|
12 Feb 08 - 07:59 PM (#2260915) Subject: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,guest "The day it happened, I saw one fall and it was just so symmetrical," [Willie] Nelson said on Alex Jones' talk show. "I said, 'Wait a minute, I just saw that last week at the casino in Las Vegas', and you see these implosions all the time, and the next one fell and I said, 'Hell, there's another one.' They're trying to tell me that an airplane did it and I can't go along with that." http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=6473 Mark Dayton and Walter Mondale both gave their support to a new investigation of 9/11 after today's Hillary Clinton rally at Augsburg College in Minneapolis. When asked the question, "Do you support a new investigation of 9/11?," former vice president Walter Mondale replied, "Yeah. Why did it happen? We need that 'phase two'. They never did it."—identifying the insufficiency of the official findings and calling for a subsequent phase of investigation. http://www.jonesreport.com/article/02_08/030208_mondale_911.html |
|
12 Feb 08 - 08:03 PM (#2260919) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Riginslinger And your point in this, Gg? |
|
12 Feb 08 - 08:14 PM (#2260932) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: pdq Mother Jones News..."where truth goes to die" |
|
12 Feb 08 - 08:18 PM (#2260935) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Amos Not exactly. Anyone who has seen a controlled implosion has noted the resemblance in the pattern of collapse. And no explanation has been given for the same pattern of action in the falling of World Trade Building 7, which was not struck. Do either of you have an explanation for the Building 7 graceful collapse into its own footprint? One tthat, I mean, incorporates known laws of physics? A |
|
12 Feb 08 - 08:29 PM (#2260943) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,guest My point is, you got a musical icon, a former senator, and a former vice-president of the U.S. saying the government's story on 9/11 don't hunt. These 3 just within the past week. The debunking scattergun can only cover so much. 9/11 was an inside job. Everyone from Isaac Newton to Willie Nelson says so. Anyone around here still think the government DIDN'T do the job? |
|
12 Feb 08 - 09:09 PM (#2260972) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D No...no,no,no,no,no,...no more conspiracy theory threads! |
|
12 Feb 08 - 09:36 PM (#2260996) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST Jones has several websites. There's an interview with Nelson at this one: http://www.infowars.com/ infowars.net, prisonplanet.com, jonesreport.com + other sites. Whenever the govt hacks one of his sites he starts 2 more. lol Lookit some of the stories while you're there. End of sovereignty, birth of tyrannical world govt. As far as the Mondale thing, that came from a local group in Minnesota that did an interview. Video straight from the man himself, here: http://mnchange.org/walter-mondale-and-mark-dayton-support-new-911-investigation Old media is dead. ABC/CNN will never report on Mondale saying questions need to be answered about 9/11, but because of the internet, those young people in Minnesota were able to upload their clips straight into your consciousness. And 9/11 needs to be addressed because it leads to things like this. InfraGard: http://www.alternet.org/rights/76388 Look at the growth rate on that thing. Junior G-men with shoot to kill orders. Gestapo wannabes being spoon-fed attention by people who teach that habeas corpus doesn't exist. And the "other party" won't stop this kind of garbage. The Democrats are the party of "big government," so who you gonna turn to? WE have to put a stop to it, and the one sure way is to point out that the "war on terror" began with a staged event. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 09:47 PM (#2261006) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST So what are you saying? That's not Walter Mondale in the video? I guess they fooled me. Danged kids. Good thing mudcat has its own cointelpro agent to keep these things straight now. lol |
|
12 Feb 08 - 09:54 PM (#2261011) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Riginslinger I think there's quite a lot of ground between Willie Nelson and Sir Issac Newton. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 09:56 PM (#2261016) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: pdq Did Sir Isaac invent the Fig Newton? Just curious. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 10:02 PM (#2261023) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: pdq Yep, there's NoBisco like ShowBisco. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 10:03 PM (#2261024) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Riginslinger The really reasuring part of it is, John McCain is old enough to have invented the fig. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 10:41 PM (#2261049) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC I think there's quite a lot of ground between Willie Nelson and Sir Issac Newton. At least six feet. ;-) |
|
12 Feb 08 - 11:03 PM (#2261065) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Ebbie Was Alfred involved? |
|
12 Feb 08 - 11:11 PM (#2261072) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC This one from the 12 Feb 08 - 09:36 PM GUEST post deserves a blue clicky and an excerpt. Really, it deserves a thread of its own, but I'll just put this stuff here... http://www.progressive.org/mag_rothschild0308 One business owner in the United States tells me that InfraGard members are being advised on how to prepare for a martial law situation -- and what their role might be. He showed me his InfraGard card, with his name and e-mail address on the front, along with the InfraGard logo and its slogan, "Partnership for Protection." On the back of the card were the emergency numbers that Schneck mentioned. This business owner says he attended a small InfraGard meeting where agents of the FBI and Homeland Security discussed in astonishing detail what InfraGard members may be called upon to do. "The meeting started off innocuously enough, with the speakers talking about corporate espionage," he says. "From there, it just progressed. All of a sudden we were knee deep in what was expected of us when martial law is declared. We were expected to share all our resources, but in return we'd be given specific benefits." These included, he says, the ability to travel in restricted areas and to get people out. But that's not all. "Then they said when -- not if -- martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn't be prosecuted," he says. |
|
12 Feb 08 - 11:21 PM (#2261079) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Riginslinger Carol - I looked them both up on Wikipedia, and it says they're both still kicking. Am I missing something? |
|
12 Feb 08 - 11:59 PM (#2261110) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Sir Issac Newton is still kicking? That's a neat trick. I want to know how he's doing that. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 12:01 AM (#2261115) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC This is the part that really caught my eye, GUEST, 12 Feb 08 - 11:48 PM... Then they said when -- not if -- martial law is declared |
|
13 Feb 08 - 12:05 AM (#2261121) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: frogprince The 8:57, 9:03, and 9:43 posts here have to top anything I've seen here for pointless idiocy, possibly including the spam for viagra and cialis. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 10:33 AM (#2261380) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Riginslinger "Sir Issac Newton is still kicking?" Once an object labled Newton is placed at rest and then starts kicking, it will remain kicking until it gets and equal and opposite kick in the seat of the pants from a discredited Republican candidate. You heard it here first. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 10:36 AM (#2261383) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: bankley if you think conspiracy theorists are hard to take , what about the coincidence theorists ? Seems to be a lot of coincidence at play surrounding these events.... then again, the Gov't would never do anything to harm its own citizens.... and then lie about it.... would it ? |
|
13 Feb 08 - 10:44 AM (#2261384) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Donuel Jeez Louise, you guys must also think that JFK was asassinated by some sort of CIA Mafia LBJ plot. Of course building 7 was imploded but you are not to talk about the other two. And under no circumstances are you ever to repeat to anyone that GWB's younger brother was the administrator for the WTC security! |
|
13 Feb 08 - 11:34 AM (#2261431) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Amos So...um...why DID WT7 go down into its own footprint? If it was taken down by official act, what was the reasoning for it? A |
|
13 Feb 08 - 11:34 AM (#2261432) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "And under no circumstances are you ever to repeat to anyone that GWB's younger brother was the administrator for the WTC security! " First, which brother are you talking about? The one who was on the board of directors of a company that provided security for a number of airports? Do you know when the contract ended? If this is the same Bush, how is being on a board of directors the same as being an "adminstrator"? Members of the board do not, to my knowledge, carry administrative duties. Who are the other board members? Has anyone checked the rest of this story to see if it is even valid, or are you just referring to one source of information that keeps repeating in numerous publications and websites to give the appearance of multiple sources? |
|
13 Feb 08 - 11:36 AM (#2261436) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "why DID WT7 go down into its own footprint?" Why wouldn't it? |
|
13 Feb 08 - 12:06 PM (#2261468) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Amos Well, because (a) steel girders are usually fireproof (b) explosions usually do not create concentric collapse patterns because they tend to have a linear vector and (c) professionals use carefully placed and timed explosives to make a building fall uniformly inward from all sides, to make a safe demolition, but it is very rare if not unheard of for an accidental collapse to show that kind of uniformity. A |
|
13 Feb 08 - 12:35 PM (#2261491) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Thanks. So it is rare, but not unheard of, for an accidental collapse to show that kind of uniformity. Got it. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 12:58 PM (#2261509) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC I don't think 'rare' is the correct word. I think 'impossible' is the correct word. However, Ron, if you can find any examples to the contrary, I'm sure we'd all love to see them. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:07 PM (#2261522) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D No, no, no, no, no......It has all ***BEEN** explained, if anyone cared to read the clear explanations. But if you want to indulge in wild speculation, just because you 'don't trust anyone', go ahead. I will no longer waste MY time pointing you to reasonable, professional answers when you ignore them. (not even disagree..just plain sheesh!~!! |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:10 PM (#2261524) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC There have been no clear explanations. Just a lot of circular and highly obfuscatory ones. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:10 PM (#2261525) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: pdq Grandpa Jones News... "Ah, yer father's moustache!" |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:20 PM (#2261534) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: bankley 'reasonable, professional answers' from who ?, Rove's buddy, Phil Zelikow, the executitve dir. of the Kean Commission ? Naw, no conflict of interest there..... |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:20 PM (#2261535) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D Carol...regarding WT7...and implosions,,,and 'missles at the pentagon'...and several others...there HAVE been totally clear, scientific, tested explanations by EXPERTS posted! **I** posted many of them myself, gleaned by reading something besides conspiracy sites! There are things 'claimed' that just did not happen, but it takes 17 times as long to DIS-prove speculative claims as it does to just repeat them and take the word of guys who just make statements based on their assumptions, wishful thinking and careless assembling of spurious 'facts'! It's all in past threads... |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:22 PM (#2261537) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: pdq Shirley Jones News... "Shirley, you jest?" |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:23 PM (#2261541) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: bankley anyhow, I like them Jones boys from Texas, George and Alex.... along with ol Willie..... keeps it interesting... take it to the coda.. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:27 PM (#2261546) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Amos So I guess no-one here knows the answer, and I'll hafta go dig it up. Sigh. I hate that. What's the use of a big forum if it doesn't do your homework for you? A |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:30 PM (#2261548) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Carol...regarding WT7...and implosions,,,and 'missles at the pentagon'...and several others...there HAVE been totally clear, scientific, tested explanations by EXPERTS posted! **I** posted many of them myself, gleaned by reading something besides conspiracy sites! I've seen the explanations that you are characterizing as "clear, scientific, and tested" and they were anything but. They were gobbledygook that made no sense, could not stand up to any real scientific scrutiny, and they even conflicted with one another. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:37 PM (#2261554) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: pdq George Jones News... "B-u-u--r-r-r-p!" |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:38 PM (#2261555) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Carol, I could not attempt to prove it possible or impossible. None of us are demolition experts no matter how many websites we visit and clip from, nor did any of us witness it directly (as far as I know). We only can report on what we've seen on video or what we read, and for every theory there is a counter theory. It does bother me when misinformation and cleverly worded statements are made to appear as fact, such as the bit about the Bush boy who ran security. The biggest issue I have with the conspiracy theories is that they are many are illogical and almost all would require too many people to be involved or an incredible string or precisely timed events to make it an incredibly rare possiblity. There has been no clear motive raised that could not have been achieved with less risky and ultimately more effective operations. The possiblities that the attacks involved more than a band of hijackers is rare, but not impossible. It is a romantic notion to believe the government and business that we already distrust could have pulled this off, but most of them could not wipe their ass without a set of instructions and incredible luck. There are certainly circular and highly obfuscatory explantions, but I have read many more circular and highly obfuscatory theories that can't be proven either. In case you are curious, yes, I am familiar with the WTC area, I was in NJ that day and I have an alibi. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:48 PM (#2261563) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Can you even find an example of it ever happening before or since, Ron? BTW, the use of the term "conspiracy theory" is illegitimate. It's sole use is to shut up legitimate debate and questioning of the behavior of our government. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:52 PM (#2261568) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Maybe I could find an example, but what would it prove? Different circumstances, different day. I also disagree that my using a term is illegitimate. When you propose a theory that involves a conspiracy, it becomes a conspiracy theory. Who in their right mind would deny a person the ability to speak their mind and use speech in the way they see fit? I'm not shutting you up, nor am I stifling debate, but it seems that you are trying to do that to me. Shameful tactics. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:53 PM (#2261569) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Amos I've done about six Forum searches and have found no explanation for Buiilding Number 7's demise, although I have found two others posing the same question. ANyone got a pointer out there? A |
|
13 Feb 08 - 01:56 PM (#2261572) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Peace "Pull it!" |
|
13 Feb 08 - 02:03 PM (#2261578) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Peace, there are a lot of people pulling it around here! |
|
13 Feb 08 - 02:04 PM (#2261579) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Amos This description of the details of WT7's demise satisfies my skepticism. A |
|
13 Feb 08 - 02:08 PM (#2261583) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: pdq Elvin Jones News... "I always got a reason to beat the drums". |
