BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:08 PM

Oh, I have seen that video, and I have Googled the name of the firefighter, (who was not there) and it seems that HIS opinion/information can be traced back, thru several steps, to former Prof. Stephen Jones (BYU) who'investigated' the alleged accelerants to further his personal theory:

"Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq."

Where did these supposed samples of thermite come from? Why, they were " collected by a "Manhattan resident" about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later."

Where did he get the 1st sample? From the Brooklyn Bridge, he says, soon after the incident. Other 'samples' were scooped up in a couple other places nearer the site, they explain.

"Another man collected dust in his apartment, about five blocks from the World Trade Center, on the morning of Sept. 12. There was a layer about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry near an open window.

Red/gray chips, averaging in size between .2 and 3 mm, were found in all four dust samples."

Wow! There's some detailed, documented scientific inquiry for you! Who did the fancy 'analysis' of the 4 tiny chips (.2 mm)? A lab in Denmark. When did they do it? Evidently in 2006, after Stephen Jones, who was needing to support his already controversial theory 'requested' some samples of dust, and 'received' it from those carefully documented sources noted above. (I cannot find where Jones' 'request' was made, and why he trusted the source).

The analysis 'revealed' that the samples were mostly iron oxide, with 'some' fine aluminum....both of which 'can be' associated with thermite.

THIS is the complex chain of 'evidence' which has prompted Eric Lawyer and several others to assure us that we are being deceived and prevented from 'finding the truth'.

These sites also either originate or repeat that line about "only a few small fires" in WTC 7.....when firefighters who were there assure us that the fires were much larger and did so much damage that they were not even able to enter the building...and were damn glad of it!

Do you wonder why close-minded ol' Bill D. sighs in frustration when I am accused of just relying 'on my own beliefs' when THAT is how the evidence you want me to consider is presented?

I have read YOUR evidence....have you followed and read the links *I* have provided for several years? Go that very long thread noted above (like...700+ posts..) and re-read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:10 PM

Ok... I just read what Carol & LH said about me while I was following the trail Carol suggested....

that's enough...................

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:11 PM

From Ron Bankley:
"Splitting the Sky's trial starts March 08th in Calgary, he tried to arrest GW Bush last March 17 (for war crimes)... more later"



So, let's start giving this man some of the coverage he deserves:


Splitting the Sky trying to arrest George Bush

Splitting the Sky's Website (and on there, you can here 'Anthem for Dissent', an amazing piece of writing, and oh so true!)

STS talking passionately about 9/11





'Splitting the Sky - Exposing The Bush Cheney Cabal - TruthConvergence 2009'

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4 (Twin Towers)

Part 5

Part 6

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:19 PM

But he's reading from the manual that specifies the national standards for conducting such investigations, Bill. So your ad hominem, and your guilt by association against the firefighter in question, and Stephen Jones, can't really apply to the manual itself. What you're doing is not logical. You're saying that because it was a firefighter with associations with Dr. Jones who is reading the manual with the national standards for conducting fire investigations, that means that the manual itself is not valid. This surely violates all kinds of rules of logic.

Furthermore, you are using a straw man argument when you try to debunk Dr. Jones' assertions in reference to thermite, because nobody is suggesting that Dr. Jones' test results be accepted. What I am saying, and what others are saying is that testing for the presence of exotic accelerants needs to be done on whatever materials they do have. The way to prove that Dr. Jones is wrong is to do tests on materials for which the chain of evidence cannot be questioned.

It appears that the kind of logic of which you are a practitioner is very much like the Christians who believe that it's ok for them to sin because they're Christians and they're forgiven. You seem to think that it's ok for you to commit any kind of logical fallacy you want, because you studied logic, so you're forgiven. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:26 PM

And by the way, I don't know how you could possibly ask me in seriousness whether or not I have read the links you have provided over the years, considering the fact that I had to remind you right here in this thread of what is contained in at least one of those links.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:50 PM

When I read something like THIS REPORT I wonder what it is that I should be questioning.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:56 PM

Very good, catspaw. Now I would like to see the peer reviews of that report.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:01 PM

Already I can see a lot of holes in it myself. I don't have time to list them now, but I'll try to do it later. They're not holes you have to be an expert to recognize, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:38 PM

