9/11 media happenings

[fela fan]

Of course it's not conclusive evidence on its own, it's just one (rather strong) bit of evidence that helps to debunk the CD bullshit.

Bees:

you may not claim it is, but others did, and that's the line of argument i'm following here.

Furthermore to me evidence is evidence, how can it be strong or otherwise? How can you have degrees of proof and fact?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

i see the same folk telling me that this internet report by people nobody's ever heard of is evidence that there was no controlled demolition.

Errr, but it is evidence against CD. From a credible, qualified, verifiable source. If you can't see the difference between that and something off prisonplanet then quite frankly you're an idiot.

 

[MikeMcc]

Mike, read it properly. He's come out and told me of this evidence he has to back up his POV. I've consistently said on this forum that nobody here has any evidence. I find it interesting how those that deride 'CTers' for being so sure about their version of events then come out to be even more sure about their own version, to the point of inventing evidence. He claims he's got some, so i'm asking him to show it.

And i've said about three times now my problems with this protec report. It spends an awful long time attempting to establish its credibility before it comes up with any statements. And to my mind, those that have credibility don't try and convince anyone of this.

I've also said that what they say about the towers coming down seems plausible enough to me, a layman. But I've also said i can't agree with those that have decided this report, an internet product, is conclusive evidence that the towers were not demolished.

And i've now said all this again!

And again, i find it funny how those that deride others of being so sure of their story, are so sure of their own story. It's amazing double standards really. Not to mention myopia.

I'd agree with what you say there but the sources that counter-CTers are using are considerably stronger. I believe the reason that the Protec statement highlights their credentials is that outside of the CD community it is unlikely that they would be well known and since they are commenting on a highly contentious issue that has caused a lot of debate they need to let us laymen know their background so that we can guage their credibility.

The problem with disputing the credibility of organisations like NIST, ASCE, NTSB, FAA, etc is that it suggests that a number of people in those organisations are actively involved in covering up a conspiracy. The number of people that would need to be involved becomes unreasonably large to have a realistic chance of keeping things secret. The more bizarre the theory the worse this situation gets.

 

[fela fan]

But don't you see the difference between an opinion piece written by engineers who examine buildings and are involved in CD for a living

If that's who they are. They certainly went to great lengths to tell us this. Believe it if you wish.

I'm not comparing them to anybody else, i'm saying that this report does not constitute 'conclusive evidence' which is what others on this thread have said.

Doctors get many things right, but not all of them, and not all of the time. I trust only science, and my own personal experiences. All else is in the realm of the possible, not the certain.

 

[fela fan]

Errr, but it is evidence against CD. From a credible, qualified, verifiable source. If you can't see the difference between that and something off prisonplanet then quite frankly you're an idiot.

I know nothing whatsoever about this prisonplanet except that i see it sometimes quoted on these threads.

 

[kyser_soze]

If that's who they are. They certainly went to great lengths to tell us this. Believe it if you wish.

I'm not comparing them to anybody else, i'm saying that this report does not constitute 'conclusive evidence' which is what others on this thread have said.

Doctors get many things right, but not all of them, and not all of the time. I trust only science, and my own personal experiences. All else is in the realm of the possible, not the certain.

OK, just taking the bits I've bolded/italicised...

Medcine is science. Your last statement is inherently contradictory. If you trust science you trust MDs - the two are inseperable.

And you don't believe who they are? What, you think that a CD company would allow a group of charlatans to potentially besmirch the reputation of a company that utterly relies on that reputation for expertise to carry out CD safely?

 

[fela fan]

I'd agree with what you say there but the sources that counter-CTers are using are considerably stronger. I believe the reason that the Protec statement highlights their credentials is that outside of the CD community it is unlikely that they would be well known and since they are commenting on a highly contentious issue that has caused a lot of debate they need to let us laymen know their background so that we can guage their credibility.

The problem with disputing the credibility of organisations like NIST, ASCE, NTSB, FAA, etc is that it suggests that a number of people in those organisations are actively involved in covering up a conspiracy. The number of people that would need to be involved becomes unreasonably large to have a realistic chance of keeping things secret. The more bizarre the theory the worse this situation gets.

It's nice to read a post that is based on intelligence and understanding! I agree that that is indeed a reason they wanted to lay out their credibility.

And i also agree with the sentiments in your second paragraph, i too have a problem believing this.

But i still believe, somehow, it was an inside job. I have nothing but my beliefs, and the reasons for such beliefs to offer. I don't know how it was done, and i doubt we shall ever find out. But i strongly believe there are some americans out there that initiated the whole plan that led to the attacks.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Furthermore to me evidence is evidence, how can it be strong or otherwise?

Imagine a murder tiral.

Strong/Conclusive evidence: Eyewitness to the actual event, saw the killer plunge the knife into the victim. Killers DNA found on body.

Supporting evidence - A witness who saw the accused entering the building where the murder took place, at a time consistant with the crime. Killer purchased a knife identical to the one used in the crime one week before.


See the difference there?

