911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!
- Thread starter taffboy gwyrdd
- Start date
- Status
editor said:
And thereby exposing your rather shallow approach to understanding events and their causes and results.
Understanding human behaviour, and helping arrive at this understanding by considering previous actions and precedents, is most certainly relevant to the topic. That you fail to see this helps show the forum that your debating here is deficient.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
fela fan said:
Erm, you're talking shit again Fela - you missed the boat as usual, I've twice made reference to the nature of the WTC7 collapse well before Jazzz mentioned this, and voted for the "collapse of WTC7" option, too (before the newly added option was there) and you have no opinion to offer, just more of your trademark sycophantic whining without actually saying anything...
And I don't think it's a conspiracy, in the event of invasion or civil war there will be several buildings that would need to be destroyed in the interests of the state, and the huge diesel tanks kept there... I just find the prospect of a huge tower block collapsing flat like that just because it was hit by a few shards of glass more than a little alarming if it wasn't deliberately pulled down...
So there's no "professing not to do so" bullshit, Fela, sorry to disappoint you.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Jazzz said:
A quick look at the home page of that link reveals the dark undercurrent of anti-semitism that seems to be a common theme with your anonymous, unsigned, uncredited "evidence"...
And of course - a whole section dedicated to Israel's involvement in 9/11...
Typical Jazzz-style link really... holocaust denial... I'm disgusted you're able to propagate this kind of shit.
Jazzz said:But that's from the WTC, not a train derailment, so the issue is over what twisted that beam! And as snadge informs us, H-sections take even greater torques than straight loads. I am interested in the way this beam has failed, although I can't tell how it was aligned within the WTC.
Anyway, best get some rest for tonight
True, it may have been a horizontal section, rather than a vertical one and that would have made it easier to bend in the middle as can be seen. It does show the sort of forces that were applied to the joints and the nature of those joints. Clearly most of the failure and buckling occured at the joint areas.
WRT the speed of descent of the debris, why shouldn't it fall at roughly velocities roughly corresponding to a descent under gravity. most of the dust and smaller debris that formed the 'cloud' that obscured most of the collapse would have been doing just that. While the core sections probably did take time for the failures to propagate through the structure they were also subjected to an intense inpulse that would have produced a sizeable acceleration for the upper sections. The analogy that I would use would be two tennis balls, one simply dropped, the other slammed downwards with a racket. The struck ball will take less time to descend because it was subject to the acceleration. Please bear in mind that the analogy certainly won't bare too much examination (the tennis balls are far more elastic for a start).
pk said:
well you never know pk, i might just do that one day. But since my opinions are worth fuck all, me being here shouldn't bother you in the slightest.
But when it comes to verbal violence and genuine nastiness, perhaps posters might prefer to see you fuck off permanently rather than me.
What do you reckon oh peaceful one?
pk said:
And you don't disappoint me, you mean nothing to me. You're just a two lettered symbol on a website who i feel the need to call up on their rather nasty language and attitude towards those that hold differences of opinion to yourself.
Interestingly were we to meet i'd reckon we'd agree on most things (including most aspects of 911), but i'm just not a fan of violence and rudeness. And on here you succumb to that.
pk said:
Have you read this PK
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/antisemitism.html
Can you find anything that is untrue with regards to the sites references to Israel? Can you find anything which is genuinely antisemitic as opposed to just critical of the Israeli government? Can you find anything that demonstrates that Mike Rivero is an anti-semite?
There are plenty of genuinely hated filled websites out there that attack Jews as a whole people for being Jewish: this is genuine anti-semitism (although strictly speaking equating Jewishness with being a semite is inaccurate). But being critical of the Israeli government and the ideology zionism is not per se anti-semitic. You should take far greater care in casually labelling people as anti-semitic (without evidence). For all I know you will dig out something on Mike Rivero. I have never checked him out, but what you cite as evidence of anti-semitism, isn't.
<edit> The Editor beat me to it.