Here's a couple of observations for now. The guys who made that report don't claim to know what happened. They only sought to show what, in their opinion, was wrong with Dr. Jones' hypotheses. They acknowledge that they don't have enough evidence to disprove some of what Jones is asserting, and they say themselves that further study is needed. On some of the points, they say only that Jones has not adequately proven this points. So this paper acts as a peer review of Jones' papers, and some of it no doubt has some validity. It's clear that Jones has not proven anything as of this point in time. And as the authors of this paper themselves admit, we need more investigation before we can draw any conclusions about what did happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 08:51 PM

Unreal................Jones hasn't been able to prove squat and Protec has shown why while showing the how. They'd like more data so they can show even more how whupped Jones is......LOL

You will never be satisfied Carol...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 10:12 PM

I suggest you read my post again, catspaw. Either that or stop deliberately distorting my words. I draw your attention to this from my last post...

It's clear that Jones has not proven anything as of this point in time.


But you go ahead and show me where they say they've disproved all of his points. In the meantime, I'll show you where they said that further study is needed. On the subject of the possibility that exotic accelerants were used...

We have come across no evidence to support this claim. (They do not say that such evidence couldn't possibly exist, and it is quite reasonable for them to not have seen any evidence since the government has not conducted any tests for exotic accelerants on the materials in its possession. They only say that the claim has not been proven. They do not say that it has been disproven.)

We do not know the answers, but these and many related questions should be addressed if this assertion continues to be pursued.


Here, they say that they don't know how building 7 fell. They only say that the possibility that the government version is correct has not been ruled out. They do not say that all other possibilities have been ruled out. The possibility that it could happen in a particular way is not proof that it did, and it doesn't rule out the possibility of other ways it could have happened. It also doesn't tell us which, of the possible ways it could have happened, is the one that did happen...

We do not know exactly how or why WTC 7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here. All we can offer is that, from a demolition and structural failure standpoint, available data does not rule out the possibility of the building collapsing as a direct result of the structural conditions detailed above.

On the subject of the jets of air that people like Jones are suggesting are squibs, they say that the floors were pancaking inside of the outer shell in a way that's not immediately visible from the outside, and they are saying that this is why what they are calling jets of air and debris could be seen coming out of windows several floors below where the damage could be seen in videos and photographs. But earlier they tried to support their contention that there could not have been any explosive events in the basement or bottom floors because we can't see any damage to the outside of the building in videos or photographs. They're trying to have it both ways on that one.

Really, catspaw, If I presented a paper with holes in it as big as the ones in that one as proof that the buildings had been brought down with a controlled demolition, you wouldn't accept it for a nanosecond. The paper proves nothing. It only shows that Jones has not proven anything, either. But, like Bill, you are also going on faith and belief, and not on logic or science, so I don't see any reason to be surprised that you are so quick to see proof where it does not exist. How does the rain sound when it hits that tin foil hat of yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 10:18 PM

Another thing that is conspicuously absent from that paper is any explanation whatever of how the core could have failed given the conditions present. They don't offer any analysis of how that could have happened. They just say essentially, "it did because we say it did, and we're experts so you should believe us".

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Confere
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:04 AM

"...just sees what (she) wants to see..."    Hey, now it's a music thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:24 AM

Here's some other problems with that report. We can rule out their "belief" (their word, not mine) that there could not have been any disruption of the structural supports on the bottom few floors (because they have demonstrated themselves that such damage would not necessarily have been visible, unless we want to discard everything they're saying about the jets of air).

Then they say that controlled demolition using explosive charges is not possible because in order for explosive charges to be able to bring the building down, it would have required placing charges on too many load bearing columns to make it practicable. If that's the case, then how could those load bearing columns have been brought down in the absence of such charges? What caused the columns (and their extensive cross bracing) to fail?

They only address the sound of explosions reported by witnesses, but they don't address the orange and red flashes of light that witnesses reported accompanying the sounds. This was reported by Capt. Karin DeShore of the New York Fire Department, who was right there at ground zero when the towers fell...

"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I can see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."

And she describes the sounds as "popping noises". She doesn't describe them as loud explosions. So it's possible that there isn't any reason to expect them to show up in seismographic records. The report doesn't address what was witnessed by Captain DeShore at all.

