 9/11, because I didn’t read anything about him in the official report.
That Porter Goss met with Ahmed the morning of September 11 in his capacity as Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has no bearing whatsoever upon his recent selection by the White House to head the Central Intelligence Agency.
That Goss's congressional seat encompasses the 9/11 hijackers' Florida base of operation, including their flight schools, is precisely the kind of meaningless factoid a conspiracy theorist would bring up.
It's true that George HW Bush and Dick Cheney spent the evening of September 10 alone in the Oval Office, but what's wrong with old colleagues catching up? And it's true that George HW Bush and Shafig bin Laden, Osama's brother, spent the morning of September 11 together at a board meeting of the Carlyle Group, but the bin Ladens are a big family.
That FEMA arrived in New York on Sept 10 to prepare for a scheduled biowarfare drill, and had a triage centre ready to go that was larger and better equipped than the one that was lost in the collapse of WTC 7, was a lucky twist of fate.
Newsweek’s report that senior Pentagon officials cancelled flights on Sept 10 for the following day on account of security concerns is only newsworthy because of what happened the following morning.
That George Bush's telephone logs for September 11 do not exist should surprise no one, given the confusion of the day.
That Mohamed Atta attended the International Officer's School at Maxwell Air Force Base, that Abdulaziz Alomari attended Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School, that Saeed Alghamdi attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey merely shows it is a small world, after all.
That Lt Col Steve Butler, Vice Chancellor for student affairs of the Defense Language Institute during Alghamdi's terms, was disciplined, removed from his post and threatened with court martial when he wrote "Bush knew of the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. What is...contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain," is the least that should have happened for such disrespect shown his Commander in Chief.
That Mohammed Atta dressed like a Mafioso, had a stripper girlfriend, smuggled drugs, was already a licensed pilot when he entered the US, enjoyed pork chops, drank to excess and did cocaine, was closer to Europeans than Arabs in Florida, and included the names of defence contractors on his email list, proves how dangerous the radical fundamentalist Muslim can be.
That 43 lbs of heroin was found on board the Lear Jet owned by Wally Hilliard, the owner of Atta’s flight school, just three weeks after Atta enrolled – the biggest seizure ever in Central Florida – was just bad luck. That Hilliard was not charged shows how specious the claims for conspiracy truly are.
That Hilliard’s plane had made 30-round trips to Venezuela with the same passengers who always paid cash, that the plane had been supplied by a pair of drug smugglers who had also outfitted CIA drug runner Barry Seal, and that 9/11 commissioner Richard ben-Veniste had been Seal’s attorneymurder, shows nothing but the lengths to which conspiracists will go to draw sinister conclusions.
Reports of insider trading on 9/11 are false, because the SEC investigated and found only respectable investors who will remain nameless involved, and no terrorists, so the windfall profit-taking was merely, as ever, coincidental.
That heightened security for the World Trade Centre was lifted immediately prior to the attacks illustrates that it always happens when you least expect it.
That Hani Hanjour, the pilot of Flight 77, was so incompetent he could not fly a Cessna in August, but in September managed to fly a 767 at excessive speed into a spiraling, 270-degree descent and a level impact of the first floor of the Pentagon, on the only side that was virtually empty and had been hardened to withstand a terrorist attack, merely demonstrates that people can do almost anything once they set their minds to it.
That none of the flight data recorders were said to be recoverable even though they were located in the tail sections, and that until 9/11, no solid-state recorder in a catastrophic crash had been unrecoverable, shows how there's a first time for everything. demonstrates only the value of being before Seal’s
Further evidence that you have no limits on lying.Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
I just asked why you accept everything the anti-bush blog sites say. I didn't say they were wrong. It is not even the claimed coincidences I have issues with. It is the leap to the conclusion that the government pulled off an insane 9/11 conspiracy stunt with airplanes, many departments, no leaks, Al Qaeda illusions, and all of the other things. I have used logic in my arguments, and I have used sources in this very thread. Stop lying.
