'9/11 Truth Movement' and Academia

[Demosthenes]

Nor do I base much on youtube videos of unknown origins, whose quality is poor.

All I have said, is what I've said again and again, - though you refuse to take me literally.

I went and looked at a bunch of videos on youtube, for the first time ever, yesterday, - and honestly, they do create the overwhelming impression that the official version is a big con, - and lead me to suspect the possibility that there were no planes at all.

There are a lot of different possible explanations for why that is, one of which is that there's a conspiracy/emergency of conspiraloons posting fake videos on youtube. This sounds quite plausible, - but it makes me wonder, - why do they bother?

But, I don't know, have you watched any videos on youtube at all?

Do you think, as I've generally done, that a plane hit the second tower and that was why it fell down?

Do you have any idea why a "debunking" video would say that no plane hit the second tower?

If you haven't watched any videos on youtube at all, then you're not really in any position to comment on my reactions to the videos I've watched on youtube. Watch some yourself, and then comment.

 

[editor]

Do you have any idea why a "debunking" video would say that no plane hit the second tower?

1. Tens of thousands of people saw the plane hit the tower. With their own eyes. Some of those people were in the tower. Could you perhaps explain why you're ignoring their testimony?
2. I couldn't give a fuck about whatever shit YouTube videos you're stupid and gullible enough to believe in.

 

[Jonti]

This one actually says it's true that no plane hit wtc 7. And that's from a debunker. - I think they're saying that it was other stuff that hit the second building from the first building. (was linked earlier)

There's never been any dispute about this.
I understand the physics and math (well, y'know, in outline) of the building collapses. Well, y'know, when Ockham's done his work.

Would you believe Popular Mechanics might be a good source for explications?

Hasn't there.? That's totally news to me. I was really surprised by this.

You see in this "debunker video" you see an explosion come out of the second tower, high, black smoke coming out on all sides, as if from a bomb on the inside, and no plane in sight, - though from other videos with a plane, you might think maybe the plane was round the back.

Planes were seen to hit WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 also collapsed (it was hit by falling debris, and then suffered an uncontrolled fire for hours before it failed). There has never been any dispute about that.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Planes were seen to hit WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 also collapsed (it was hit by falling debris, and then suffered an uncontrolled fire for hours before it failed). There has never been any dispute about that.

Balls, Jazzz has disputed all of that.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

It tossers like you who ask the wrong questions about the wrong people that allow actual bad shit to be gotten away with.

That is almost, but not quite, funny. Being called a tosser by somebody in advertising??

 

[Dillinger4]

What Post Grad degree doesn't require a degree in the first place?

It's got to be a woolly subject, you'd never get that in engineering. Suppose you could in some situations for computing / accountancy etc. but it'd be incredibly rare. Even so it's a massive leap to go from a good first degree to none at all, you're missing out "mediocre degree" "poor degree" and "a degree" entirely.

I would like to second this post to make sure fela sees it.

 

[Jazzz]

Balls, Jazzz has disputed all of that.

err, where exactly?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

err, where exactly?

1) You've claimed that holographic projections applied to missiles were seen to hit the towers, not planes.

2) You've claimed that the fires and damage to WTC 7 were negligable.

Although to be fair i can't be entirely certain that you were the one to claim 2), could have been sparticist, i'll have a bit of a search.

 

[editor]

1) You've claimed that holographic projections applied to missiles were seen to hit the towers, not planes.

Who can forget the picture he conjured up of a giant anglepoise lamp illuminating a holographic sheet screaming across the NY sky?!

 

[jonH]

but the Americans could have set it all up.I know they didn't, but, they had the capability and conspiracy theorists will always feed on possibilities.

I don't know If the War in Afghanistan would be raging now if it hadn't been for the 9/11 outrage, but that's another question. No stupid threads allowed now though, ....pity

 

[Jazzz]

1) You've claimed that holographic projections applied to missiles were seen to hit the towers, not planes.