What is it with you Sparticus. Are you incapable of performing even the most cursory of checks or undergoing the most basic research before you open your mouth. You're a self-appointed organiser and leader of the 'truth seeking' movement after all, prone to picking out minute holes in official documents, yet you can't even get your own most basic assertions correct.
After yesterday, where you shamelessly tried to put words into Al Gore's mouth on this thread, I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually a hoax poster. Surely someone couldn't show such a lack of critical appraisal and experience factual blindness so easily and conveniently,
What is it with you Sparticus. Are you incapable of performing even the most cursory of checks or undergoing the most basic research before you open your mouth. You're a self-appointed organiser and leader of the 'truth seeking' movement after all, prone to picking out minute holes in official documents, yet you can't even get your own most basic assertions correct.
After yesterday, where you shamelessly tried to put words into Al Gore's mouth on this thread, I'm beginning to wonder if you're actually a hoax poster. Surely someone couldn't show such a lack of critical appraisal and experience factual blindness so easily and conveniently,
I have just done a quick trawl
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="mike+rivero"+adl&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="mike+rivero"+holocaust+denial&meta=
and it appears that in this case there may be some substance to your claim with regards to this site.
That said, the point I make above is still valid, just because a site mentions Israel in a bad light does not make it anti-semitic per se and your characterisation of the whole 9/11 truth movement being a front for holocaust deniers and anti-semites is bullshit. There are a few sites which are both anti-semitic and 9/11 skeptical but not they are a tiny minority
This site has IMO quite a good overview http://911review.com/denial/holocaust.html
It's infowars section in general is also pretty good. I don't necessarily agree with all its conclusion as to what is hoax/disinfo, but the 9/11 truth movement should be honest enough to acknowledge that some of the evidence cited by some of its more excitable (or intentionally dishonest) researchers does not stand up to scrutiny.
A shame that supporters of the USG version of events (generally) are unable to accept that the USG evidence is full of holes as well, but in the case of the Kean Report, this is supposedly beyond challenge
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="mike+rivero"+adl&meta=
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="mike+rivero"+holocaust+denial&meta=
and it appears that in this case there may be some substance to your claim with regards to this site.
That said, the point I make above is still valid, just because a site mentions Israel in a bad light does not make it anti-semitic per se and your characterisation of the whole 9/11 truth movement being a front for holocaust deniers and anti-semites is bullshit. There are a few sites which are both anti-semitic and 9/11 skeptical but not they are a tiny minority
This site has IMO quite a good overview http://911review.com/denial/holocaust.html
It's infowars section in general is also pretty good. I don't necessarily agree with all its conclusion as to what is hoax/disinfo, but the 9/11 truth movement should be honest enough to acknowledge that some of the evidence cited by some of its more excitable (or intentionally dishonest) researchers does not stand up to scrutiny.
A shame that supporters of the USG version of events (generally) are unable to accept that the USG evidence is full of holes as well, but in the case of the Kean Report, this is supposedly beyond challenge
sparticus said:
So you're denying that you've been involved in the organisation of a number of 9-11 based events, including poorly-attended film showings, or that you've tabbed yourself a 'truth seeker' on more than a few occasions.
Read what you put on that thread again, where you imply that Gore 'stopped short of denouncing the 9/11 cover-up,' as if that was somthing Gore would logically do given the facts. That speaks volumes for the myopic nature of your analyses and your inability to report back on anything dispassionately and rationally - it's your desperation to feed your 9-11 conspiracy fixation that shines through, not the actual contents of Gore's (far more measured and accurately sourced) speech.
You denying that you were caught, pants down and mouth running, about Rivero? Why can't you even do a little research yourself - surely someone so critical of the Govt's standards should aim for honest and accurate reporting themselves.
tarannau said:
No I'm denying that I am a self appointed leader. The network of 9/11 truth campaigners in this country (or globally) has no leaders
tarannau said:
No it's pointing out the obvious area of clear disagreement that I have with Gore on this speech. Namely that he and Bush agree on the threat (and therefore nature) of global terrorism based on the shared acceptance of the official account of 9/11.