|
13 Feb 08 - 02:20 PM (#2261594) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Maybe I could find an example, but what would it prove? Different circumstances, different day. Well, unless you can find an example, I think it's legitimate to say that the word 'rare' is not the right one, but that 'unheard of' (prior to or since WTC7) is. I also disagree that my using a term is illegitimate. When you propose a theory that involves a conspiracy, it becomes a conspiracy theory. If you're going by that definition of 'conspiracy theory' you are also talking about the government's version of events, because so far, all they've got it theories. They've proved nothing. That Wiki article is interesting, Amos, but they still haven't completed their analysis and tests. I would like to see that happen and for the analysis and tests to receive rigorous and open scrutiny by numerous scientists and engineers before I will accept it as an explanation. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 02:34 PM (#2261602) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "I think it's legitimate to say that the word 'rare' is not the right one, but that 'unheard of'" It's rare. You can find the examples yourself if you really try. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 03:28 PM (#2261648) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: pdq Brian Jones News... "I don't need no bloody swimming lessons!" |
|
13 Feb 08 - 03:33 PM (#2261653) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC It's rare. You can find the examples yourself if you really try. Support your own arguments, Ron. I'm not going to do your work for you. If you can't provide an example, then you haven't supported your argument, and we can take that to mean that it can't be supported. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 03:42 PM (#2261658) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D Here's where some WT7 and other 9/11 stuff is discussed at length, including my comments and where I got much information.. "Kerry 'acknowleges' " (to save time, go directly to http://www.debunking911.com/) There are CLEAR answers there...by those who know, not just guess and accuse. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 03:54 PM (#2261665) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Big Mick To continue to call this a planned demolition clearly indicates that evidence means nothing to you. You are so married to your delusions that evidence, no matter how clear and irrefutable, will not move you off your position. But your use of the old conspiracy tactic, which is to switch the burden of proof to those who don't buy into your delusions, won't work here. Scientists and engineers with no dog in this show have answered all your assertions and questions. These are not country and western singers, or comedians. They have laid out exactly how this happens. There has yet to be given, by the tin hat brigade (many of whom inhabit these hallowed cyberhalls) a decent explanation of what motive there would be, nor has there been plausible rationale advanced as to how this planning could have gone on with absolutely no prior indication of it out there. Neither have there been an explanation of how the responsible media that would dearly love to uncover a conspiracy has yet to be able to find one ounce of anything that indicates one. I just reread what I have typed and found myself shaking my head at why I bothered to waste the time. Mick |
|
13 Feb 08 - 04:09 PM (#2261673) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Get a grip Carol. There is no need to provide evidence in a discussion. Your theory is just as valid as any others. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 04:30 PM (#2261689) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Wesley S I'm holding out to see what Carrot Top and Sigfried and Roy have to say about 9/11. Once I know their theories I should be able to make up my mind. The truth is out there....... |
|
13 Feb 08 - 04:58 PM (#2261712) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: pdq St. Andreas Jones News... "It ain't my fault!" |
|
13 Feb 08 - 06:05 PM (#2261741) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Like I said, Bill - circular and obfuscatory. Take this one, for instance... In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800 degrees C...At such temperatures, structural steel suffers a decrease of yield strength and significant viscoplastic deformation (i.e., creep - an increase of deformation under sustained load. http://www.onlineconversion.com/temperature.htm Well maybe it does. And if so, that could explain why the paper survived the peer review process (if, in fact, it did... I didn't see any of the peer reviews included on the page, but for the sake of argument, let's say it did). But the author doesn't say where he gets his figure of 800 degrees C (1472 F), nor does he define what he means by the term 'sustained' in reference to that temperature. How do we know the fire reached that temperature? I have not seen any evidence for this figure. What I have seen is that the only piece of physical evidence that can pin an exact temperature on anything is a piece of metal that didn't come anywhere close to that temperature during the fire. We also have plenty of evidence that the fire was just not that hot. The blackness of the smoke, the people who were standing in the opening, waving, and quite obviously not getting all burned up. The testimony of firefighters on the floors in question who have said there just wasn't much of a fire, etc. Then there's the matter of the word 'sustained'. How long would steel need to be exposed to that temperature in order to behave the way the author says it did? The buildings weren't burning for all that long - an hour or two at most? Is that long enough to accomplish what the author wants us to believe took place? I wouldn't have called that amount of time 'sustained', but nevertheless, the author simply doesn't tell us. This is neither 'clear', nor 'scientific'. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 06:08 PM (#2261747) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Oops. Wrong link. http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm |
|
13 Feb 08 - 06:11 PM (#2261750) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D "Your theory is just as valid as any others."....looking at Ron's tongue, poking thru his cheek. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 06:15 PM (#2261755) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC That's not an argument, Mick. It's a personal attack. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 06:26 PM (#2261764) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Big Mick Nope, Carol, because it wasn't aimed at any one person and it merely expresses my opinion about those folks that continue to make arguments in the face of logic and evidence. If that shoe fits you, put it on, but don't assert I attacked any person. I did not. About the only person who could possibly have a beef over my opinion would be my friend, Bill. I did mention that he shouldn't waste his time. Mick |
|
13 Feb 08 - 06:31 PM (#2261772) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D "the people who were standing in the opening, waving, and quite obviously not getting all burned up." Oh, c'mon! Some were VERY burned up! They didn't GET to stand & wave. They KNOW how hot jet fuel burns, and how much was involved. That's how they were able to say what effect such fires do have on the materials involved....ESPECIALLY structures which had their fireproofing knocked off by impact! The engineers who designed the towers and other EXPERTS agree on what happened...why are we inventing other, more difficult to explain hypotheses? |
|
13 Feb 08 - 06:34 PM (#2261776) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC I do not consider what you said to apply to me, Mick. But I only know of maybe one or two people who post here to whom it could apply (three at most), and you used the term 'many' to refer to the numbers of people you are talking about. If you aren't referring to me, I will take your word for it, but it does look like you are referring to anyone who questions the official version of events. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 06:35 PM (#2261777) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D hmmm..and I did say earlier that I didn't plan to defend this any more. *sigh* I can resist anything but temptation. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 06:40 PM (#2261784) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Big Mick Let me be clear, Carol, so there is no ambiguity. I AM referring to anyone who continues to put forth this nonsense. In a general sense that would include you and the others who continue this. There are many, like you, that I include among folks that I would call friend. But I think that you (meaning all who continue to believe this AND promote it)are dead wrong and letting your desire for a conspiracy to be true, to cloud your judgement. So I guess you could say, in a general sense, it was directed at you. But not you personally. Mick |
|
13 Feb 08 - 06:42 PM (#2261786) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "looking at Ron's tongue, poking thru his cheek." No, I'm just glad to see Carol. Seriously, I was not being sarcastic. There is always a chance that there was a greater conspiracy than what we have been told. I have not been convinced by anything that Alex Jones, Carol, Willie Nelson or the others have presented. I have read what they discuss, and while they ask logical questions, they always lead to a premise that requires too many accomplices or would be too risky for the desired outcome. They created 9/11 in order to go to war? Frankly, there were easier ways to do it. All they had to do is pull something from the LBJ playbook. Until a smoking gun is produced, I'm willing to listen. The "offical" story has more fact and reason behind it then the rest. The official story has holes, but I don't think they are as wide as they are made out to be. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 06:42 PM (#2261787) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: pdq Paula Jones News.. "I said crooked willy, not Crooked Willy " |
|
13 Feb 08 - 07:40 PM (#2261826) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D "The official story has holes,..." well, it has parts that, by definition, cannot ever be 'demonstrated'. There were no live video cameras in most of the debated areas of fire & explosions, and we can't interview the terrorists..(thought we have some taped statements by them). And we can't rebuild it all and do controlled tests. We CAN explain most of the significant details with standard science, interviews of witnesses and experts, and examining ALL the videos & still pictures...not just the ones which 'seem' to support imaginative hypotheses. (The paradigm example is the claim that no 757 hit the Pentagon because you can't 'see' it in the surveillance camera (at one frame per second) and there were no 757 parts in the wreckage...etc. Well, in one edge on one frame of the camera there IS a 757 nose visible, and pictures were taken by EXPERTS showing 757 parts!)...but you STILL have folks making those same claims. They simply are emotionally tied to the idea of a vast conspiracy and missiles and cover-ups, and can't bear to 'shrug' and admit it was only a bunch of clever...and lucky...terrorists. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 08:11 PM (#2261849) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Donuel Bill you mixed and matched seperate events so fast and furiously that it hardly seems like your usual logical approach and more like a polemic editorial. Since you take pointed criticism well I hope that you understand that I am only pointing out the difference between general public observation and your own personal opinionated observation. Seeing that you personally are unable to witness the peculiar chem trail as opposed to a vapor trail in the same sky as I, I would have to say that your powers of visual perception are not overly critical but in fact lacking. The official 9-11 Report has over 32 pages sealed for posterity so that no living person will suffer the consequences. The leaked story says that some of the people are Saudi and some are negligent Americans. They say knowing a little is a dangerous thing. Knowing too much can be fatal and ignorance is bliss. There is historic rational for such an act. There is cheical proof as to a specialized steel melting explosive. There are many witnesses backed up by audio recording of the implosion explosives going off in sequence just prior to collapse Thank goodness none of us here know too much. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 08:22 PM (#2261855) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: fumblefingers Several years ago, a TV news reporter was interviewing Bill Clements, then Governor of Texas, about a law that he'd just signed. The reporter told him what Willie Nelson had said about the law, that he didn't like. Bill said, "Isn't he a country singer? I tell you what: I don't tell him how to sing and he don't tell me how to run Texas." I love Willie's music but his politics sucks. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 08:24 PM (#2261857) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Oh, c'mon! Some were VERY burned up! They didn't GET to stand & wave. They KNOW how hot jet fuel burns, and how much was involved. That's how they were able to say what effect such fires do have on the materials involved....ESPECIALLY structures which had their fireproofing knocked off by impact! Some people were certainly burned by the initial fire. But in order to believe the assertion that there was a sustained fire of 1472 F (!), there would have to be signs of it during the time period after the initial fireball expended itself (remember, too, that most of the fuel burned in the fireball outside of the building). The presence of unburned people standing in that opening with smoke billowing out around them contradicts the theory that the temperature in the fire maintained a sustained temperature of 1472 degrees F. And we also have the accounts of the firefighters and other people who said the fire just wasn't all that big or all that hot. The engineers who designed the towers and other EXPERTS agree on what happened...why are we inventing other, more difficult to explain hypotheses? Actually, they don't all agree. There are literally hundreds of EXPERTS who don't accept the official version. Here's 25 of them... http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html |
|
13 Feb 08 - 08:27 PM (#2261859) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "There is historic rational for such an act." Rational perhaps, but there is no historic precedence for such an involved scheme where the "backfire" would be more catastrophic to the "cause" "There is cheical proof as to a specialized steel melting explosive." Where? "There are many witnesses backed up by audio recording of the implosion explosives going off in sequence just prior to collapse" And there are many witnesses who have explained what the "implosions" were. You have to disregard one set of witnesses to accept the other, without reason. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 08:31 PM (#2261861) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Mick, calling it nonsense is not an argument. It is a personal attack. I have not seen any real arguments from you, using legitimate forms of argumentation or debate, that refute any of the things I have posted. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 08:37 PM (#2261863) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: pdq L. Q. Jones News... "You can't refute buffoonery." |
|