 

[Techno303]

If that's who they are. They certainly went to great lengths to tell us this. Believe it if you wish.

I'm not comparing them to anybody else, i'm saying that this report does not constitute 'conclusive evidence' which is what others on this thread have said.

Doctors get many things right, but not all of them, and not all of the time. I trust only science, and my own personal experiences. All else is in the realm of the possible, not the certain.

What a load of nonsense. What do you mean by ‘trusting science’? Who or what provides you with this trust? Can you elaborate on this a bit more, for clarity like.

 

[Techno303]

…also Fela, what were these ‘great lengths’? They just outline their credentials which is what most scientists/engineers/doctors do in any report commenting on areas of expertise.

 

[fela fan]

OK, just taking the bits I've bolded/italicised...

Medcine is science. Your last statement is inherently contradictory. If you trust science you trust MDs - the two are inseperable.

Medicine may be a science, but doctors are not medicine, they are people. People who happen to practise medicine. They may apply it correctly, or get it wrong. Plenty of deaths have occurred in the british national health system due to misdiagnoses.

Medicine is medicine, and it is science. Doctors are people who apply medicine. Humans make mistakes, it's in our genes. Don't please equate science to the actions of humans.

 

[fela fan]

What a load of nonsense. What do you mean by ‘trusting science’? Who or what provides you with this trust? Can you elaborate on this a bit more, for clarity like.

The world is round, the sun is hot, gravity pulls things down at 9.8 meters per second, oxygen and hydrogen mixed appropriately make water, and so on.

I'd be a bit of a fool to not trust such stuff.

 

[Techno303]

The world is round, the sun is hot, gravity pulls things down at 9.8 meters per second, oxygen and hydrogen mixed appropriately make water, and so on.

I'd be a bit of a fool to not trust such stuff.

Who told you these things or did you prove them all yourself?

 

[Structaural]

I'd be careful if i were you telling the forum your point of view is based on evidence. Because i'm now going to ask you to present this evidence to the forum. Since there's none out there it should be fun watching you provide it. But either way, that was my point: you are so convinced your point of view is correct, even to the point of imagining you have evidence to back up this POV. Amazing that you have the hypocrisy to go on about others' in the same vein.

And your last sentence is what they call LIHOP. Then knew it was coming, and never stopped it.

They knew something was coming but didn't know what it was, more like... but anyway we're not discussing that, we are now discussing the Protec report and whether the towers were intentionally brought down, not your vague assertion that you 'believe' it's an inside job - which is faith based and of no value or concern to me than whether you believe in god, allah or the flying spagetti monster and is akin to Jazz's method of trying to fit evidence to bolster this worldview rather than just dipassionately looking at all the evidence. It took you 10 pages before you even deigned to read the Protec report - which doesn't make you look much of an 9/11 investigator of truth.

As to you requesting evidence, evidence of what? Evidence that two planes crashed into two massive buildings causing them to subsequently collapse? What evidence exactly are you requesting here? and what is implausible in the Protec report?

 

[8den]

But i still believe, somehow, it was an inside job. I have nothing but my beliefs, and the reasons for such beliefs to offer. I don't know how it was done, and i doubt we shall ever find out. But i strongly believe there are some americans out there that initiated the whole plan that led to the attacks.

Actually please elaborate what these "reasons" you have to base your belief on? Otherwise you're just working off blind faith.

IE I want it to have happened this way, therefore I believe it happened this way.

Thats the way you're coming off here.

 

[tarannau]

Shh, Fela's 'personal experience' of controlled demolition and in-depth scientific knowledge allows him to properly assess the data. It's not at all a case of him trying desperately to discount anything which doesn't fit with his conspitarial belief about 9-11, oh no.

For all the high-falluting diversionary waffle, Fela's not really interested in the science or evidence - he wants to retain his gut feel about the issue and his 'right' to speculate wildly about the events of day, basically untroubled by anything as mundane as logic or evidence

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

he wants to retain his gut feel about the issue and his 'right' to speculate wildly about the events of day, basically untroubled by anything as mundane as logic or evidence

Ah, but don't you see - In his world there's no such thing as evidence!

 

[tarannau]

Course there is. The earth's round apparently - despite having no personal experience, even Fela doffs his hat to the scientists on that one.

Oh. And 8den's a stalker of course. That's a black and white FACT in Fela's strange world...

 

[8den]

Ah, but don't you see - In his world there's no such thing as evidence!

And a report from a company with years of experience and expertise in examining controlled demolitions, is of the same value as some conspiraloon's site.

Fuck me, could you imagine Fela Fan in a court of law?

"The prosecution call's the forensic scientist with decades of experience.

"Fela Fan call's these two homeless guys I met in an alley behind the court. "What? Their opinion is just a valid."

The Defendent "I'm doomed".

Fuck me I can only hope your job in Thailand is working on Gary Glitter's appeal.

 

[8den]

Oh. And 8den's a stalker of course. That's a black and white FACT in Fela's strange world...