When you discussing (as Gore was) the lies and criminality of Bush, the threat to the constitution and civil liberties and the dubious nature of the "war on terror", then it is natural to link this to 9/11 and to mention my disppointment that he didn't also challenge the lies that Bush has told regarding 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up. Perhaps it was clumsily expressed, but I wasn't implying that Gore shares my belief that 9/11 was an inside job and it wasn't putting words in his mouth
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
sparticus said:
I'd say anyone quoting from an anti-semitic website to back up their ridiculous claims is either stupid or too lazy to check the most basic of facts - either way, whatreallyhappened.com is doing more than just "mentioning Israel in a bad light", it's all out holocaust denying facism by the back door, nazi-saluting, inbred, redneck, chicken-choking, pig-fucking, right-wing propaganda, and I'm once again disgusted that Jazzz could be using this to prop up his highly unlikely assertions.
whatreallyhappened.com IS an anti-semitic website, if you can't see that then you're choosing to ignore it, anyone with half a brain can see the agenda the site's authors have - pushing the David Irving theory that the holocaust is a myth pushed by all-powerful Jewish sects that control the world... and this is something Jazzz has sided with before, alongside his mentally ill friend David Icke.
And if you think I'm not going to attack it at every opportunity, then you don't know me very well... sorry if that inconveiniences your little "truth movement" - I suggest that as a "truth movement" you should be distancing your self from an evil lying website such as whatreallyhappened.com and those who are keen to use it as proof...
editor
hiraethified
Gosh! How exciting!sparticus said:
So if you weren't a 'leader', what was your rols in putting on the UK's Premiere Screenings of some 9/11 nutjob film or another (total attendance over two screenings = 7). Organiser? Failed promoter?
And how many people do you calculate are in this supposed 'network' of (guffaw) '9/11 truth campaigners'?
I strongly suspect that Jazz was unaware of any links whatreallyhappened has to holocaust denial. That evidence that challenges the 9/11 myth appears on this site (as well as many others that are not anti-semitic) does not make the claim that 9/11 was an inside job a ridiculous one
I have no problem in denouncing anti-semitism or fascism of any kind. What I object to is the assertion that the 9/11 truth movement in general is anti-semitic or fascist, because that is not the case.
If you really want to understand the dangers of fascism in the world today I would take a closer look at the "nazi-saluting, inbred, redneck, chicken-choking, pig-fucking, right-wing propaganda" spewing neo-cons who inhabit the white house and the republican party in general who are lying through their teeth on 9/11
http://static.flickr.com/2/2119434_78877ad644.jpg
You are aware of the links between the leading neo-cons and nazis?
I have no problem in denouncing anti-semitism or fascism of any kind. What I object to is the assertion that the 9/11 truth movement in general is anti-semitic or fascist, because that is not the case.
If you really want to understand the dangers of fascism in the world today I would take a closer look at the "nazi-saluting, inbred, redneck, chicken-choking, pig-fucking, right-wing propaganda" spewing neo-cons who inhabit the white house and the republican party in general who are lying through their teeth on 9/11
http://static.flickr.com/2/2119434_78877ad644.jpg
You are aware of the links between the leading neo-cons and nazis?
editor said:
In the case of the one screening that you CONTINUOUSLY refer to that would make me a failed promoter. I have since helped to organise other screenings that filled the Prince Charles cinema (capacity 400) and a screening at Project 142 that attracted 100, which probably makes me a slightly less failed promoter. Either way it does not make me a self-appointed leader.
As for how many we are. I don't know. It depends how you group people. If you are talking of the number of people in New York that support our demand for a further inquiry there is evidence that we are a majority. If you are talking of people who are linked through email exchanges in this country, I'm not sure but it is more than 500 and less than 1000. What I do know is that we are a lot more than we were this time last year.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
sparticus said:
That is simply not true - I and many others have pulled him up on this before, several times, both with whatreallyhappened.com and a whole host of other sites Jazzz has used in the past to back up his outlandish claims, notably Joe Vialls and Jeff Rense.
I strongly suspect many other people will remember this.