13 Feb 08 - 08:48 PM (#2261872) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: robomatic Congratulations Guest/Guest: "Wind them up and look at them go!" I've heard Alex Jones on the late night AM radio shows which trumpet aliens, conspiracies, and time travel. Alex Jones is full of various conspiracy theories and is only convincing as a potential agent provocateur. His very presence is a discreditation. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 08:49 PM (#2261873) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC This argument that there couldn't possibly be enough accomplices, or that they couldn't keep a secret is very flawed. Our entire intelligence aparatus as well as our other covert agencies, and all of the various organized crime syndicates operate in secrecy every single day. I think it's safe to say that the combined numbers of people committing crimes within all of these various groups easily numbers in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. All of whom do what they do in secrecy every single day. And that's not taking into consideration the possibility that covert agencies from other countries could have helped as well. All you need is a very small number of people at very high levels who are able to utilize the help of people within any of these clandestine groups, and you instantly have enough people to pull it off. And because of the way clandestine organizations work, on a need to know basis, very few of the people involved would have needed to know very much about the full nature of the operation. Many of them could even have been helping without even knowing what they were helping to do. The rationale or motive for members of our own government doing something like this is abundantly apparent. Two wars of choice over natural resources and global dominance, and the steady erosion of our liberties and the destruction of our Constitution here at home. That's more than enough motive. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 08:57 PM (#2261880) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Riginslinger "Two wars of choice over natural resources and global dominance, and the steady erosion of our liberties and the destruction of our Constitution here at home. That's more than enough motive." Not if you lose the wars. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 09:00 PM (#2261882) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "This argument that there couldn't possibly be enough accomplices, or that they couldn't keep a secret is very flawed" Not at all. While the government agencies operate in secrecy, they do not commit crimes of this type - in public. To wire the buildings (did you ever visit the WTC?) and to have a controlled explosion would require complicity on every floor of a 24/7 building. Multiple buildings. Even if they tought they could get away with wiring public floors, the chances of being caught would have been a HUGE risk that would deter the operation from getting approval. Plus, it is very difficult to accept that of all the people combined, not one person would have the morals to say no or come forward. The idea that you need a small number of people at very high levels is flawed. High level people would not do the grunt work required. There is no apparent rational for members of our government doing something like this at all. It is not apparent and saying so does not make it so. Sorry Carol, but the more you speak about this, the more far fetched you are making it sound. Life isn't like that. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 09:01 PM (#2261883) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Even if you lose, if your cronies are able to make massive amounts of money from the war whether you win or not. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 09:02 PM (#2261884) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D I should have listened to me. I KNEW better than to reply. I am a slow typist, and I cannot type fast enough to say what needs to be said. Those who will forever believe claims about these plots & cover-ups and scheming fiends from OUR side will always have more to say. The facts take a finite time to relate...hypotheses can go on forever. I give up..... |
|
13 Feb 08 - 09:36 PM (#2261904) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Not at all. While the government agencies operate in secrecy, they do not commit crimes of this type - in public. Of course they do. Just not usually in this country. But there's no reason they wouldn't if the reasons were compelling enough. To wire the buildings (did you ever visit the WTC?) and to have a controlled explosion would require complicity on every floor of a 24/7 building. Multiple buildings. Even if they tought they could get away with wiring public floors, the chances of being caught would have been a HUGE risk that would deter the operation from getting approval. Plus, it is very difficult to accept that of all the people combined, not one person would have the morals to say no or come forward. I suspect they wouldn't have needed to literally wire them. I bet there's a remote control way to detonate charges that can bring a building down. Nevertheless, the buildings had been closed down for 'security reasons' several times during the weeks prior to 9/11. There's your opportunity. The idea that you need a small number of people at very high levels is flawed. High level people would not do the grunt work required. You misunderstand what I said. You only need a small number of people at high levels who would know the full plan. There's certainly enough people operating within the organized criminal elements in this country and others to do the grunt work. And we know that within the world of organized crime, people will do any kind of terrible thing for money. There's your means. There is no apparent rational for members of our government doing something like this at all. It is not apparent and saying so does not make it so. Sorry Carol, but the more you speak about this, the more far fetched you are making it sound. Life isn't like that. This is your opinion. The actual fact is that money, and who benefits the most, is looked at very closely by law enforcement when motive is being established. If we were to have a new and independent investigation, these factors could receive the scrutiny they require. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 09:47 PM (#2261908) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Big Mick No, Carol, it wasn't a personal attack. It was an observation on the way folks like you debate. Like now. You are trying to turn this into a personal attack on you, when it was very clearly an observation about people like you. It would have been a personal attack if I had said something like, "Carol C is a well known conspiracy nut who sees a boogey man behind every tree, and who has a persecution complex that causes her to always try to turn discussion on an issue into a personal attack on her to fulfill her need for attention". I, of course, would never say such a thing, because I don't like personal attacks. So instead I just made a general observation about the level of this debate. It was directed at no one person in particular, and it was my observation which I am entitled to. So, I am out of this one. My comment stands. Mick |
|
13 Feb 08 - 09:52 PM (#2261915) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: catspaw49 Okay......WTC7 collapsed from explosives designed to bring the building squarely down. So they KNEW exactly what shape the building would be in well in advance.....is that right? I mean they'd have to know, right, I mean to get the controlled demolition........wouldn't they? And they placed the explosives to account for that? Wow........... Who did this this? When did they do this? Nobody noticed this going on huh? Did they expect there would be a fire or building damage done to WTC 7 since the planes had been flown only into the twin towers? And since I'm given to understand that the Towers were also "blown" by the squib charges, what would have happened if one plane or the other had missed? How about if they both missed? Did they also plant charges in other NYC buildings just in case? If you think there are holes in the "Official Explanation" they pale in comparison to the depth and number of chasms offered by the assorted POB (POB-Purveyors of Bullshit) suggestions. Pull it? Yeah, right........I got something you can pull right here but it might be better if y'all pull your pea-brained dickheads out of your ignorant fockin' asses. You say that's a Personal Attack? Oh, dearie, dearie, sweet merciful me.....NO..NO..NO...........Actually its a statement of fact. But if you actually think it a personal attack, compare it to "Fuck off Asshole!" That's not a personal attack either, just a statement used for purposes of comparison. Spaw |
|
13 Feb 08 - 10:11 PM (#2261927) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC If you had any actual arguments to offer, Mick, I wouldn't have said anything. But calling other people's positions nonsense without actually offering anything legitimate to back up that accusation, or even any arguments of your own is definitely ad hominem. It's certainly not debate. Are you talking to me catspaw? As far as I know I'm the only person in this thread who has used the term 'personal attack', but you appear to be responding to stuff that someone else said in your post, and not anything that I said. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 10:29 PM (#2261934) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Nevertheless, the buildings had been closed down for 'security reasons' several times during the weeks prior to 9/11. There's your opportunity." I'm sorry Carol, but the ENTIRE building was never shut down several times. It is not 100% out of the question that they could have planted explosives, but the amount required and the precision requiered makes this an operation that would be just too risky. The war could have occured without 9/11. They did not need to do this. This is not the same as covert acts that the military and government does in other countries. You cannot convince me that someone in the operation would not have talked. No one could buy that much compliance. IF this plan was well done, why did the Pentagon not meet a similar total fate? I'm sorry, but the more you push this theory, you are simply making it easier to realize it could not have been such a consipiracy as you are pushing. You are giving more acceptablity to the prevailing story that a handful of terrorists got lucky with a plane simply because the construction of the building and the materials inside and the conditions of the day made it happen. They pulled off a crime, got "lucky" (in their eyes), and brought down a two buildings. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 10:46 PM (#2261940) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Spaw, I said that there were holes in the official story, but I am not buying into the conspiracy theory as has been presented. I feel the official report did not fully explain what was done leading up to 9/11, and I think they covered up their mistakes that could have prevented this from occuring. I think the report glossed over their failings, and frankly I believe the government planted most of these stories to coverup the real problems. It is easy to get people riled up and going after "controlled demolition" and missles and planes that weren't really planes. When you get so many people chasing in the wrong direction, the real criminals go free. The government and the military had their thumbs up their ass in the days leading to 9/11. They fucked up and did not stop this. Plain and simple English. Until someone can come up with legit reasoning and cohesive thinking, we will deal with theories. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 11:07 PM (#2261948) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC I'm sorry Carol, but the ENTIRE building was never shut down several times. It is not 100% out of the question that they could have planted explosives, but the amount required and the precision requiered makes this an operation that would be just too risky. I disagree. The war could have occured without 9/11. They did not need to do this. This is not the same as covert acts that the military and government does in other countries. The 'war on terror' on the scale they are doing it, along with the erosion of our rights here at home could never have happened without it. They needed something with which to terrorize the voters into compliance. The PNC people even predicted that it would take "a new Pearl Harbor-type event" to get the voters in the US to agree to go along with waging any new wars. You cannot convince me that someone in the operation would not have talked. No one could buy that much compliance. You're entitled to your opinions. The facts are not on your side, however. There's all kinds of ways people can buy compliance. They can threaten people's families, for instance. Numerous people who have tried to come forward have been threatened in one way or another. And of course, here in this thread we have examples of how people behave toward those who would come forward. There definitely have been whistle blowers, and they have either been ignored, or they have been subjected to character assassinations, and even threats. It's not at all difficult to imagine how it could be kept under cover. IF this plan was well done, why did the Pentagon not meet a similar total fate? There were financial motives for the total demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7. There were no motives for anyone to want to destroy the entire Pentagon. I'm sorry, but the more you push this theory, you are simply making it easier to realize it could not have been such a consipiracy as you are pushing. You are giving more acceptablity to the prevailing story that a handful of terrorists got lucky with a plane simply because the construction of the building and the materials inside and the conditions of the day made it happen. They pulled off a crime, got "lucky" (in their eyes), and brought down a two buildings. Like I said, you're entitled to your opinions. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 11:24 PM (#2261956) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "The facts are not on your side, however." That is total bullshit. The facts are not on your side either. You do not have a shred of proof, no motive (contrary to what you are calling motive, which could have been achieved in a less risky operation), and you have no case to back you up. You can have your opinion, but it does not make it fact. |
|
13 Feb 08 - 11:42 PM (#2261961) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Watch this video, Ron. This guy's an architect, by the way... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3118021782753292874&q=%22how+the+towers+fell%22&total=45&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 |
|
14 Feb 08 - 02:45 PM (#2262475) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,highly suspicious The Tri-lateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, 2 of the 3 barely known 35th° Masons, Lee Harvey Oswald's ex-wife, two cloned aliens from the remains of the Roswell incident, ---and paid operatives of 3 large construction companies who wanted the job of rebuilding everything. |
|
18 Feb 08 - 02:08 PM (#2265524) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,guest You know, the U.S. govt said the JFK killing was probably a conspiracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations Attorney Jim Garrison proved in open court that at least 4 bullets (not just Oswald's 3) were fired at Kennedy. That means two shooters--a conspiracy. I like the committee's conclusion that rules out the govt agencies but does NOT rule out people within those agencies (lots of CIA people were in Dallas that day, and the common factor in all presidential assassinations is the Secret Service). So, for those of you who scream 'conspiracy theory' about things like 9/11, you should be aware that the govt admits to the possibility of conspiracies. And Mondale said we need to know why the attacks occurred. So far all we have is a conspiracy theory--19 men, directed by the Cavemen of Tora Bora, hoodooed the planes into their targets. Hardly enough detail to be believable. And architectural standards are now being revised based on a non-investigation that spouted junk science. That will endanger lives in the future. Let go of the Aladdin bin Laden fairy tale. We need an investigation. |
|
18 Feb 08 - 04:17 PM (#2265639) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Riginslinger Okay, Gg. Who should conduct such an investigation? |
|
18 Feb 08 - 04:35 PM (#2265657) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Wesley S And would you believe them? |
|
19 Feb 08 - 02:17 PM (#2266522) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Don Firth Aliens! Don't forget about aliens! Invisible UFOs were hovering over the World Trade Center on 9/11. Nobody reported seeing them. See!?? That proves it!! (You'll note that I'm not wasting my time going over this Don Firth |
|
19 Feb 08 - 02:23 PM (#2266529) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC (You'll note that I'm not wasting my time going over this That's true. You're wasting our time taking cheap potshots at those who are discussing this subject seriously. |
|
19 Feb 08 - 02:55 PM (#2266557) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Don Firth There have been threads 'til hell won't have it on this subject already, and as they developed, the same things were said over and over again. You could save a lot of time and effort by just linking to previous threads, but you've managed to let GUEST,Guest suck you into yet another fogbank of pure ignorance and idle speculation. Nothing is going to be solved unless there is a serious investigation of the matter by an impartial commission. And should that ever happen, I doubt very seriously that a lot of people here would believe their findings. Too much emotional investment in what they already believe. But it's your time, so feel free to waste in any way you want. Don Firth |
|
19 Feb 08 - 03:09 PM (#2266573) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC On the other hand, you could just not open the threads if you think they're a waste of time. But that wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun as taking cheap potshots, would it? |
|
19 Feb 08 - 04:00 PM (#2266633) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "19 men, directed by the Cavemen of Tora Bora, hoodooed the planes into their targets. Hardly enough detail to be believable. " Except of course for all that detail including witness testimony from those in the flight schools, records of their work and movement in the country, videos of them getting on board planes, etc. I guess you mean to say there is hardly enough detail that you are willing to believe. "Nothing is going to be solved unless there is a serious investigation of the matter by an impartial commission. And should that ever happen, I doubt very seriously that a lot of people here would believe their findings. " That statement will probably be true no matter what the finding. Neither side is willing to listen to reason. |
|