I've never claimed that. I have simply argued that the theory is not quite so preposterous as it first seems. But why not put words into my mouth?

I am not a no-planer, and never have been. I think planes hit the towers - they just weren't the ones we thought they were. I have stated that throughout my 9/11 postings on urban.

 

[editor]

but the Americans could have set it all up.I know they didn't, but, they had the capability and conspiracy theorists will always feed on possibilities.

It's not possible to:
(a) invisibly wire up a massive building with thousands of tons of invisible explosives
(b) make fake planes appear in the sky
(c) fool every independent expert on the planet
(d) keep a conspiracy this big 100% secret for six years
(e) etc etc ad infinitum

 

[editor]

I've never claimed that. I have simply argued that the theory is not quite so preposterous as it first seems.

It was utterly preposterous when you namechecked that firm doing little display holograms and it remains as preposterous now.

 

[jonH]

It's not possible to:
(a) invisibly wire up a massive building with thousands of tons of invisible explosives
(b) make fake planes appear in the sky
(c) fool every independent expert on the planet
(d) keep a conspiracy this big 100% secret for six years
(e) etc etc ad infinitum

I mean they could have been the controllers of the operation, they were well in with the Bin Laden family after all

 

[jonH]

but of course we'd have proof by now

 

[jonH]

 

[editor]

I mean they could have been the controllers of the operation, they were well in with the Bin Laden family after all

So they "controlled" a super-secret massive operation to mass murder their own citizens, blow up planes and destroy a large chunk of New York for what reason exactly?

 

[jonH]

none, it's just that it could have been possible to have trained up the bombers under Bin Laden

Bin

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Oi, we've done 9/11 and Copeland, i demand new conspiracies!

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Oi, we've done 9/11 and Copeland, i demand new conspiracies!

Copeland is not a conspiracy, muppet.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Copeland is not a conspiracy muppet.

I'm sure Jim Henderson never included him in the original cast.

 

[Jazzz]

It's not possible to:
(c) fool every independent expert on the planet

They didn't.

Andreas von Buelow. Robert M. Bowman. etc. etc.

 

[editor]

They didn't.

Andreas von Buelow. Robert M. Bowman. etc. etc.

Are they experts in the relevent scientific fields with appropriate academic qualifications then?

And what about the tens of thousands of highly qualified experts and scientists who have uttered not a peep in support of your barking theories? Why might that be, do you think?

Oh, hang on. Wasn't Bowman the nutter who thought that the towers were toppled by exciting laser beams from space?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

I'm sure Jim Henderson never included him in the original cast.

...you would know all about that...

 

[Jazzz]

(to editor)

yawn.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

...you would know all about that...

Big fan, what can i say.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Hey Larry!

Isn't it fucking annoying when attempts at evidence-based research and efforts to ask serious questions gets branded 'conspiraloonacy' by those who have neither the wit nor inclination to do either?

Even without a baying pack calling you names, it never was easy sorting out the fact from the fiction.

Your website sucks, by the way.

 

[Corax]

Please don't stick me in the tin-foil-hat pen, but I found some elements of quite interesting.

A collaborative exercise that was double-crossed by double-agents (triple?) strikes me as plausible. No need for holograms or crap either.

 

[Jonti]

There's an open secret I should share with you, my child,
There's some that when those planes went in that maybe hid a smile.
Others whooped and hollered, cheered by flaming blow,
Having families, friends and neighbors that understood their show.​

more ...

 

[editor]

A collaborative exercise that was double-crossed by double-agents (triple?) strikes me as plausible.

Well, in a best seller sense, perhaps.

But don't you think one or two of the people being 'double crossed' might just have noticed something not being quite right and subsequently commented on it?

Or do you think it's likely that such a monstrously high risk strategy could be pulled off to total perfection without a single soul noticing a thing at the time or in the years after? How plausible do you think that is?

Oh, and I wish people would stop linking to random, slow moving, arse-dull YouTube videos full of leaden 'messages', authored by fuck knows who. It's like watching the dullest kind of Powerpoint presentation.