As soon as you refer to extreme right wing websites to shore up your argument - you have no argument, it really is that simple.
This is why I have utter contempt for David Icke - of whom Jazzz is a huge fan and correspondent - if Jazzz is unable to undertake the most basic research into his sources, in spite of the fact that he has been accused of promoting anti-semitic websites dozens of times before by me alone, never mind other people - then he is in my view unfit to provide any kind of evidence whatsoever, such is his track record for unreliability.
I don't think you were posting at the time he was pushing his "Huntley Is Innocent" theory and referring back to the now thankfully maggot-infested Joe Vialls for the source of his "evidence" - not bothering to notice Vialls penchant for vile anti-semitic theories.... same as he's now doing with David Icke.
And you wonder why I have nothing but contempt for this shit?
I object to the tolerance shown by the so-called "truth movement" toward those keen to push anti-semitic theories.
"We didn't notice" is not good enough.
If you're expecting people to believe the highly inflammatory nature of the 9/11 attacks being premeditated and carried out by the Bush administration in accordance with P.N.A.C. plans, then you'll have to do a whole lot better than "not notice" the highly anti-semitic content within many of these so-called "truth" sites, and you'll have to call to account those purporting to be working within the parameters of the "truth movement" yet are happy to spread such bullshit as to deny the Jewish holocaust.
Since I was commenting on them here way before 9/11, I daresay I am more familiar with them than you are.
sparticus said:
But would you concede that the 'truthseeking' movement (must try...to keep...straight face) also contains a high propensity of people who believe in shadowy cabals/international banking conspiracies/the illuminati/lizards etc - often with distinct or implied anti-semitic views. Rivero's hardly unique on that score.
And yes I'm aware of some links between neo-cons and the nazis, but a photo of Arnie Schwarzenegger in a slightly dubious bodybuilding pose hardly represents decent proof or a constructive contribution to the debate.
Frankly it's a dodgy distraction technique. Once again you've been found promoting dodgy views and highlighting inadequately researched experts, whilst once again you're far too keen to twist and misrepresent others like Gore.
I don't believe in swallowing the 'official line' without question. But whilst 'truth seekers' like you continue to plumb such depths of inaccuracy, misrepresentation and dishonesty then it's no wonder that you can't present a credible alternative.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
tarannau said:
Absolutely.
I've highlighted my doubts pertaining to the official US Government/FEMA account of what happened on September 11th 2001, but there's no way I'm going to be aligned with kind of careless unresearched anonymous anti-semitic bullshit as propagated by the likes of Jazzz, and as quietly accepted by the "truth movement", such as it is.
If you cannot see how this is a fundamental issue at the core of any attempt to get at the truth, then you have no business organising screenings of films, or attempting to gather information to prove 9/11 was suspiciously arranged by Bush.
I'm not the only one who finds it increasingly frustrating to see efforts to bring to account those in power who had the ability to prevent such an attack ruined by idiots like Jazzz and others who are unable to see what is blatantly anti-semitic propaganda.
If I were a true "conspiracy theorist" I'd go as far as to say that Jazzz, in his constant referring to websites known to be pushing the holocaust=myth line, is in fact making it far easier for the "truth movement" to be dismissed as a bunch of crackpots spreading a web of lies, muddying the waters, in fact - doing Bush's dirty work for him... yet you continue to defend him.
No wonder your screenings only attract a handful of people - nobody, apart from David Icke types, wants to be associated with anti-semites.
First up, the 9/11 truth movement is a broad church filled with some people whose wider views I might disagree with (much like any other broad based movement, for example, the "anti-globalisation" movement) and nothing I say will change that. Sure Jazz is sloppy sometimes in his debating here, but to the extent I know him his heart is in the right place and he is not deliberately spreading disinformation or hatred.
I have checked out the evidence carefully and read a lot more 9/11 related material (both supportive of and challenging the official myth) than most on these boards I suspect. If you think you can show where I have cited evidence inaccurately and dishonesty, show me.