19 Feb 08 - 04:31 PM (#2266679) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Don Firth "Cheap potshot." Cogent observation made by someone with whom you disagree. Also works for "personal insult." DDon Firth |
|
19 Feb 08 - 04:45 PM (#2266699) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC You insult your own intelligence with that one, Don. |
|
19 Feb 08 - 05:04 PM (#2266727) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Don Firth How so? Don Firth |
|
19 Feb 08 - 05:34 PM (#2266780) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D Jim Garrison didn't 'prove' diddly-squat. He 'interpreted' data to fuel his theories...There have been so many hi-tech disproofs of his theories in the last few years, that it is a laugh to revive them....Have you seen the very, very detailed computer simulations of the JFK shooting? |
|
19 Feb 08 - 06:16 PM (#2266832) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Have you watched the video I posted a link to in my 13 Feb 08 - 11:42 PM post, Don? |
|
19 Feb 08 - 07:49 PM (#2266919) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I watched the video, and I'm not sure what the point was. He basically rehashed the same ideas and offered no evidence, certainly nothing that would sway an opinion either way. I'm not disclaiming his theories, but there was nothing really convincing. What bothered me was a simple websearch about the speaker. Try it and see what you find. Interesting how some people can make a decent living off of this. It is also interesting that there are no structural engineers who have supported this conspiracy. I know Willie Nelson has been high a few times, but I don't think he has worked on a high rise. It seems that structural engineers realize that the building collapse actually follows the laws of physics. I read a good experiment on one of the sites when I was researching Richard Gage. Place a brick on top of your head. You can feel the weight, but you can easily support it. Have a friend hold the brick, and then kneel down - your friend keeping the brick at the same time. Now ask you friend to release the brick. You will quickly discover that the same load in "free fall" can actually do some damage. Who knows? |
|
19 Feb 08 - 07:56 PM (#2266928) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko By the way, I did check his resume. He never worked on a high rise and the firm that he works with does not show up in any search. I'm sure the firm exists, but it is not a large company. |
|
19 Feb 08 - 10:52 PM (#2267031) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Don Firth Pretty much as I suspected, Ron. I've watched about eleventy-umpteen videos purporting to be absolute proof of a government conspiracy, all of which were made up of supposition, bad physics, and lots of free-floating anger, but none of which were really convincing. But before anyone gets on my case about being closed-minded and accuses me of being good for nothing but "cheap shots," I will watch it. All two bloody hours of it. I grow somewhat jaded by this current wave of conspiracy theories and the nut-balls who insist on peddling them. The latest one I've had laid on me was by a family friend who was all a-twitter about a Near Earth Object, an asteroid recently discovered by astronomers. She was convinced that the asteroid, 2007 TU24, shaped a bit like a potato some 800 feet long and weighing megatons, was going to collide with the earth and destroy it in the wee small hours of the morning of January 29th. She'd heard it on Art Bell's radio program. NASA, she said, was suppressing any news releases because it would cause a worldwide panic. I checked a few astronomy web sites I visit from time to time and found that asteroid 2007 TU24 was going to come close by astronomical standards, but it would miss the earth by some 334,000, miles. Somewhat beyond the moon's orbit. Astronomers were interested, but not concerned. That wasn't good enough. Follow-up reports, she told me, said that the asteroid would indeed miss the earth, but that it was "ionized," and as it passed the earth, it would cause a "plasma discharge" which would set fire to the earth's atmosphere. We would all be vaporized! You just can't let a good reason for panic—or a good conspiracy theory—die! Asteroid 2007 TU24 passed the earth uneventfully at 3:33 Pacific Standard Time on the morning of January 29th. I've seen her since. Being a kindly fellow, I didn't point out that we're still here. I made no mention of it. Neither did she. But she still listens to Art Bell. Religiously. I think she likes the excitement it brings to her life. Don Firth |
|
19 Feb 08 - 11:03 PM (#2267044) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Don Firth Addendum. Apparently Art Bell is semi-retired. George Noory now hosts the program. I don't listen to it. I'm usually asleep by then. Don Firth |
|
19 Feb 08 - 11:09 PM (#2267050) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC It is also interesting that there are no structural engineers who have supported this conspiracy. You may not be aware of them, but there certainly are structural engineers who support this version of events. I know their names (and even their words) have been posted numerous times in these threads. Pretty much any time people post the accounts of people like that, they get ignored, and then later on people say that such people don't support this version. It's simply not true. |
|
19 Feb 08 - 11:19 PM (#2267058) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC By the way, Ron, I hope you don't think the opinion you expressed about the Richard Gage video qualifies as an expert debunking of anything he said. Or even as a layman's debunking of it. You did not provide any counter arguments for anything he said, other than to vaguely characterize it as "offering no evidence". Opinions vary on this obviously, since I think he did offer evidence. A lot of it. |
|
19 Feb 08 - 11:21 PM (#2267062) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Big Mick Carol, you are a master of obfuscation. |
|
19 Feb 08 - 11:47 PM (#2267071) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Mick, I think it's you and the other people who are using these kinds of emotionally charged, but intellectually bankrupt tactics that are the "masters of obfuscation". Some of us don't believe the government's version of events. We are entitled to discuss this without being attacked by you and the others who think they have a right to tell us what to think. |
|
20 Feb 08 - 08:35 AM (#2267288) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko What was there to debunk that hasn't already been brought into question? He really did not offer anything new that has not been discussed and already debunked in this and other threads. Actually, debunk is a strong word - these are all theories after all. I did offer counter-arguements and I would like to know what other "structural" engineers have supported this theory. |
|
20 Feb 08 - 12:02 PM (#2267486) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D "Some of us don't believe the government's version of events." It is one thing to not automatically believe the government's version of things ....it is quite another to automatically DIS-believe everthing. That way, you can fill your entire life with investigations and speculation. (...and make a good start on dragging many others into pointless speculation...*wry smile*) |
|
20 Feb 08 - 12:48 PM (#2267556) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Don Firth GUEST,Guest posts a couple of times, reopening a subject that has already been beaten to death several times, then sits back and watches the fun. Undoubtedly laughing up his/her sleeve. Don Firth |
|
20 Feb 08 - 01:04 PM (#2267572) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: bankley Ol' Willie just doesn't care to drink the Kool-aid.... I don't blame him.... and of course he was smeared in the 'responsible' media for his recent comments... 'that long haired, dope smokin' bearded weirdo said... blah, blah.. and what does he know anyway ?' Kinda sounds like some folks around here.... but he's an honest man, down to earth, admits that he doesn't come close to having all the answers... but ,like many, he has his suspicions... and why shouldn't he ,given all the official bullshit that's been dished out in the not too distant past.... it's ongoing.... I like his music and his stance and his questioning mind.... I don't have to agree on all of it, but I can sense that he's a good man.... In other related news, he just turned down an offer from the Gov't of Texas to name a toll highway after him...saying that he'd rather have an electric chair named after him..... |
|
20 Feb 08 - 01:22 PM (#2267591) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Big Mick Actually, Carol, it was more of an observation than an attack. But you like the term attack, so go ahead and believe it. For clarification of what you do, see Bill D's remark of 20 Feb 08 - 12:02 PM. That fits very well,I would say. Mick |
|
20 Feb 08 - 07:12 PM (#2267997) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Well, Mick, and Bill, I didn't disbelieve the government's version of events at first, so Bill's characterization is nothing more than extremely dishonest psychobabble. And I would suggest that he's not qualified to make such an analysis of my thought processes anyway. For one, because he doesn't live inside my head, and secondly, because he's simply not qualified to be making those kinds of analyses on anyone, for any reason. I began to wonder if the government version of events wasn't entirely right when they began to use 9/11 to justify invading Iraq. I didn't automatically believe that the government was directly responsible right away either. Originally I figured they just "allowed" it to happen. It wasn't until at least a couple of years after 9/11, and possibly more, that I began to suspect that the government was directly responsible, and I came to that way of looking at it as a result of all of the things that didn't (and still don't) add up in their story. There's just too many of them. And there's too much evidence that points to government complicity. Not the whole government, probably, but certainly some sort of rogue element within the government. But you guys have this deep seated need to use ad hominem means of discrediting anyone who doesn't see it the way you do. And Mick... it is and was an attack. Ron, I don't have time to hunt them down right now. I'll get to it when I can, and respond to your post then. |
|
20 Feb 08 - 08:33 PM (#2268085) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D My gracious, Carol ..."dishonest psychobabble"?...I am not 'analyzing' anyone! I'm responding to a post I found upsetting. And I'll guarantee that dishonesty is far from MY motives! YOU made the sweeping, un-modified remark suggesting that the govt. (noting you mean mostly higher administration) was not to be trusted about anything. Even *I* certainly didn't believe for a minute that they hadn't planned to go into Iraq on ANY pretense, but to suggest/imply they had some sort of complicity in EITHER planning or covering up the 9/11 attacks... or enough foreknowlege to be involved in engineering part of the building destruction is a VERY serious charge. It not only belies belief, it gives 'them' credit for more abilities than I think they have! The problem is that, once you posit several things as likely, an amazing list of other things can 'seem' to follow, and you fall into the trap of needing to doubt all contrary evidence in order to maintain your original theory. History is full of examples of well-meaning people getting caught up in 'theories' which could not stand without resort to various other unproven ideas and/or data. I have never doubted your sincerity and concern...only your choice of presumptions about facts. It ain't easy in today's world to walk in the 'gray' areas, but that's where most issues lie. |
|
20 Feb 08 - 08:53 PM (#2268100) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Big Mick Carol, you have a need to feel "attacked" whenever anyone disagrees with you specifically, or generally. You then try to turn the argument and make yourself out to be the victim, and take high road status. I hope you don't mind that I don't play along. You need to grasp a concept. When you post an opinion, or adopt a specific type of debate tactic, you have to be able to take the heat, or praise, for those. The fact that someone disagrees does not necessarily constitute an attack. It is my opinion that, in this thread, you are resorting to the tactic of obfuscation. Bill, and others, have answered each of your assertions, and your response is to try and turn that back on them, using the "oh yeah" kind of strategy. Your attempting to portray Bill D, a man you have met and know, as dishonest is an example of this. For those that don't know Bill, he is as straight a shooter as there is. While he and I have disagreed on certain topics, sometimes mightily so, he is as honest and honorable a person as you will ever meet. Toss in a healthy dose of likability, and the fact that he married far above his station ***chuckle***, and you understand why CarolC deserves to get knocked for this tactic. I am no fan of this administration. I believe that impeachment hearings are in order for the actions which led us into Iraq. But there is not a shred of credible evidence to show that they were complicit in the 9/11 terrorist act. Mick |
|
20 Feb 08 - 09:15 PM (#2268123) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC YOU made the sweeping, un-modified remark suggesting that the govt. (noting you mean mostly higher administration) was not to be trusted about anything. Where did I make this comment? (I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with it, but I don't recall making it.) Nevertheless, although I don't trust the government any more, I used to trust the government, but I learned the hard way that this is not a good idea. So you're still making unwarranted assumptions if you are suggesting that I arrived at this way of looking at things prior to encountering empirical evidence. Even *I* certainly didn't believe for a minute that they hadn't planned to go into Iraq on ANY pretense, but to suggest/imply they had some sort of complicity in EITHER planning or covering up the 9/11 attacks... or enough foreknowlege to be involved in engineering part of the building destruction is a VERY serious charge. It not only belies belief, it gives 'them' credit for more abilities than I think they have! This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, as I am to mine. The problem is that, once you posit several things as likely, an amazing list of other things can 'seem' to follow, and you fall into the trap of needing to doubt all contrary evidence in order to maintain your original theory. More assumptions. It's not logic. In order to make such a statement, you have to assume that the reason I doubt the contrary evidence is specifically because I want to maintain my original theory. There are two glaring flaws in this reasoning. The first is that you are assuming that the theory I have now was my original one, and not one that I arrived at after examining a lot of the evidence on both sides of the argument. I already pointed out to you that this is the opposite of how I arrived at my current stance, but yet you are still clinging to it. This is dishonest. The second flaw is that you have to assume that my reason for rejecting the evidence that you, yourself accept is only because it contradicts a theory that you agree with, rather than because I found the evidence that you accept to be fundamentally flawed. This is not logical (and it's not particularly honest). I have said that I find the evidence that you accept to be fundamentally flawed, and that is the reason I don't accept it. For you to suggest that what I am saying about my motives is not true, simply because you disagree with my conclusions, is dishonest. I have already pointed out many of the flaws that I see in the official versions of events. You may not accept these as valid, but that is your opinion. I am entitled to my own opinion, and if you try to suggest that you know better what my motives are for holding the opinions I hold than I do, you are being dishonest. I have examined the evidence on both sides, after coming from my original stance of accepting the government's version of events, through a long and fairly exhaustive search of all of the evidence I could find, on both sides of the argument, and I have arrived at the conclusion that the government's story has too many holes in it, too many inconsistencies, too many convenient coincidences, and too many improbabilities to be even remotely believable. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it. I have never doubted your sincerity and concern...only your choice of presumptions about facts. You are making presumptions about what you are calling my presumptions. You are the one who is guilty of flawed reasoning. Really, Bill, for someone who studied and champions the virtues of logic, you are one of the less logical people I've ever encountered. |
|