Again, the only thing we can say for sure at this point in time, is that we can't say for sure what happened on 9/11. Anyone who says otherwise is operating on belief. We need a thorough investigation into what happened on 911, and we need a rigorous peer review process to evaluate the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 12:31 AM

Here's the URL for the DeShore quote...

http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10/ga_karin_deshore.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:09 AM

Hey, Spaw, you sorry-assed son of a broke-dick mamalucca...I know what your real problem is. You read way too many of them lousy Cheech Wizard comics when you were young and impressionable. They rotted your brain (not to mention making your nuts shrivel up into little dessicated raisins, but that's another matter...). Anyways, if ya hadn't wasted yer youth on that salacious tripe, you wouldn't now be giving comfort to people like Dick Cheney by believing the snow job they delivered to the nation after 911. Get a life, man. Better yet, get a Dachshund! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:14 AM

Interesting paper here...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: robomatic
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 09:51 PM

Carol, I think you are displaying a similar error in thinking to that of folks who insist that Creationism is a valid theory. One of the questions they think they can frame is "What is the probability of life, the universe, and everything?" and they come up with made up probabilities and they conclude that the reality we know is well nigh imossible by 'laws of nature' and therefor, a Creator was required.

But the probability of "Life, The Universe, and Everything" is well known. It is 100%.

Likewise, we've got planes flying into buildings, the buildings on fire, and the buildings collapsing. It happened within a very short period of time, it is documented on all sorts of media, and the folks who claim that an airplane didn't hit the Pentagon, other little apparent inconsistencies like that, have been disproved.

The fact that structural engineers may still be arguing over the details of what collapse led to what further collapse does not change the facts of the collapse itself.

Now, as far as the more scientific 'appearing' articles that are coming out claiming metallurgical evidence of thermite, I'm not that kind of engineer. I can't tell if there is any sense to it, but I also can't tell if those photos are what they are supposed to be, the 'scientists' who they are supposed to be, that folks aren't doing their best attempt at falsification and lying. I think that is the sort of thing we may be seeing, because folks have staked reputations on some very wild theories, and they might very likely be lying like hell.

Therefore, it is coming time that we start to do a bit of epistemology on these articles. So and so wrote this and is actually in a position to know this.

I believe the planes and passengers were real, the terrorists and their backgrounds were real, and the buildings really fell because of them. The 'truther' movement has been marked not by a coherent strain of logical consistency, but by a multiplicity of claims woven out of any little fragment of unknown elements that can be exploited. It is sort of like saying anything that is not only plausible, but remotelty believable by anyone with any axe to grind, the theme being: "you can't trust anyone but me".

It gets old after a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: LadyJean
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 10:08 PM

It would take at least a hundred people several days to set charges in the towers.
Somebody would have seen them, especially in Tower 7, where security would have to be pretty tight.
Have you ever tried to get into an office building? There's generally somebody somweplace who wants to know who you are and what you're doing there, and check some I.D. I would think this would be especially true of the World Trade Center, since the buildings were bombed in 1993.
I loathed Bush and Cheney, and I would put very little past them. But I don't believe there was any 9/11 conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 10:52 PM

You couldn't possibly be more laughably wrong, robomatic. Whereas the study of creationism requires the suspension of the use of scientific method, what I am suggesting is that we apply the scientific method to the investigation of what happened on 9/11 (for the first time). I'm sure that if your cherished beliefs about what happened on 9/11 are valid, they will withstand the rigors of the scientific process. But perhaps that's what you're worried about. Maybe you're concerned that they won't, and that's why you don't agree that we need a thorough scientific investigation into what happened on 9/11 and a rigorous peer review of the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 11:20 PM

Lady Jean, that is an assumption. It's quite possible that you are correct, but your assumption is not proof of anything. The only way to know for sure is to investigate.

There was a lot of work being done on the WTC during the weeks leading up to 9/11, and there were a lot of workers accessing the parts of the building were people would need to go if they were going to plant charges. There was a maintenance space in between each floor where people could move about and do whatever they needed to do without the tenants of the buildings being aware of them. And the Bush family was closely tied to the company that had the security contract on the buildings of the WTC. So we really can't say with any certainty that there wasn't sufficient opportunity for someone to plant charges in the buildings. The only way to know for sure is to conduct a thorough, scientific investigation, and a rigorous peer review of the results.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 11:55 PM

"Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. ... According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center 'up to the day the buildings fell down.'"