I've always seen the way to get to the truth is to hold the key witnesses who appeared at the Kean Inquiry accountable, get them to testify under oath in public and address the perfectly reasonable questions posed by various family groups and campaigners, rather than presenting the definitive alternative scenario or getting sucked into the infighting that exists amongst a few 9/11 researchers.
Indeed if I were sitting in the neo-cons shoes I would intentionally fuel division and noise around 9/11 truth as a way of preventing a coherent and united platform taking shape. Divide and rule has always been the preferred tactic of the powerful and so with 9/11: pod people and non-pod people, peak oil advocates and non-peak oil advocates, lizards and non-lizards. It gives them plenty of straw men to debunk. Me picking fights with those factions who I personally disagree with only adds to the division and noise
At the end of the day IMO there is more than enough suspicion cast on Bush and Co to require a further investigation and there are many prominent and credible public figures who agree with me on this. Rather than arguing the toss over fringe elements of the evidence I have consistently asked questions around the non-physical evidence such as the unbelievable intelligence and air defense failures.
Regarding the Prince Charles cinema, I gave you the details at the time ed. My role was pretty minor, but it did happen as described last summer. If you don't believe me, that's fine. You could ask Jazz as I believe he was there
Anyway I should do some work
I have checked out the evidence carefully and read a lot more 9/11 related material (both supportive of and challenging the official myth) than most on these boards I suspect. If you think you can show where I have cited evidence inaccurately and dishonesty, show me.
I've always seen the way to get to the truth is to hold the key witnesses who appeared at the Kean Inquiry accountable, get them to testify under oath in public and address the perfectly reasonable questions posed by various family groups and campaigners, rather than presenting the definitive alternative scenario or getting sucked into the infighting that exists amongst a few 9/11 researchers.
Indeed if I were sitting in the neo-cons shoes I would intentionally fuel division and noise around 9/11 truth as a way of preventing a coherent and united platform taking shape. Divide and rule has always been the preferred tactic of the powerful and so with 9/11: pod people and non-pod people, peak oil advocates and non-peak oil advocates, lizards and non-lizards. It gives them plenty of straw men to debunk. Me picking fights with those factions who I personally disagree with only adds to the division and noise
At the end of the day IMO there is more than enough suspicion cast on Bush and Co to require a further investigation and there are many prominent and credible public figures who agree with me on this. Rather than arguing the toss over fringe elements of the evidence I have consistently asked questions around the non-physical evidence such as the unbelievable intelligence and air defense failures.
Regarding the Prince Charles cinema, I gave you the details at the time ed. My role was pretty minor, but it did happen as described last summer. If you don't believe me, that's fine. You could ask Jazz as I believe he was there
Anyway I should do some work
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
sparticus said:
In spite of the fact that he has been pulled up about posting anti-semitic shit here before.
So you'd sooner keep quiet about people who are supposedly acting in your own interests seemingly deliberately spreading holocaust=myth propaganda.
Fuck you. If the neo-nazis were infiltrating anything I had a vested interest in - I wouldn't rest until everyone was aware of it and able to make their own minds up, instead of tacitly accepting it as a sad fact of life.
As long as you appear to be on the same side as the neo-nazis, you'll never be taken seriously.
Conveinient you have to go when asked to provide evidence, should be quite a simple matter - after your abject failure to attract more than four people to the initial screening of the film, I'd have thought after the ridicule you got here you'd be only too keen to document fully such a resounding success - 400 people indeed.
Oh well... guess people will make their own minds up - again...
pk said:
So you have doubts, but rather than support a further inquiry you are scared off by your fear of being associated with the minority elements within the 9/11 truth movement that either rely on poor research or promote anti-semitism.
A perfect illustration if one was need that the best way to derail any genuine enquiry is devide and rule: just to associate it with anti-semitism, anti-american, conspiraloon labels and build up some straw men that can then be debunked.
The people in 9/11 truth movement have challenged other people and websites seen as anti-semitic voices as well as sites seen to be promoting 'disinformation', which if you were familiar with the range of people involved you would know.
- Status
Similar threads