20 Feb 08 - 09:26 PM (#2268131) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Mick, you're making stuff up. People disagree with me all the time, and it's not really all that often when I say I'm being attacked. You have not been arguing the merits of whatever your opinions are on this subject. What you have been doing is attacking people whose opinions you don't like. When people make arguments about the actual subject, even when they disagree with me, they are not making personal attacks. When people, as you have been doing, make comments about the people who are discussing the issue, that are derogatory in nature, as you have done, that is an attack. You can't say that you have only been disagreeing with me, because you haven't really been discussing the subject at all. You've been discussing the people who are discussing the subject. And you have been doing so in a derogatory manner. Present your evidence. Let us discuss it and decide for ourselves if we agree with it or not. Defend your arguments, and let us decide for ourselves if we think you have done so to our satisfaction. But don't call us the "tin hat brigade" and tell us that we are "married to our delusions". That is not an argument, it's an attack. |
|
20 Feb 08 - 09:47 PM (#2268140) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk Oh, they have the ability to do something like that, Bill. They definitely do. They have the personnel, the expertise, the equipment, and the means. The only question is whether they had the will to do it, whether they were that ruthless and ammoral. And another question would then be, who specifically knew about it and who didn't? Who was in the loop and who wasn't? I also fully believed the offical story about 911 at the time it happened and for a long time afterward...until I became aware of a lot of very troubling aspects to the official story. I gradually came around to a suspicion that the official story was a coverup, and that there had been the use of controlled demolitions on 911...at least in Building 7, and very likely in Buildings 1 & 2. As for the Pentagon, the physical evidence there did not support the notion that a huge twin engive airliner hit the building. The photographic evidence did not support it. There should have been two large holes in the building on either side of the central strike area...holes made by the engines. There were no such holes. There should have been extensive damage caused by the wings and tail unit. Again, it wasn't there. There should have been extensive damage to the lawn. Again, it wasn't there. Something made one single central hole that pierced through a whole series of strong walls. What was it? I don't know, but I sure don't think it was the central fuselage of a large twin-engine airliner. And if it was...where did the engines go? They are the heaviest and hardest things on one of those planes by far. They would have made 2 large holes on either side of the central hole. There are a huge number of surveillance cameras mounted on the Pentagon, covering every angle. Enough of them to show without a doubt what happened. We haven't seen those films. All we have seen is one really poor video from a camera in the parking lot which shows a brief white "something" (which is absolutely unidentifiable) and a sudden flash of fire. Why have we not seen any of the video from the many other cameras on that building which would have provided evidence? Probably because it would compromise the official story, I would think. Think about it. If something had happened on 911 that would compromise some of the highest levels of government and military to the extent that the public would utterly lose faith in their leaders....well, I can understand why they would cover it up! Bloody right they would. Even if many of them were in no way guilty of participating. They simply could not afford the hell that it would raise in the country, the loss of faith, the effects on foreign policy. It would be unthinkable. Suppose Bush himself was not in the loop...but some of his people were. He would not want it to come out. He wants his war in Iraq, he wants foreign terrorists to be seen as the only enemy, he does not want a government-destroying scandal of Biblical proportions on the home turf. He would cover it up...even if he himself was in no way guilty of planning it. That's my opinion, and it's just an opinion. The best guess I can make. I don't know what happened on that day, and I doubt that any of us ever will. These things usually remain buried forever, because too many heads would fall if they were uncovered. (as in the case of the Kennedy assassination/coup) |
|
20 Feb 08 - 09:57 PM (#2268152) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Big Mick Nah, Carol, I don't think so. You see, I have been around the old joint so long, that I have seen what engaging in that discussion with conspiracy folks yields. It is, quite frankly, a waste of time. I have presented my views on the subject at hand in a number of threads. I think I prefer, in this thread, to simply point out that I think certain folks are so caught up in their need for a conspiracy, that they simply cannot accept anything that doesn't agree with their need. It is kind of like the life long guerilla fighter that is faced with peace. If they accept it, they are out of a job. For some, that is a daunting prospect and they look for all kinds of reasons and justifications to "keep up the struggle". Anyways, carry on....... and on ....... and on....... Mick |
|
20 Feb 08 - 10:37 PM (#2268186) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko It's all opinion. None of us know squat about this, other than what we clip from other websites - often without fully researching. We seem to find posts that fit our theories and stop thinking. Simply finding a post does not make it a fact. Everyone is trying to figure out WHAT the towers was brought down and WHO did it, but no one is really concentrating on the HOW and WHY. There has not been a single conspiracy that can logically explain HOW the criminals did the supposed deed without being caught or eliminate potential failures. It is one thing to spout bullshit about dynamic loads, laws of physics and other crap that the writer knows less than nothing about, but try to figure out and explain how the conspiracy worked and who pulled off the job. Then try to figure out a motive - and I'll scream if I hear the lame excused that the goverment wanted to start a war. Even though I see the logic in them trying to create a war, you cannot come up with a logical reason why they would choose such a risky path that could backfire with extreme consequence - when a war could have been provoked with less risky and more effective means. There are hundreds of questions that need answered, but I don't see most people buying into theories without some logical and basic questions answered. Even Willie Nelson backtracked on what he was quoted as saying. Face it, we are all having a good time in this playground, but the reality is - nobody gives a rats ass what any of us say beyond the border of Mudcat. |
|
21 Feb 08 - 12:01 AM (#2268236) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D Carol...it is beyond me how you got to those conclusions about my answer...I give up. Little Hawk....you make me shake my head in disbelief that YOU are still repeating that tired, 14 times disproven and explained nonsense about the Pentagon! It has ALL been explained, documented and photographed! INCLUDING pieces of those engines! Holes? The wall collapsed! The wings folded on impact and helped the fuselage make that ONE entry point. Pieces of wing & engine were found both inside AND outside the building. Photos were posted of them...did you look at them? And the 'controlled demolition' crap has also been,,,,,, ...I....never mind...my wife is telling me I have to quit this and go to bed. |
|
21 Feb 08 - 01:00 AM (#2268254) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk Yeah, yeah... ;-) Hell, guys...Bill, Mick, Ron, whoever...I also gave up discussing this on Mudcat a long time ago for the very same reasons you give...it's no use. People have their minds all made up, whichever side of the fence they're on...and no one outside cares a rat's ass what any of us thinks anyway, and it won't change anything, and it all becomes futile sounds in a little echo chamber called "Mudcat Cafe". That's why I barely ever even post on this subject lately. So, see, I feel exactly the same way you guys do about it, only from the opposite angle, that's all. We mystify each other in exactly the same fashion. We are all amazed, almost dumfounded that the other guy can't see it as we do, given available information. I DO think it was done to provide an excuse for war (and a financial windfall for certain key players). For those reasons and none other. (Go ahead, Ron...scream...) But so what? I don't KNOW that, it's only what I think is most probable, and it's useless talking about it here. It makes no difference to anything or anyone. It's totally blind dead dog useless. More useless than trying to glue an egg yolk to a cement wall or wrestle a jellyfish. All any of us knows is what someone else has said about it. We weren't there. We don't know who's lying and who isn't and we never will. So let's all do what Spaw used to say with a big grin on his face, "Have a smile and a coke and shut up." And Have a nice rest, Bill. ;-) |
|
21 Feb 08 - 09:24 AM (#2268486) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko You have your opinion, I have mine. Neither of us have facts to back it up - but let's let common sense dictate. The rest of the world can make up their own mind, none of us are going to change opinion no matter what we think of ourselves. |
|
21 Feb 08 - 11:30 AM (#2268599) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: bankley yeah and in the end , I think we're all on the same side around here.. it just gets a bit crowded and testy on a transcontinental trip in a minivan..... at least ol' Willie has a Silver Eagle runnin' on home-made biofuel... |
|
25 Feb 08 - 12:05 AM (#2271575) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC You are entitled to your opinions, Mick. I would only point out that if you think it's a waste of time to participate in these kinds of threads, it seems a bit counterintuitive (and a bit petty) for you to be posting on them just to make disparaging comments about those who don't see it as a waste of time. |
|
25 Feb 08 - 12:10 AM (#2271577) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Bill, it's beyond me to know how I could possibly come to any other conclusions about your post than the ones I did. If you have some other meaning that eluded me, I will be happy to see it explained. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 02:15 AM (#2278952) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,guest Been saving this to post here. Excellent piece. Explains why mudcat locks people out: Think about what you allow yourself to know.... Nineteen men pass through airport security. Eleven of them are stopped and questioned but then allowed to board. Several large passenger planes wind up hijacked and flown at high speed into enormous buildings. None of these men had shown previous capacity to accomplish this feat. These men were armed with box cutters. No jet fighters were scrambled to intercept these planes, although the authorities in charge of such actions knew immediately what was happening. Airport traffic controllers were ordered to destroy all recorded evidence of the event. Some of them physically broke the CD's and scattered the pieces into different trash containers at the airports. Within hours, three of the biggest buildings in the city, buildings designed to absorb the impact of the very planes which hit them, all crumbled into their own footprints at the speed of freefall.... ...the ringleader of these men and some associates were observed by the FBI boarding a gambling boat belonging to Jack Abramoff. These men were tracked to Las Vegas and watched by the FBI, yet they passed through the airport security checkpoints. Even though eleven of them were stopped and questioned they still boarded. On the day of the event several men were observed videotaping the attack as it happened. They were seen to be dancing and celebrating as well. The police stopped and arrested them. They were found to be Mossad agents. Some time later they were quietly released and returned to their home country with no reasons given.... As a result of this event, major wars have been launched. Over a million people have died with nearly another 5 million displaced.... In every event… in New York City… in a Pennsylvania field… at The Pentagon… all of the evidence is contradictory. The amount of evidence on every level that directly refutes what we have been told fills thousands of pages. Meanwhile, the administration and the [Democratic] congress belligerently oppose any inquiry into the matter.... Therefore… therefore… here is what you must know, given that the official story is patently absurd. Anyone… anyone who promotes the official story; who accepts the official story, who oppresses those who doubt the official story, who does not question the official story, is involved or too stupid to pat their head and chew gum at the same time. Any presidential candidate who does not dispute the official story is a traitor to their nation and a tool of those who accomplished the attack. It all comes down to 9/11. Everything that has happened has happened based on a lie. Everyone in government; in the media, in entertainment, in organized religion, in the public eye and in the public who accepts and promotes the official story is either a traitor or a tool. Everyone who does not stand forth and speak truth to power is a coward, a liar and complicit in mass murder. Everyone- everywhere can be measured according to this litmus test. http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/2008/02/911-is-litmus-test.html It's primary day in Texas tomorrow, and I've been making the local candidates explain to me what happened on 9/11. Man o man. It is so freakin funny when the grayhairs stand up and start talking about boxcutters and caves in Afghanistan. At every event people have looked around at one another like children waking up after naptime. Blinking eyes, raised eyebrows...wondering if they're hearing right. Did their candidate for sheriff just gibber and stammer something about Sobamma Hussein bringing down the towers? Hilarious. I think it's something in the TV signals commanding people not to think about 9/11, and then when they try to articulate the govt position, it sounds absolutely ludicrous. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 10:59 AM (#2279233) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D I count over 30...close to 40.... places this has been posted. Much easier than actually saying something of your own, huh? (and you left out the quotation marks) I don't see how a piece with a few obvious by trivial truths can be mixed with 2/3 repetition of myths, out & out falsities and a total disregard for reason, and still get so many fools to fall for it.......well, yes I do. "From false premises, anything follows" ... once suspicion & innuendo are your major sources, you can show that John Wayne was a commie. No, I will NOT re-argue each little point. You **BELIEVE**, so you wouldn't see reason if it sat in your lap. bye.... |
|
04 Mar 08 - 12:02 PM (#2279299) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Teribus Guest Guest's cut'n'paste: 9/11 is the Litmus Test. There is one thing that defines everyone over the course of these early years of this new century. That thing is the 9/11 attack. Everyone in government and every field of endeavour the world over is defined by their position on this event. It is not necessary to know the truth. It is only necessary to know the extent of the lies in order to define any leader in any position anywhere in the world. By what they have said and by what they have not said, one can accurately judge who is an enemy of the people's of the world. One can accurately determine who is a tool of the psychopaths or one of them. Think about what you allow yourself to know. Think about what you pass by; ignore, deny and defend ...that defines you. It defines the degree of your personal courage, your relationship to the truth, your values, your principles and what you will pass on to your children and everyone you meet. It tells you in that place where your conscience must once have lived whether you are a hypocrite and a fool or whether something greater still lives within you. Point 1: "Nineteen men pass through airport security." – Yes GG, utterly remarkable – millions do it each day. Point 2: "Eleven of them are stopped and questioned but then allowed to board." – Another common everyday occurrence even happened to me on a number of occasions. Point 3: "Several large passenger planes wind up hijacked and flown at high speed into enormous buildings." – Matter of recorded fact. Point 4: "None of these men had shown previous capacity to accomplish this feat." – Now then GG can you explain how they could demonstrated any "previous capacity to accomplish this feat". Point 5: "These men were armed with box cutters." – Not discovered when they boarded because these men who had "shown no previous capacity to accomplish this feat" had done their homework, they had thoroughly reconnoitred the airports and their security arrangements beforehand. Point 6: "No jet fighters were scrambled to intercept these planes, although the authorities in charge of such actions knew immediately what was happening." – All that was known at the time was that aircraft had been hijacked. Please provide links that prove that at the time the aircraft were taken over that authorities knew they were going to be deliberately rammed into buildings. The writer of the article also displays a remarkable ignorance of the realities of interception, it is no simple matter and nowhere near as easy as shown in the movies. Point 7: "Airport traffic controllers were ordered to destroy all recorded evidence of the event." – Then perhaps "smokingmirrors" a far from objective blogg can tell us all who it was that fictitiously