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

I've been fighting this since day one. Asymmetrical plane damage does not cause symmetrical collapse. One in a billion chance, maybe, but twice in one day? That kind of collapse would be like cutting a tree with an axe, and then when you think it's going to fall over, it disintegrates into toothpicks in front of you. Come on. We all know we were lied to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_0CkvzqidE (5 minute video)

The shooting at the pentagon today. They're saying the guy was a mentally ill "truther." You're now mentally ill if you admit to the truth of government involvement in 9/11. You'd better get off your asses on the 9/11 issue, people. The criminal consortium that controls the world NEEDED 9/11 in order to continue their massive crimes. And now they're fixing to subject you to mental-institution tortures if you question them about it. The window of opportunity to question the crime is now closing. You'd all better suck it up and speak out about what happened.

And this isn't just a "Bush" crime, now. Obama's refused to investigate. If you cover for a murderer, you can be charged with the murder yourself. Obama is now part of the 9/11 crime. They're counting on your willingness to give the "other team" a chance, and they're counting on your self-restraing notion of "racism" to let this mass murderer continue the cover-up, but don't fall for it. A "bi-partisan" team covered up the crime in the first place, and now a change of administration is continuing the cover-up.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:08 AM

No, ichMael, I think the reason people are saying he was mentally ill was because he went up to one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the world and started shooting people.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 04:58 AM

John F. Kennedy talking from the past, about a future he dreaded happening...

JKF and Truth


We are now living inside the future he tried so hard to stop happening......

So ask yourself if what happened to JFK and what has since happened in this world are, in any way, linked by those who have the ultimate power on this planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 11:15 AM

Yes, we are indeed, Lizzie. I have seen with my own eyes the accomplishment of much of what is in George Orwell's novel "1984" during my own lifetime.

The novel described a future society which appeared to be an alliance of the Anglo countries...the UK and the USA (and probably Canada and Australia) which had turned into a surveillance-controlled society with a centralized command and a controlled media and a common ruling purpose.

The primary purposes of the media were to establish rigid conformity and obedience in the public, to suppress truth, to entertain and distract people, and to whip up extreme paranoia about "foreign enemies" and extreme patriotism so that the public would support an eternal state of war in distant places.

The war was never supposed to end, therefore it was based on fighting an ill-defined enemy in many places, and on never reaching any final conclusion. It would flare up in one place for awhile, then shift to another place.

The controlled mass media could fake anything they wanted to through their total management of what the public was exposed to in "the news"...the news being mainly just propaganda.

We're not yet as badly off as the people in "1984", though, so the process has not completed itself. We still have a free interchange of ideas on the Internet and through commercially available books by many authors. We still have political columnists who dare to step outside the conventional boundaries of opinion.

It's not easy to pull off something like the dictatorship in "1984", but it can be done. The easiest way to do it is through supposedly protecting "national security" against an outside threat.

That has been the means of achieving domestic enslavement. It took huge steps forward under the Bush administration. I haven't seen much yet to give me confidence that the Obama administration will not follow along the same lines...notwithstanding the fact that Obama sounds much more agreeable than Bush.

Our political system is far more subtle and clever than the one Orwell wrote about in 1984, because it uses multi-party politics to throw up the illusion of a healthy democracy in front of people.

The political parties are used in the old "good cop - bad cop" game to keep the public bouncing back and forth between one and the other. This gives people the feeling that they have a genuine democracy and repeatedly stires their hopes for change. That could be seen dramatically in the gigantic wave of hope and excitement that fueled Obama's successful campaign and election.

People thought it would turn everything around.

That's the way the system is designed. One party takes away your rights and makes things worse until people get so disgusted that they throw it out of office. Then the other pary takes over, and advances basically the same domestic and international policy, with some minor differences in style, and your rights are soon further eroded and things continue to get worse. So then people get furious, and they kick THAT party out, and the first one comes back in, and......

On and on. If both parties are really run by the same interests, you see, then the public is kept off balance by playing one against the other over and over again.

That's clever. It's much more clever than a single monolithic rule by a centralize command (like in 1984 or in the Soviet Union).

The best way to enslave people is to do it while convincing them they are "free"...because they have multi-party elections...but if both or all parties secretly serve the same interests...then the people are not free. They are under an oligarchic dictatorship which holds elections merely for show.

Note how the British public got exactly the opposite of what they expected and hoped for when they enthusiastically elected Tony Blair. That's how the game works. I suspect something similar is going to happen with Barack Obama...actually it's already well under way.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 02:40 PM

All of which is nicely encapsulated by Keefer Sutherland's grandfather, Tommy Douglas, in his Mouseland speech. Tommy would be turning over in his grave if he knew how eager his grandson is to make a buck peddling the cats' propaganda...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqpFm7zAK90

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 02:51 PM

"Yes, we are indeed, Lizzie. I have seen with my own eyes the accomplishment of much of what is in George Orwell's novel "1984" during my own lifetime."