Youve done nothing but launch ad hominems or worse at PhD educated experts (in Physics, Engineering, and Architecture) since you must believe that they are being purposefully deceptive in claiming the WTC towers, and WTC7 were professionally demolished with explosives. Where is a signed statement of independent relevant experts speaking out and debating these 9/11 experts who have claimed to provide scientific proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
If you ever back up just one of your statements with a verifiable fact you could consider yourself partially in reality. But im betting full delusion is the name of the game for Giuliani supporters
__________________________________________________ ______
WTC7 Compared to a Controlled Demolition
Burden of Proof
Mr. Verb, see post #3 for the first links I posted. You have yet to argue with them. You can go ahead and call off your "no links" lie right about the time you see that again. You can see my arguments about why the vast, vast majority of experts don't think this silliness is even worth commenting on and my other arguments all over this thread and the other one about 9/11. I don't know what you are getting out of lying, but you keep doing it.
Everybody be sure to catch the Hitory Channel's documentary about 9/11 conspiracy theories. They interview the producer of Loose Change and others. They go through all of the major recurring issues and get the conspiracy side and then get experts to give their sides on every issue. If you are a 9/11 conspiracy enthusiast, you really need to see it.
Your kidding right? Those links you posted have been discredited a while ago. The one that does the best job of pretending to seriously challenge the arguments of the most credible individuals is The Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. The article I just read chooses Dr. David Griffin, a theologian as its target instead of addressing the scientific research done by many professors, scientists, and engineers. But even in attacking Dr. Griffin they fail to make any breaches in his arguments, while trying to use mere opinions given by NIST as somehow supporting their arguments. I would like to see any independent researcher with as good a background as any one of the members of AE911Truth, as well as engage the evidence and not make -pseudo-arguments with no empirical support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
And I havnt checked this out, but it looks like it might make some valid points for those like UM who think one must be a "demolition" or some other expert to know certain facts...
9/11 – Proof of Explosive Demolition without Calculations
Frank Legge (Ph D)
You looked at all of that information? Those links proivide more links which provide more links. There is a whole universe of information in there. You can find plenty of engineering experts in there even though the vast, vast majority of engineering experts don't think this issue is even worth acknowledging.Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
But my point here is that I had provided links. You said I had not. You were wrong. You are also wrong in saying I have not made arguments. Read again.
Wrong again. Read again. (I keep needing to tell you that.) I said I am not expert enought to get into the full extent of the demolition argument with people like you. You obviously have no qualms about making stuff up, and the same is true about most of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists I have talked to. I don't know enough about demolition to tell you when you are making things up about demolition. So I don't get too much into that part of the argument. Got it? Tell the truth next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
You need to see the History Channel's documentary on 9/11 conspiracy claims. It has plenty of experts making a circus out of the 9/11 conspiracy concept, but both sides are represented equally. They basically take turns making their points, and the major issues we have covered in here are covered.
Precisely what grounds are there to dismiss the NIST report or the structural collapse theories of the hundreds of other professionals? Why is there disagreement between the different groups contesting the conclusions reached by the 9/11 investigations? Why is there disagreement about whether airplanes hit the towers, when videos clearly show that to be the case, and similar videos are used to validate other parts of the conspiracy theory?
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...70111110921739
The article points out 4 main points of contention.
These points are not in the least bit conclusive, and there are weighty counter-arguments for each of them. Is point 3 based upon an honest review of the NIST report? Can we trust those who distrust the NIST report to give an objective and careful review of its conclusions? Point 4 is compelling, but equally plausible alternatives have been mentioned, and it fails to explain some basic questions.(Why would thermate be used instead of conventional cutting explosives?)
- Fall time for WTC 7.
- Fall times for the Towers.
- Challenging the NIST report and Fact Sheet.
- Evidence for use of Thermate reactions: What the WTC dust and solidified metal reveal.
If you don't think UM has addressed the issues, you may want to check out my posts as well and see if there's anything you might find interesting.
I didnt say that you didnt provide links, but that those website links were not accompanied by any SPECIFIC point of contention, but rather blanket statements (like all of your statements).Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Alos, the websites you linked DO NOT contain any independent investigators with anywhere near the credentials as those in the 9/11 Truth and Justice movement.