ordered all recorded evidence destroyed. Apparently the only thing that was destroyed was one single tape recording (Note tape recording GG not a CD) that was made on the condition that it was never to entered as evidence and was only made as an aide-memoire for the ATC's on duty for when they gave their official witness statements later. Here is what the FAA, the 9/11 Commission and their Union Representatives said about it, as reported in the Washington Post: START QUOTE - The FAA said it has provided thousands of documents to government investigators and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, known as the 9/11 commission. "We believe the audiotape in question appears to be consistent with written statements and other materials provided to FBI investigators and would not have added in any significant way to the information contained in what has already been provided to investigators and members of the 9/11 commission," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin. The 9/11 commission does not allege that FAA employees were attempting to cover up information related to the terrorist attacks. A spokesman for the commission yesterday said that it has received all information it sought from the FAA and that it interviewed controllers involved with the tape. Evidence in the report and from the air traffic controllers union suggests that the decisions to make the recording and later to destroy it were meant to conform to traditional protocols following a plane crash. The actions also were aimed at protecting controllers who were under excessive stress and emotion, according to union officials representing the controllers. According to union officials representing air traffic controllers, it is almost unheard of to tape-record an air traffic controller's account of an accident. The normal procedure is for controllers to provide written statements after reviewing radar and other data. A union official representing the New York controllers agreed to the tape recording on Sept. 11 because the union wanted to help law enforcement officials, but only on the condition that the tape was to be a "temporary" document, a union official said. – END QUOTE Point 8: "Some of them (Air Traffic Controllers) physically broke the CD's and scattered the pieces into different trash containers at the airports." – Now that would be rather difficult wouldn't it GG as there were no CD's there was only one single tape recording destroyed by a Federal Aviation Administration manager called Delaney. Point 9: "On the day of the event several men were observed videotaping the attack as it happened." – I would rather imagine that a far, far, greater number than several could have been observed videotaping the attack as it happened, particularly by judging the cell phone camera coverage of the event. Point 10: "They were seen to be dancing and celebrating as well." – Unproven opinion only not established fact; the men themselves denied this emphatically. Point 11: "The police stopped and arrested them. They were found to be Mossad agents. Some time later they were quietly released and returned to their home country with no reasons given." – There were over 1000 people rounded up that day, most like the Israelis were held for approximately 71 days before being released. Point 12: "The men videotaping and celebrating had to have known about the attack in advance in order to have been in a position to film it." – does that apply to CNN, CBC, BBC, I believe that they all filmed the event too. GG can you shed any light on who forewarned them? Point 13: "Bin Laden denied any connection to this attack. Direct evidence of this exists and no evidence of his admitting his involvement exists." – Strange that GG OBL admitted responsibility for the attacks on 29th/30th October 2004 in an authenticated message. According to interviews by Al-Jazeera as well as United States interrogations of al-Qaeda members Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (captured in 2002 and 2003 respectively), Khalid Mohammed was the instigator and prime organizer of the attacks. Binalshibh may have been picked as a hijacker but he failed to get into the U.S. - None of which is fabrication and hearsay. Point 14: "As a result of this event, major wars have been launched." – Really GG "major wars launched" – Where have these major wars been launched?? Who are the protagonists?? Point 15: "Over a million people have died with nearly another 5 million displaced." – Nothing remotely like GG Point 16: "The wreckage (WTC Debris) was gathered together and shipped overseas. No one was allowed to investigate it." – Just read the the US Navy's newest Amphibious Assault Ship USS New York was made from steel salvaged from Ground Zero. Also here's what one engineering major said about that: New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg insisted there are better ways to study the tragedy of September 11. "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do," said Bloomberg, a former engineering major. "Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything." Point 17: "In every event… in New York City… in a Pennsylvania field… at The Pentagon… all of the evidence is contradictory." – No it does not. Point 18: "Any presidential candidate who does not dispute the official story is a traitor to their nation and a tool of those who accomplished the attack." – Now that would be good one, a real litmus test, for you to put to both Obama and Hilary GG, I somehow tend to think that in the wake of their answers they will find themselves classified as being too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time. Point 19: "Everyone in government; in the media, in entertainment, in organized religion, in the public eye and in the public who accepts and promotes the official story is either a traitor or a tool." – Clearly the ravings of a paranoid barking lunatic Point 20: "Everyone who does not stand forth and speak truth to power is a coward, a liar and complicit in mass murder." – As above, how pathetic, "Everyone who doesn't agree wholeheartedly with what I say is a coward, a liar and complicit in mass murder. Point 21: "I have included here only a very small portion of the damning evidence that runs counter to the official lies. The preponderance of evidence that refute the official lies is overwhelming." – In fact no "evidence" has been produced at all. Point 22: "Hear me people. We know who you are and we know who we are. We see you lie and we see you murder. We see. You are going down. It may not be today and it may not be tomorrow but you are going down. And you… all of you who know and who abet and serve the empire of darkness; all of you who have sold your honor and integrity for a place at the table, for the opportunity to run your mouths about banal tripe and be a hearty-fellow-well-met among the psychopaths, who lurk like jackals among the lions, who are complicit in this evil… you will be shamed beyond endurance for having been such a whore and a fool for table scraps at the cost of your humanity." – Now then GG that I found absolutely hilarious, whoever wrote this is obviously as mad as a March hare. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 12:42 PM (#2279341) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS Mick, You haven't changed a hair since the first words I ever read from you. In that case you didn't mention me by name but made it clear that anyone who said what I said was a horse's patoot. When you bluster onto a thread like this you are amusing, controversial, often sarcastic and always judgemental. It is your obvious that your tactic is ridicule and your object is to get people to give up their stances. It is certainly NOT an observation. You do not make a convincing case that it is not an attack. Is it a personal attack? I don't know. Is using an RPG as personal as a sniper rifle? I'm not asking you to stop doing this as I once did in the name of Mudcat harmony and to preserve a patina of fairness to protect your status as a defacto moderator. That horse has long left the barn. Also I like you the way you are. But please don't pretend that you are not on the attack when you do so. It is obvious, on the face of it, to any third party reading the words below, that an attack is taking place. To continue to call this a planned demolition clearly indicates that evidence means nothing to you. You are so married to your delusions that evidence, no matter how clear and irrefutable, will not move you off your position. But your use of the old conspiracy tactic, which is to switch the burden of proof to those who don't buy into your delusions, won't work here. Scientists and engineers with no dog in this show have answered all your assertions and questions. These are not country and western singers, or comedians. They have laid out exactly how this happens. There has yet to be given, by the tin hat brigade (many of whom inhabit these hallowed cyberhalls) a decent explanation of what motive there would be, nor has there been plausible rationale advanced as to how this planning could have gone on with absolutely no prior indication of it out there. Neither have there been an explanation of how the responsible media that would dearly love to uncover a conspiracy has yet to be able to find one ounce of anything that indicates one. I just reread what I have typed and found myself shaking my head at why I bothered to waste the time. Mick |
|
04 Mar 08 - 01:19 PM (#2279380) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS I, like Willie, find it difficult to believe that a couple of planes did all that damage. I am also certain that certain things were covered up. Certainly two things that were buried were the involvement of certain Saudi Allies of the Bushes and the danger to rescue workers from the fumes. Why were Israeli Mossad members dancing on to of theri van as they witnessed the destruction? Why was that story buried? But I am as skeptical of the various theories put forth as I am of the official version. Ron and Bill, though I am somewhat with you about the science. We differ greatly about motives and capabilities. The Rangers and Marines have trained hundreds of men capable of the demolition. I've met a couple of them. I believe that given a small few tons of plastique, cell phone detonators and access to the buildings, the charges could have been placed over the labor day weekend. Why that would be done given the damage the planes themselves would have done eludes me. More drama? Easier cleanup? Destruction of evidence? Neocons do not think small. As per motive isn't the PNAC enough? Anyone who would sign such a document is obviously a lunatic. The WTC/Pentagon attacks are so similar to the historic Pearl Harbor event that it is uncanny. Why couldn't they have simply found a few more lunatics to set the charges? It seems very likely to me that those religio-patriotic fanatics who share a belief that God is order them to make America rule the word for their own benefit would talk to each other. On the other hand, Why couldn't the Bushes have enlisted their family friends, the Bin Ladens to find warm gullible bodies to fly those coincidentally nearly empty jumbo jets into those buildings? It seems to me that opportunity and motive are the most plausible components of these theories. They couldn't keep a secret? Another red herring from you two. That is a non sequitor and not a particularly plausible one. Certain parts of the government are FANTASTIC at keeping secrets. Were the F117s flying for ten years before the general public knew. About half the Shuttle flights since the start of the program have been military. Can you tell us specifically the objectives of more than a few of those missions and whether they were accomplished? Those were "conspiracies" involving far more people and technology than demolishing a few buildings. I don't think it happened that way. But it is not as implausible as you gentlemen are suggesting. There is one thing that I find very curious. If you three, Ron, Bill, and Mick feel that this ground has been covered enough, why, are you ridiculing those who do not? Why don't you give up the taunting and let the irrefutable facts as you see them speak for themselves? You seem to imply that you do not like rancor, yet you say things that seem to feed it. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 01:34 PM (#2279401) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS Point 15: "Over a million people have died with nearly another 5 million displaced." – Nothing remotely like GG The 5 million displaced is certainly a low figure. From the News reports I have heard, nearly five million refugees have left Iraq. That does not include internal displacement and displacement within Afghanistan from the Taliban fight and a million in Lebanon from Neocon sponsored aggression. I'm not sure about a million dead. But bodies, hundreds per day victims of violent death, have shown up at the Baghdad morgue that US propagandists will not count as war victims. Apparently they do not want to take credit for the chaos and civil strife that their carelessness allowed. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 01:37 PM (#2279405) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish So I'm stupid, a coward and a liar and complicit in mass murder because I believe the planes alone caused the destruction of the Towers? Funny, I had no idea I was such a bad person. Seriously, for anyone who would accuse me of such bullshit, I raise my fist with middle finger proudly raised and say a loud fuck you. I do not believe any of this. One thing no one has addressed. If the government wanted this to happen, and knew about it, why didn't they take care of the "rebellious" passengers on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania (sorry, forgot the flight number)? If some of you believe that all aspects of this were planned, targets chosen, etc. then why didn't that flight carry out its misssion? Surely your planners must have thought of the eventuality of passengers bravely fighting back and dealing with them. What's that? They didn't think of that, well that would mean that those passengers really did fight back, and they really did cause the plane to crash in rural Pennsylvania. Now where's the conspiracy threory in that? |
|
04 Mar 08 - 01:39 PM (#2279406) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I will only speak for myself JTS. I am NOT taunting anyone. I will admit that early on in this discussion I allowed myself to get riled up and I said some personal comments that I regret - and took back. I am of the belief that it is important that people like you, guest:guest, Carol and all others are allowed to speak your opinion. However, when someone refutes what you consider "irrefutable facts" you tend to attack the individual making the point. IF you were truly being honest and keeping an open mind, you would see that while all of your points have not been disproven - there is enough information to the contrary. You have also twisted Willie Nelson and Walter Mondale's words. Please show me EXACTLY where Willie or Walter said that it would take more than a plane to bring down the buildings. That kind of twisting of words is EXACTLY what the conservative government has made a practice, leading me to believe that anonymous posts may have ulterior motives and are simply trying to cloud people from discovering the real truth. I'm sorry if you feel that being challenged is "taunting", but if you are not prepared to discuss facts and opinions - there really is no discussion. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 02:03 PM (#2279440) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Rangers and Marines have trained hundreds of men capable of the demolition. I've met a couple of them. I believe that given a small few tons of plastique, cell phone detonators and access to the buildings, the charges could have been placed over the labor day weekend." First, when did they have such access? While many enjoyed a holiday, there were simply too many people that were working and tourists visiting the building over that weekend that some people claim it was dark. I am guessing it was a type when you wrote "small few tons", because a ton is a ton no matter the size. That is not an easy task for a handful of people. I would give our Rangers and Marines some credit - even if they have the skills, they still have the morals to realize that what they would be doing is a crime - and most would have balked. "The WTC/Pentagon attacks are so similar to the historic Pearl Harbor event that it is uncanny. " It sounds like you are blaming the United States for committing Pearl Harbor, and I am sure you are aware that was not the case and has been proven false. If anything, both attacks caught our country with its pants down and showed the weaknesses of our military and lack of attention. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 02:40 PM (#2279480) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish Ron- did you ever notice that most conspiracy theories would have to have a supporting cast of thousands of people-planners, agents, etc all working on a cohesive task? Yet when you bring this up to the people who believe in said theories they just balk and go back to the conspiracy (in this case, the way the buildings came down). In other words, Oh, I don't know how they pulled it off, but I know our government was responsible! |
|