No, no its true I confess. I have pictures of Fela Fan's head photoshopped on to Pamela Anderson's body covering my walls.

 

[fela fan]

Actually please elaborate what these "reasons" you have to base your belief on? Otherwise you're just working off blind faith.

IE I want it to have happened this way, therefore I believe it happened this way.

Thats the way you're coming off here.

The thing is i've done those reasons on this website a few times down the years and it gets boring repeating them. For those who are more recent visitors to these shores, i can see that that's the way it's coming off here. But my laziness gets the better of me more than any need to cancel yours or anyone's ideas that i operate off blind belief.

I don't do that, and i have many and varied reasons for stating my belief it was an inside job in some way. I'm afraid you'll just have to take it or leave it mate.

But i will continue to assert that no-one here has any more than beliefs for what happened. No evidence, no proof, no facts. Only that we saw two planes crash into buildings, and one hole in the pentagon.

 

[8den]

But i will continue to assert that no-one here has any more than beliefs for what happened. No evidence, no proof, no facts. Only that we saw two planes crash into buildings, and one hole in the pentagon.

You can assert it, you're talking complete bollocks of course though.

See the "offical explanation" crowd have things like the NIST report, the Protec report, Sheffield Universities study, reports in respected scientific journals, articles by experts in their field. People like the Architect and Structural, who do know what they are on about.

The CTers have well feck all. Loons like Jim Fetzer, and Steven Jones, and dubious nonsense thats not stood up to cursory examination.

The fact remains that your inability or indifference to comprehend this is your own problem.

 

[Structaural]

You can assert it, you're talking complete bollocks of course though.

See the "offical explanation" crowd have things like the NIST report, the Protec report, Sheffield Universities study, reports in respected scientific journals, articles by experts in their field. People like the Architect and Structural, who do know what they are on about.

The CTers have well feck all. Loons like Jim Fetzer, and Steven Jones, and dubious nonsense thats not stood up to cursory examination.

The fact remains that your inability or indifference to comprehend this is your own problem.

Give up, mate, it's like arguing with a evangelist about evolution.

 

[Psychonaut]

'nobody knows quite what happens when we think, therefore we can never really know anything' - eyedea

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Finished your analysis of that report yet Jazzz?

 

[Jazzz]

You can assert it, you're talking complete bollocks of course though.

See the "offical explanation" crowd have things like the NIST report, the Protec report, Sheffield Universities study, reports in respected scientific journals, articles by experts in their field. People like the Architect and Structural, who do know what they are on about.

The CTers have well feck all. Loons like Jim Fetzer, and Steven Jones, and dubious nonsense thats not stood up to cursory examination.

The fact remains that your inability or indifference to comprehend this is your own problem.

Looks like a bit of a mismatch, doesn't it?

Only... I think you can see that the fight isn't going according to form. Far from being blown out of the water, doubts about the official story are increasing daily. In spite of the fact that the USG could not possibly want this. Why is that?

Could it be because you forgot the key player?

 

[editor]

Could it be because you forgot the key player?

Could it be that you live in a weird state of permanent denial, choosing to believe the outlandish gibberings of unqualified nutcases, liars and DVD shifters while bizarrely refusing to accept the expert analysis of hugely qualified independent specialists ?

 

[axon]

doubts about the official story are increasing daily. In spite of the fact that the USG could not possibly want this. Why is that?

Maybe they are double-bluffing?

 

[EddyBlack]

In light of the NIST report detailing the method of collapse and the Protec report showing how a controlled demolition is not supported by the evidence, I think it time to admit defeat on the CD theory.

So many of the ‘anti- New World Order’ faction, should stop wasting their time. Admit they have been proven wrong in their theory as evidence has accumulated in the years after the event.

Perhaps there are many other important unanswered questions, or unsatisfactory explanations of the events of 9/11.

It was such an important event, perhaps the most important of recent decades, and it is both interesting and worthwhile examining the finer details, and controversial speculations.

The collapse of Building 7 is still somewhat mysterious, the best that the best authorities can offer us is that there are lots of witnesses who said that it suffered a great amount of damage from the towers, and burned pretty fiercely.

But for me, despite relinquishing it grudgingly, the CD hypothesis is dead. There is no evidence for it, and lots to the contrary.

Jazzz, can you speak to this?

 

[8den]

Looks like a bit of a mismatch, doesn't it?

Only... I think you can see that the fight isn't going according to form. Far from being blown out of the water, doubts about the official story are increasing daily. In spite of the fact that the USG could not possibly want this. Why is that?

Could it be because you forgot the key player?

Jazzz darling half a decade on;

The number of CD specialists who (partially) agree with CTers is one.

The number of civil engineers who feel the same are hovering at low single digits.

The key professor of physics only previous essay was on jesus' walking among the Mayans.

Jazzz your position woulde be interesting if you could get people with specialism in the fields necessary to support you, you'll pardon me if I not going to take the opinions of professor's of theology, or dental technicans, or fuckwits with hand puppets over, people, who, y'know, know what they are on about.