LOL! Now please, if you can just once show where I EVER made anything up, ill give you $100 worthless American dollars. Put your money where you mouth is! You should be ashamed after your constant cries of purposeful lying. Have you ever heard of the psychological concept of projection? Look into it. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I now see why you dont want to compare the experts and their arguments on both sides...you think the research editor of Popular Mechanics is an expert!! I rest my case. If you have something specific to combat the specific points recently made in this thread it would be welcome. But by all means, please keep up the incessant, substanceless, unspecific generalizations, instead of actually engaging the arguments made by experts at http://www.ae911truth.org/Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Yeah, forget even challenging The Jounral of 911 Studies with contributions from some of the highest intellects in science of our times...Who needs open and honest discussion of empirically verifiable data?
Interesting, I didnt even know there were hundreds of professional (what?) providing structural collapse theories....Please send link. Unless you are misleadingly referring to the those already on the govt payroll who happened to "sign" the NIST report.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
Because it has already been irrefutably shown that events like the pouring of liquid metal outside of the south tower could not have been caused by jet fuel, or any combination of building contents, and motel aluminum. We covered this heavily, and no one rebutted the arguments and scientific experiments made by experts that I recently presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
To answer your first question, whether any challenge of the NIST report is honest or not depends on the inherent science and logic of the arguments therein.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
"Can we trust those who distruct the NIST report?" Again, read their arguments, paraphrase them and challenge them (in this forum if you like and Ill clarify as much as I am able.) It sounds like you are trying to find reasons NOT to trust those who claim to have found criminally negligent errors (see lawsuit by 911 families).
I disagree that anything compelling beyond an thermate-like incendiary was used as weve been through. The liquid metal flowing out exactly resembling a thermate reaction could not have been aluminum. Do you know why NIST claimed it was without doing any experiments to back up their claims? A thermate derivative was probably used because its less traceable and can be masked more easily than other arson techniques. Thermite and thermate-like incendiaries have in fact been used in arson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
I'll take your word for it since you read that whole universe of information I linked.Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
Really? Here's one...Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
Here's another one...Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
and another one from that same sentence...Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
Will you give me $100 for each one? I found those on just this page.Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
You are really slow... I mean dishonest. Read again...Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
and...Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Every time you screw up on your characterization of my position on that, I am just going to quote those two repeated points again. Learn to tell the truth, son.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Posting a link to a website with absolutely no summarization or shred of information proving you even know what the websites purport to say is nothing like providing a source for some information, which you didnt provide. A link is not a source. Do you think someone could even pass high school classes by posting website links as the sources for their research papers? Now take into context that the claimed experts of at least two of the sites you linked are not experts in the correct field.
Therefore, you aren't even justified in holding your position of: "I dont want to discuss demolition with a non-expert, but... i'll post links to websites that have psuedo-experts as the source of their information and claim I agree with them. But I wont discuss what I actually agree with."
See the hypocrisy?
So why really wont you discuss demolition? Is it the same reason you dont want to discuss the testimony of high level FBI, CIA and other military intelligence officers, as well as the current high profile case of FBI translator Sibel Edmonds?
What these experts are saying is in contradiction to the current administration's policies and any engagement with it exposes just how important and overwhelming the evidence is.
The demolition theory, has already been discussed, actually. An alternative and evidence has been provided. I posted on it quite extensively, and pointed out structural arguments that support the official collapse theory. This video describes, and shows footage of, the warped outer columns prior to collapse:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=8
Did explosives cause the bowing effect of the columns? Thermate, perhaps?
Wrong. The links are sources of information. Links are sources. They provide counterarguments to your demolition arguments. I had some requests for such links. However, since you want to rationalize that "source" means "source plus own argument", which is really strange and spontaneous, then here is such a case from this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
You're joking, right? Seriously. Are you playing around? After all of the times I have discussed that, you want to ask that question again? Man, that's pretty messed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
I did discuss the FBI testimony in the other thread. I also talked about Norad and the other things. On a lot of it, all I can do is speculate. More importantly, all YOU can do is speculate. A lot of that stuff appears to be plausibly explained by government incomptence and the classified nature of a great deal of government information, but I can't give you absolute facts on why most of it happened. However, if you are arguing that 9/11 was an inside job, the burden of proof is on you, not me. We have been over that a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
This is getting pretty repetetive and boring. If you ever have a real case or even just a plausible inside job scenario, let me know.