04 Mar 08 - 02:53 PM (#2279500) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Irish- I have yet to see any evidence that our government was responsible for 9/11, but I do see plenty of signs that our governments irresponsibility led to 9/11 happening. The theories that exist tend to support the Bin Laden Boys theory of creating the incident, building construction issues helping the downfall, and the George Bush Boys were responsible for our bumbling reaction to the events as they were taking place. Sure we were looking for an excuse to go to war, but there are less complicated and less risky plots that could have made it happen. Sorry, but I disagree when people say the motive was enough to pull off a Rube Goldberg-style demolition. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 03:02 PM (#2279507) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish Ron, I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I think our irresponsibility was a key cause, you're right. I was saying that the people who believe in these vast conspiracies seem to think that there were if not thousands, than hundreds of culpable people involved directly in 9/11. I don't believe that either. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 03:18 PM (#2279523) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I'm not sure if they think that there were 1000's - I don't think they have figured out how it was done - which to me is a reason not to accept any theory. Our irresponsibility was not a "cause", but a reason that prevented the operation from being stopped and the bloodsuckers used the event for their own gain. That doesn't mean they allowed it to happen, they were just chasing the ambulance. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 09:53 PM (#2279804) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST Ron, You haven't read what I said, not carefully enough to understand it anyway. Read carefully and you might see what I intended to say, that your arguments are not plausible. One argument was that the secret was too big to have been kept. The US government can, and has kept lots of big secrets. It is not so implausible that certain agents could keep secrets about neocon involvement in 9/11. Another of your arguments is that they couldn't find anyone to do it. They have always been able to find a Gordon Libby or an Oliver North to do illegal things. Lots of misguided patriots have done evil things for what they thought was the greater good. The two I have just mentions are presently the subject of hero worship. North has his own frikkin TV show. You have no way of knowing who had access to that complex of buildings in the months and years leading up to the disaster. The data you are pulling out of your ass is no more valid than that of the people you ridicule. You seem to be arguing things you can't possibly know. I have no idea why you would do so. But my lack of understanding of why you have done so does not prove to me that you haven't done it. Which is another one of your arguments. You Ron Olesko do not understand the conspirators motives therefor there can be no conspirators. My inability to understand the motives of the neocons does not make me believe that they are innocent of coverups or even some measure of complicity in 9/11. Surely you saw the bald faced evil audacity of the lead up to the Iraq war. Do you honestly doubt their capacity to lie, cheat and sacrifice American lives for their own sordid ends? Where have you been for the past 7 years? I haven't made up my mind about 9/11. I don't believe most aspects of the alternate theories. I certainly do not believe all of the official stories. I do know that there have been many coverups, but that is par for the course for the present administration. I would like to see an independent investigation, but that does not seem likely. Maybe Dick Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld should be waterboarded to find out what they know. After all, both insist that waterboarding isn't torture. Of course they both would also insist that there has been no coverups of issues surrounding 9/11. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 09:57 PM (#2279807) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS The above From: GUEST Date: 04 Mar 08 - 09:53 PM was me. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 10:36 PM (#2279826) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko JTS, you can try to spin words and tell me that I am supposedly pulling facts out of my ass, but as anyone who reads all of these posts can clealy see - you are putting up a smokescreen. IF you can't argue my points without resorting to your pal Rush Limbaugh's tactics, then it is pointless. Read and try to comprehend what everyone is telling you. You are not standing on anything of substance. |
|
04 Mar 08 - 10:39 PM (#2279827) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "You have no way of knowing who had access to that complex of buildings in the months and years leading up to the disaster. " I just had to point out your big, laughable, example. There were 20,000 people that worked in those buildings. There was always someone there. For you to be so presumptious to assume that YOU know who had access is an example of your flawed thinking. You've got to try to think for yourself and not spurt out the clippings that you find on flawed websites. Think!!!! |
|
05 Mar 08 - 01:57 AM (#2279904) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS Olesko, I haven't been presuming to know who had access to the building. That has been your tactic. I have been saying that I don't know. That it is unknowable but that it may be plausible that illicit access was gained. You, fool that you appear to be, have called others foolish because you know that no one could have had access. That knowledge is what you have pulled out of your ass. You are ridiculing people on the basis of information that at this point is unknowable. Now you appear to be claiming that 20,000 people working in the offices somehow were constantly watching for government agents setting clandestine explosive charges and would somehow have known what the charges were if they saw them. Unless those buildings were almost totally unlike any I am familiar with, the office workers knew next to nothing about the framing and HVAC of the building. Yet you show supreme confidence that these office workers would have spotted anyone up to no good. You continue to pull data out of your ass. What you say defies the simplest common sense. Look at the people who got on the planes. You no doubt will admit that they gamed the system to get past trained airport screeners with weapons. Yet you claim it to be impossible that a few men, dressed as janitors could have slipped a few dozen shaped charges past office workers? Again, I am not saying that is what happened. I am saying that it is impossible for you to know that it didn't. But apparently it is not impossible for you to bluster that you do know. Again, I am not endorsing any particular theory. I'm just confident, based on this government's record that we have not heard the whole story. 9/11 has been the centerpiece of the worst presidency in this country's history. Don't you think it deserves more scrutiny? I haven't looked at a single website. I'm just talking about what could have happened. I'm using common sense. After your last few points, I'm not surprised that you don't recognize it. You don't appear to have any interest in what other people say or in the accepted facts of the case. You just grab a buzzword or two and attack with ridicule. Stop making things up and using ridicule instead of knowledge or data to support your ass data. Knock it off. Grow up. |
|
05 Mar 08 - 08:41 AM (#2280077) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Sorry JTS - I'm not falling for you chump tactics. I don't have knowledge of who had access, but I do have knowledge - public knowledge - that the building was occupied and heavily traffiked. No one can explain how "several small tons" could be brought in and wired up in a building as accessible and visible as the WTC. I was in those buildings a number of times. I've said before and I will say it again - the 9/11 story deserves more scrutiny, but I don't see any evidence - substantial or circumstantial - that would support the deliberate demolition of these buildings. The scrutiny is deserved for our preparedness, building construction, and reaction to the event. You can play spin doctor all you want, but it isn't working. Anyone with a brain can see EXACTLY what you are trying to pull, and it doesn't work. You can attack ME all you want, but your smokescreen diversion from the real story does not change the truth. You aren't working. JTS - stop making things up and using ridicule instead of knowledge or data to support your ass theories. Knock it off. Grow up. |
|
05 Mar 08 - 11:16 AM (#2280222) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Actually, there were service areas between the public access floors where workers could and did do their maintenance without ever coming into contact with the people working in the offices. It would have been a very simple thing to use those areas reasons other than maintenance. They could to it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week without the public ever knowing. |
|
05 Mar 08 - 11:49 AM (#2280254) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko You are right Carol, there were service areas, but to bring in that much explosives would have to assume that building security and others would have turned their heads. If you knew the buildings, the layout for not ever coming in contact with the public or being discovered by SOMEONE in the building seems remote. Yes, it COULD have happened, but it does not appear logical or practical when alternate means to accomplish a goal would have been safer and easier to pursue. In addition to these criminals having access to the building, the building was occupied 24/7 by regular employees and support staff. Nothing is beyond the realm of possiblity, but for some people to say with such confidence that this is the way it happened is a real stretch. |
|
05 Mar 08 - 12:25 PM (#2280299) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish I still go back to what I believe: sure, in theory any of these suggestions is possible. But the sheer scale of these attacks would mean the involvement of loads of people, on many different levels, and I just don't see it happening. And again, I asked it yesterday, but I'll ask it again, and I'm looking for someone like Carol or Gigi or JTS to answer-If there was a conspiracy involving all the hijackers and various people in our government, what was the purpose of United 93? If our government let them crash into those buildings, why did United 93 fail to meet its target? If it had been planned so precisely, why wouldnt a rebellion by the passengers have been expected so it could still meet its target? If you believe it was supposed to strike somewhere in Washington to cover up planted explosives, then I guess somewhere in Washington there is a building that still has those explosives in them. If you believe it was hijacked and the real passengers really did fight back,and all those cell phone calls were real, then the hijackers were real. And if you believe that the hijackers were real, then how can you believe that this was a calculated attack by our own government? |
|
05 Mar 08 - 12:34 PM (#2280309) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Well, irishenglish, one first has to accept the official version of what happened to flight 93 before one can accept your argument. This flight also has too many anomalies for me to believe the government's version of events. |
|
05 Mar 08 - 12:36 PM (#2280310) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish So in your opinion the cell phone calls people made were false and all part of the government's plan? |
|
05 Mar 08 - 12:47 PM (#2280317) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "one first has to accept the official version of what happened to flight 93 before one can accept your argument." That is a convenient way out of answering the question, but surely a person's reaction to the "offical version" is not a black and white situation. No one is required to accept ALL of the official version in order for a question like Irishenglish asked to be answered. |
|
05 Mar 08 - 12:49 PM (#2280318) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC I don't believe the cell phone calls were real. There is too much evidence to suggest otherwise. |
|
05 Mar 08 - 12:50 PM (#2280320) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Okay. That ends that discussion. I love how people throw around the word "evidence" without any substance in fact. |
|
05 Mar 08 - 12:56 PM (#2280330) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish Ahh, the numbers of people involved grows and grows to include housewives and parents faking stories of the last calls they received from their loved ones. I bet those were all fake tears as well. |
|
05 Mar 08 - 02:43 PM (#2280439) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Wesley S I'll bet the hole in the ground was faked too. Maybe the Army Corp of Engineers dug it during the night. Or maybe it was a faked photo. It just gets harder and harder to believe that it could have been anything other than what it was. |
|
05 Mar 08 - 03:52 PM (#2280501) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Jack the Sailor I think the Flight 93 incident occurred much as it did as portrayed in the movies about it. I believe the relatives I believe in the heroism of those men. I certainly believe that Bin Ladin sponsored hijackers were aboard all four planes. It is the lack of scrutiny of the Saudis and Osama Bin Ladin's family that I have concerns about. Obviously the Security at the Pentagon and other US governmental buildings is much tighter than it was at the WTC. I would bet that empty garbage containers and other shipments are searched upon entry to the Pentagon. I doubt, even now, that they are in most office buildings. The Mossad has whole US businesses as cover for their covert actions in this country. The ones who danced in glee at the destruction of the twin towers were employees of such a business. Is it so impossible for American neocons to have done the same. Do you not believe, Mr Olesko, that Americans cannot do what the Israelis can do with ease? Is it so implausible that one of those companies could not have been a low bidder on an HVAC or electrical at the WTC. I don't believe that happened. But I'd like to see it looked at by someome other than the most lying and secretive administration in this country's history. Olesko, I think that flatly saying "no it couldn't have happened." Is pulling data out of your ass. Now you say you have visited the building' I wonder if next you will say that you inspected the Heating and cooling ducts and other limited access areas to the frame of the building in your capacity and a special deputy security inspector on the day of the attacks. Because that is the standard of proof required for the statements you have made. I could say that I had gone through airport security for United Airlines before the attacks and saw no problems and therefor I could say that the couldn't have been weapons on those planes. I would have been wrong. You could be wrong. Your problem is there is no way for you to know what you claim to know. But you keep pulling bullshit out of your ass to try to convince the gullible that you indeed believe that you can know the unknowable. "I love how people throw around the word "evidence" without any substance in fact." Look at this, more ridicule, without the slightest hint of self awareness. You don't even use the word evidence for your ass facts. You just flatly state that you know. |
|
05 Mar 08 - 03:58 PM (#2280511) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Wesley S The burden of proof belongs to those who believe in the conspiracy. And so far no compelling proof has been offered. The official version is the simple answer. The conspiracy is ornate beyond belief. |
|
05 Mar 08 - 04:41 PM (#2280549) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Jackie boy - get it through your thick skull - I AM NOT flatly saying it could not have happened so stop putting words in my mouth. Your lies aren't helping the discussion. All I am saying is the probablilty of your "theory" is open to question, and you are flatly saying you are confident it happened. Yet anytime someone questions you, you are throwing out venom and misconceptions. Shame on you. You are a poor mans spin doctor. It doesn't work |
|
05 Mar 08 - 10:49 PM (#2280838) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC The burden of proof lies with the people in the government who have concealed the truth. We know that witnesses have been suppressed. We know that information and evidence has been suppressed and left out of the 9/11 commission report. Many people who were working in sensitive positions in the government and military have said that their testimony was not included in the report. One of the members of the 9/11 commission resigned because of this. When someone hides evidence, lies, and covers up evidence, this is evidence of guilt, and that person (or those people) should be investigated. The hole in the ground in PA was not consistent with the type of airline crash that was supposed to have taken place. Witnesses have said that the plane exploded while in the air. Some witnesses have said that they believe the plane was shot down. It isn't necessary for any extra people to have been involved in order for the cell phone calls to have been faked. They have technology that makes it possible to simulate an individual's voice. One of the people who ostensibly called his mother from the plane said, "This is (first and last name), you believe me, don't you?". If he was calling his mother, why would he use his first and last name, and why would he ask her if she believed it was really him? |