Oh, Cripes!!!! YES!!!!

I've been banging on about that for so many years, Little Hawk!

The BBC told me to stop talking about social issues because it was upsetting people...and then they told me they'd take steps to deal with the Witch Hunt against me (their term)...so they banned ME!????

It's something that won't go 'away' in my head, because no-one at the BBC would talk to me...apart from a really nice lady, who was head of their Customer Services Dept. She said she'd go off and investigate it all because she could see from the board that something very wrong was going on. She told me she'd come back to me in a week or so. She didn't come back, so I went to her. She sounded so embarraseed when she told me that she wasn't allowed to discuss *anything* with me at all anymore...and that this had come from higher up. I tried so hard to get her to talk to me, but she kept repeating that she wasn't allowed to. I told her she'd given in....and she said..."Lizzie, I'm *so* sorry"

WHY did the BBC do that? Why was I literally 'forbidden' to talk, on a public messageboard, about what was happeing 'out here' in the big wide world? It released an anger inside me that won't go away, even to this day..and I see that same Corporate Silencing going on all around me...just as I see people who've given in, like that lady did...preferring to toe the company line and keep their lives 'easy'

So many people have sold their souls to those who are far worse than the Devil could ever hope to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 03:06 PM

That's a good video, Carol..

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 03:30 PM

Banned by the BBC ? you must be doing something right, Lizzie...

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 04:06 PM

I'm working on it, Ron. ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 05:45 PM

Tommy Douglas explains the undemocratic nature of the modern party system perfectly in his little story about "Mouseland". The cats are in charge of the parties. The mice vote them in.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 07:41 PM

This link is to a segment from Chris Matthews' show. He says the pentagon shooter was a "truther." Asks if he was a "building 7 guy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKquk2ssryA (5 minute video)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 07:47 PM

A question for the people trying to rationalise with the conspiracy theorists: Why? Why would you bother? Do you imagine there to be any point to your effort?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:09 PM

*still reading but....*

Royston....in person, it's best to stop as soon as you realize you are getting nowhere. In a public forum, I like to at least be sure my side of the issue is well-presented and counter arguments scattered thru the thread, just in case anyone stumbles on it and has not heard the .... ahem... rational side before.

It is the case that those supporting conspiracy theories or just 'doubting' the official answers have amazing tenacity and tend to copy and repeat the same set of claims over & over until it takes a LOT of effort to sort it all out. A search on '9/11' + 'truth' will get you many more accusers than defenders.

I've done about all I can do...as have several others. Once my personal honesty and ability to separate reason from prejudice was called into question, I called it 'enough'.

(no...I will not respond to critiques of THAT post)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: ichMael
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:13 PM

COINCIDENCE THEORIST.

That's a term I read the other day. If you don't think that the two towers coming down the way they did on 9/11 was a CONSPIRACY, then you must think it was a COINCIDENCE.

It's more comforting to believe that political life is just natural cause and effect, just...coincidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:26 PM

Royston, that term, "conspiracy theorist" really has no place in a logical discussion about the events of 9/11, because the way it is being used is a logical fallacy. It is used to try to silence people who are asking legitimate questions through the use of an ad hominem argument. And it ignores the fact that the government's theory is also a conspiracy theory, so it is illogical also because it is inconsistent.

So I would ask you a similar question - why would you try to rationalize with people who are approaching the discussion of the events of 9/11 in such an illogical and inconsistent manner, and who are so opposed to approaching the question of what happened on 9/11 in a manner that is scientific and logical?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:27 PM

Thanks, Bill D.

I, for one, do appreciate the efforts. When this thread reared up, I did flex my fingers in preparation, but then when I looked over it and at the related thread, I just lost the will to type.

Lizzie sums it all up - the reason people refuse to talk to her is that the effort is just pointless, any disagreement with her is a conspiracy and then the refusal to keep bludgeoning one's head against the brick wall becomes the crowning proof of the machinations against her.

Sorry, Liz, it's not all about you, but you raised that BBC thing again and that makes you the most clear and present example of this problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:31 PM

Heh. I read your post wrong, Royston. I see your post was addressed to the people who are themselves using illogical arguments as if they were the ones who were being rational. LOL. Good one, Royston. Very funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:39 PM

So let me rephrase my earlier post.