Sorry, Im calling your "sources" out as not containing information but disinformation, and you are free to disagree and debate that point. I know that websites with no academic or scholarly affiliation are forbidden in any basic high school or college research paper.
The obvious reason you dont want to discuss demolition (but instead post links to disinformation that you claim is valid while refusing to defend your stance), is that ANY engagement with it exposes the truth.
Nowhere on the internet will you not find people trying their best to defend the official version through any dishonest means available - including obfuscating, ignoring, or misdirecting the issues. Yet when it comes to the hundreds of lectures by PhD scientists and architects given at major universities, not one defender of the official story shows up.......
__________________________________________________ _
Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
Proof of Explosive Demolition,
Dr. Legge PhD
I seriously doubt you read all of those articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
What scholarly publications would even give this crap enough merit to ever discuss it? I have told you a zillion times... This is Bigfoot territory. That's why you have only found "hundreds" of experts on your side of the (lack of) argument instead of millions. How scholarly are you, by the way?
How might the hijackings have been faked? Who might have been flying the airplanes? Why did Al Qaeda take credit? Why would the government not just blame the attacks on terrorist bombers instead of dealing with an insane airplane stunt? You will not talk about that, will you? That is because you do not even have a case to make. This is ridiculous.
This conversation between Universal Mind and memeticverb is ...interesting...
Either side you go on, you will probably get a kick out of this.
There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....URTHER_READING
Pretty funny, but totally unrealistic as most comedy is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasenganxxchidori
Any site that doesn't address the arguments by the hundreds of Architects and Engineers who've joined this site, has zero credibility. Where are the academics engaging the arguments of the "conspiracy theorists"? I just posted two completely scientific papers that prove that explosives were used in the Twin Towers and WTC7.
Heres a video I uploaded to Youtube showing the direct evidence of damage from explosives in the basement of the WTC towers. And of course no one has yet addressed any of the evidence in the OP...
Oh, they have to address people on THAT site. :roll: Are you as choosy and demanding with people who don't buy into the existence of the Loch Ness Monster? Why are pretty much all of the world's biologists ignoring that issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by memeticverb
What reason is there to dismiss the conclusions of NIST? So far, I have heard little in the way of explaining this dismissal except for accusations that NIST is part of the conspiracy. The NIST fact sheet, point by point, explains many of the phenomena pointed to as evidence of conspiracy. Why pretend such a comprehensive theory isn't worthy of a response?Quote:
From Memeticverb
Any site that doesn't address the arguments by the hundreds of Architects and Engineers who've joined this site, has zero credibility. Where are the academics engaging the arguments of the "conspiracy theorists"? I just posted two completely scientific papers that prove that explosives were used in the Twin Towers and WTC7.
Regarding the bowing of the outer columns, that question still hasn't been addressed by the conspiracy. I have been unable to find any explanation for the bowing of the outer columns in 9/11 truth websites, though NIST explains the bowing readily. The bowing of the outer columns is central to the mainstream collapse theory, so it's bizarre that a counter-explanation has not been offered by the 9/11 truth movement.
The reasons are plentiful to abandon the NIST report since they never claimed to explain anything but the "initiation of collapse", and not the phenomena seen during the collapse that strongly suggest explosive demolition. Nor did NIST test the controlled demolition hypothesis, or bother trying to explain many of the anomalies found here.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
As far as I can tell, none of their attempts to answer these phenomena are adequate. And as we already covered in this and other related threads they completely fabricated an explanation for the molten metal flowing out of the South tower, proving that they don't even test their claims.
Their claim, (that the molten metal was aluminum from the aircraft mixed with office debris) was in fact tested by a team of scientists at BYU and found to be very wrong. They found that neither aluminum nor office materials can reach the temperature of what was seen flowing out of the South tower from jet fuel alone. Case closed. NIST lied.
Heres a good dismantling of the NIST report for those interested.
If the bowing of the outer columns can be explained by the conspiracy, that would be very compelling. As it stands, I could find no explanation for the bowing in the links you provided, Memeticverb. Can you provide something toward that effect?
Long Live Bin-Laden ! oops, i forgot .... he is just a shadow ....
lets just ask the politics, they know the truth, do they?
who knows....