Here we have an example of two people, Royston and Bill D, who are themselves guilty using logical fallacies as the basis for their arguments, and whose entire argument in favor of accepting the government's version of events with no evidence to back it up, is that they believe in that version of events, so it must be true. And these two people, who are operating entirely on belief and faith and not on science and logic, are accusing others of being irrational.

Pot and kettle, my friends, pot and kettle.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:40 PM

You know, I will just make one post on this subject.

I sat there on 11 September 2001 in my house in Charlton, and I watched two planes crash into the WTC towers. Both of them - I saw them - slammed into the buildings and disappeared. Ejecta was thrown out the other three sides of both towers. It was perfectly obvious that the cores of both buildings had been sliced.

That the cores of both buildings were structurally compromised to a fatal extent was confirmed by the testimonies of people who escaped below the crash sites and by the pre-mortem testimonies of the people trapped above the crash sites and by the fire-fighters that were sent in to find a way up.

I have some bitter experience of tearing down reinforced concrete marine structures. I have even more experience of fire damage in steel structures (ships and platforms) and in steel/concrete portal-frame buildings. I was talking by 'phone with a number of people - who will probably come on here to attest to the discussions if people doubt me - on that morning about what we regarded as the inevitable fact that both buildings were going to come down before the morning was finished.

It really is that simple, to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Royston
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:41 PM

CarolC,

I find all your other posts intelligent and lucid.

I am surprised by your views on this subject, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:45 PM

How many of the core columns were damaged at the level of the plane crashes in both buildings, Royston? And just for the sake of argument, let's say that the core columns at the level of the plane crashes were fatally damaged (there is also evidence that they were not, however), how would that effect the columns below the level of the plane crashes? What caused all of the rest of the core to fail? What is the mechanism that allowed this to happen? How did that work?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 08:58 PM

Welcome to the club of gullible, irrational, stubborn suckers, Royston...wanna come to our annual picnic? We serve cotton candy & humble pie.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 09:15 PM

People are always surprised by other people's views on this subject...unless they happen to agree with them.

Nobody can fathom how the other guy couldn't possibly see it the way they do. ;-)

And you cannot determine by that division anything about those people on the other side...such as their intelligence level, their rationality, their sanity, or anything else. All you can determine from it is what they believe about 911. Period. They might be just as smart and rational and every other good thing as you are.

Each side would apparently love to live with the smug certainty that those who disagree with them are fools, crackpots, and idiots.

Alas! Life is just not that simple, kids. ;-D If it was, we'd all have been born wearing black hats and white hats...like in a 1950 Hollywood western.

And no one would have to think about anything then, would they? You could just kill all the guys wearing the black hats and feel quite righteous about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 09:24 PM

I know Carol, by the way, and yes...she is intelligent and lucid.

She just happened to take a different path up the mountain on this particular matter than you did (Bill and Royston). So did I. You take a different path and you notice different stuff along the way.

I don't know of any way that anyone here can prove which path is the best one, but it's plain to me that we are all intelligent and lucid people.

How did it happen that you saw the first plane hit, Royston? You just happened to be looking the right way at that time? (I'm not expressing skepticism about what you said, I'm just curious how it happened, that's all.)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 09:35 PM

Welcome to the club of gullible, irrational, stubborn suckers, Royston...wanna come to our annual picnic? We serve cotton candy & humble pie.

Bill, you have no difficulty making these kinds of accusations against other people. Surely you're man enough to be able to take a little bit of what you so frequently dish out.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 09:49 PM

Why is this particular thread drawing so many spam attacks? What makes us so special?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: LadyJean
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 10:50 PM

You know this discussion might work a little better if both parties would stop calling each other names.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 11:03 PM

Indeed, LadyJean. I'm perfectly happy to just carry on a discussion based on the actual arguments and not on whether or not other people are rational or logical. But for years, people who question the official version of events on 9/11 have been subjected to all kinds of ad hominem attacks, including right here in this thread, to the point that it drowns out our ability to carry on a reasonable discussion. As we can see right here in this thread, as soon as someone brings the subject up and asks questions, the thread is descended upon by hoards of people who don't want to actually carry on a reasoned discussion, but only to abuse those who see things differently than themselves. And they are operating on belief at least as much as, and often far more so, than those they are abusing.

It's time to show which people are really being irrational, and which people just want more information. It's time to show people that ad hominem attacks will not shut us up.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: michaelr
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 11:43 PM

Hear, hear, Carol.