|
06 Mar 08 - 07:14 AM (#2281042) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish Why shot down or exploded in the air Carol? If to support your logic about all of the attacks on that day, why would a plane that had hijackers that you say were allowed on to the plane be shot down or have a bomb set off? Following your own logic, that makes no sense. If it was supposed to have a target in DC, why would it be shot down or exploded? When I posed this question, that was the type of inconsistency that I thought I might get. Your theories of the grand scheme are riddled with problems.You can't even follow through on your own conspiracy theory. Hmm, hijackers allowed on United 93 to cover up the explosives planted in some building, lets blow it up instead (after being turned around on its flight path)in rural Pennsylvania and make fake phone calls from loved ones saying goodbye. Makes no sense to me Carol, no sense, and all I get from you is, that plane didn't come down the way everybody thinks. Well tell us, tell us YOUR argument for your logic. Tell us YOUR proof. |
|
06 Mar 08 - 01:25 PM (#2281336) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Where did I say that the plane had hijackers on it, irishenglish? |
|
06 Mar 08 - 03:37 PM (#2281485) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish Well since you are so prolific at posting on Mudcat-16000+ posts, I'll give you that one, that you never said there were actual hijackers, and admit to possibly being wrong about that one. However, can I ask you what you believe Flight 93 was supposed to be doing? Why was it turned around, was it supposed to have a target, what is the reasoning behind the suggestion (as stated in patriotsquestion9/11, a site you have referenced several other times in other posts like the Rosie O'Donnell thread) that it was shot down or blown up? Was this supposed to be a diversion somehow? I have noticed on that site that almost all of the ex-pilots interviewed give very little explanation to their own explanations for why things happened the way they did. A few of them say there is no way someone trained in a flight simulator could fly into the buildings, that it would have taken a skilled pilot to do so. That may be true, but since some of those same pilots on patriotsquestion talk about how they would never have given up the pilots chair, and the code they have the ability to transmit when they suspect a hijacking wasn't activated, then who 1) Got the existing pilots out of the way, 2)was skilled enough themselves to be able to fly a plane into a building, and 3) was willing to kill themselves in so doing? Just doesn't add up for me. |
|
06 Mar 08 - 04:05 PM (#2281507) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC 16000+ over a period of eight years, irishenglish. That's not particularly prolific. You said, "why would a plane that had hijackers that you say were allowed on to the plane". You stated quite unequivocally (twice) that I had said hijackers were allowed on the plane. You had no basis for making that statement, and that is why you can't substantiate it. It has nothing to do with the number of posts I've made to the Mudcat. I would suggest that you read my posts in the future before attempting to quote them. I will answer your questions when I have some more time to devote to doing it properly. |
|
06 Mar 08 - 04:19 PM (#2281519) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish Can't substantiate it, Yes Carol, you are right, and I will apologize to you for saying twice that you had said there were hijackers on the plane (s). Of that, I am sincere, and will admit my error. The 16000 posts was meant to be complimentary though, and if someone ever wanted to go back to a previous post of yours, I say good luck, because thats a lot, whether you think its prolific or not! |
|
06 Mar 08 - 04:49 PM (#2281546) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko 16000 posts!! Wow! In all sincerity, that is a wonderful thing and it shows your committment to share ideas - thoughts that everyone may not agree with, but it does start conversation and gets us all thinking. I think that is a good job. However, it also gets me thinking. Just think of how many hours EACH of us spend here typing. Time that we won't get back. Do we want to spend our time knocking down others and fighting windmills. It makes me wonder and re-think my own motives for doing this. See you later. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 09:35 AM (#2282043) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,guest Gee, someone left the door open again. Not often I get in here, don't have time to read all, but I see a lot of denial here in what I have read. Mossad agents were seen filming the 9/11 event in NYC. Do a search for "Five Dancing Israelis." Picked up by local cops, released by feds. Do a google search if you want to see what the Mossad, CIA and MI-6 have admitted to in the way of terrorism and false flag operations. Killed hundreds of thousands around the world in admitted events, and you think they wouldn't do 9/11? Took a week to launch investigations into the JFK assassination, the challenger disaster, Pearl Harbor. Took 411 days to start an investigation of 9/11, WHILE the president said it was imperative we take action. The coverup is the Achilles heel. We may never know exactly what happened on 9/11, but we can prove coverup. That's why I liked that article about the litmus test. We all know something is wrong, but who's willing to speak out about it? If you are silent or defend the govt lie, then you're a tool or a fool. As far as wiring the WTC towers, would any of you have been able to detect the presence of Mossad specialists in coveralls in Manhattan in the weeks leading up to 9/11? The buildings were at half occupancy. Half empty. I heard an interview a while back about certain big lies that both parties have to support, or the govt will collapse. The phony voting system is one, and 9/11 is another. That's why the traitors Pelosi, Clinton(s), etc. accept the "official" version of 9/11 history. If the attacks were revealed for what they really were, then the govt that did the deed would have to fall. So the Dems in 2006 promised to impeach, end the 9/11 wars, etc., but that was all just a lie told to get elected. 9/11 will never be investigated by the govt. But we know they are covering up, and we know they benefitted from expanding their bureacracy, and we have a good idea how the attacks were done (the govt trained the hijackers, used them as patsies, then pulled off bait-and-switch with the FAA/NORAD, then blew the targets with pre-wired explosives). Type "False Flag Terrorism 101" into Yahoo.com for my favorite site regarding 9/11. Send it to others. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 09:42 AM (#2282052) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Teribus Well all I can say is that there are some people on this forum I hope never, ever get in trouble with the law, based upon what they perceive as constituting "evidence" - they'd be hung in a minute. By the bye irishenglish, I'm with you, the explanation I am waiting to hear regarding Flight 93's target, supposedly located somewhere in Washington DC is this. "The target building had been pre-rigged as planned just like the others. Something happened and for some reason the plane didn't make it. They knew that Government Offices and Federal buildings might be subject to close protection, heightened security and random checks, so that was why there was an "Anthrax" scare to clear people out of buildings so that the "Government Bad Guys" could safely remove the explosives" Hey GG, JTS, CarolC sound plausible to you? I came up with that in the time it took to scroll up the page - It is all complete and utter bollocks of course because that is just not how things are done. Oh, I had a good laugh at all those plotters beavering away undisturbed 24/7 on those service floors planting explosives right, left and centre CarolC. In fact next months Monthly Departmental Meeting I am thinking of taking a print of the relevant posts in with regard to that as a discussion point, but just to set the scene, we'll take WTC7, the building that was not hit by an aircraft but had been hit by rather large chunks of one of the other Towers when it collapsed. The building is some 23 stories tall and houses a number of different companies offices. Your task is to infiltrate undetected a team of explosives/demolitions experts into the building to place and rig tons of explosives in order to detonate and bring down that building at a pre-arranged date and time. Another part of your plan has been to similarly rig the two larger towers WTC1 and WTC2 to blow because you have arranged two fully loaded and fuelled airliners to crash into them, these operations you have timed exactly knowing months in advance the exact delays on take-off that each aircraft would be subject to. You are doing all this ostensively by the way because the buildings are too expensive to rewire electrically and you want to declare a war on somebody that you have not yet put in the frame to blame things on. Hey is this sounding absolutely preposterous or not???? Right let's get back to WTC7 access to the building and to your service floors CarolC. Considering the size and complexity of the building and the variety of businesses conducted inside it I would imagine that there were some pretty comprehensive procedures relating to any work being undertaken inside. - No security considerations to be evaluated and assessed - No HAZID undertaken - No risk assessments carried out - No Permit To Work System in force - No oversight requirements - No Third Party Verification or Warranty Do you honestly believe that complete bloody starangers are allowed into anybodies place of work to carry out work in any way that they please completely unsupervised??? GG, JTS and CarolC you are dreaming - or watching far too many badly made movies. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 11:28 AM (#2282139) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC The scenario you are proposing, Teribus, is not in any way similar to what the people you think you are ridiculing have been suggesting. You are totally off the mark. I'll leave it to you to figure out why. (I expect that you won't be able to figure it out, and this is why I don't debate with you any more. I don't like to take advantage of your obviously diminished capacity.) |
|
07 Mar 08 - 11:51 AM (#2282159) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Wesley S Carol - I still don't understand the planes. IF the buildings were wired with explosives - why not just blow them up? It would be easy enough to plant some evidence putting the blame on some other group. The planes were unnecessary. The more complicated a plot is - the easier it is to fail. Why not keep it simple? Just blow up the buildings and blame whatever group you want. So - why the planes? |
|
07 Mar 08 - 12:29 PM (#2282182) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Jack the Sailor Ron, I read back through all of your statements on this thread. It is true that you are not flatly saying X or Y. I made an assumption based upon your demeanor later in the thread. There are weak qualifications earlier in the tread. Weak qualifications followed by attacks on other people's open-mindedness and other character traits for not having been convinced to the degree that you were. Frankly I find that stance more disturbing. Are you simply arguing for sport? It does not appear that way, but if not your motivations are as murky as the hypothetical demolition experts in the towers. To sum up my perception of the stance you have taken on this thread. You have decided on the balance of the evidence what you believe. You attacked with what you consider logic. You made no headway. You then insulted other's character. Then stopped doing so, but in the same posts, pressed on with the attack using what you consider to be logic. You now seem to be insisting that you are carrying on the present attacks, which are a continuation of the first ones as a disinterested neutral observer. Maybe you just need a time out? Do I now see you berating someone for the time you and others spent debating that person. Need I point out that if that time was wasted by choice, by all of you. You don't need to respond to every word that you disagree with that is written down in cyberspace. The only thing you seem to have said on this thread of any import is that. You think it highly unlikely that there was a conspiracy to demolish the buildings from the inside. Maybe highly unlikely is not strong enough a phrase, but you seem to have admitted that it is not impossible. On the whole, I agree with that. But I've seen the neocons do the highly unlikely time and time again. I thought before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein had WMD and that if the facts showed otherwise there was no way that the Neocons could pull off a conspiracy large enough to lie about it. I was wrong. If I was wrong about the much much bigger more damaging conspiracy. I could be wrong about the much smaller one where a hand full of men with fake ids go into some buildings on a long weekend and set some radio controlled shaped charged which are designed to look like a normal part of the building. I think, to a large degree, these conspiracies are driven by smart, indignant people who know that they have been lied to, exploring every possibility until they find the lies. I see no need to ridicule people who engage in this. If they keep digging, eventually they may latch onto something that will open a real investigation. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 01:47 PM (#2282257) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko JTS - you are completely off base and you are not comprehending what I am trying to say. My motivation is to stimulate real debate, not petty snipes at one another, and see if we can think logically. I did NOT berate anyone for spending their time - merely reflected on my own time spent and what all of us could be accomplishing. There is no need for you to ridicule ME simply because I question your thoughts. Yes, I have interpreted and have an opinion based on the balance of evidence I've read and what common sense tells me based on experience and history. I'm sorry, but as I have said repeatedly, I have not read or seen any evidence that seems logically or scientifically possible to support a planting of explosives in the WTC. What I have surmised, based on your statements, is hat you have a preconceived notion about the Neocons and the government that is pushing your opinion to one side, and you are simply disregarding evidence to the contrary - or as you have shown several times - you attack the messenger as if that is going to give your opinion validity. It doesn't. It is a smokescreen and it smacks of desparation in your inability to counter the concrete facts that ARE available. Disregarding is not an effective tool. This is a waste of time. You can get the last word in if it makes you feel good - but I'm afraid you've said enough and the damage is done. Let everyone else decide - our opinions do not matter. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 01:53 PM (#2282266) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk An argument is like a fire. The more fuel you give it, the hotter it burns. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 02:09 PM (#2282289) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Wesley, it wouldn't have been possible to just blow the buildings up, because with that method, it would have been obvious that it would have been necessary for people on the inside to have been involved. They needed a visual stimulus that would take people so far outside the realm of anything they ever experienced, that any explanation given by authority figures would seem plausible. And they also needed something that had not ever happened before to make it possible to use the uniqueness of the event as support for their highly implausible explanations about what happened and why. This video gives you an idea about the motivation for doing such a thing... http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/short-film irishenglish, I haven't forgotten your questions. But I want to put some care into the formulation of my response before I make it. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 02:17 PM (#2282304) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Wesley S "And they also needed something that had not ever happened before to make it possible to use the uniqueness of the event as support for their highly implausible explanations about what happened and why." But they HAD tried to blow it up before using explosives - remember? The truck in the parking garage? So why wouldn't folks have believed that this time they had tried again and succeeded? |
|
07 Mar 08 - 02:40 PM (#2282325) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk Either way is possible Wesley. Carol's proposal is a good, logical suggestion as to why they (someone on the inside) might have chosen the spectacular method of ramming airplanes into the buildings to shock the American public into supporting some unprovoked foreign wars. That doesn't mean it HAD to be that way. It just means it could have been that way. It's a distinct possibility, and there is some evidence which appears to suggest it. One should give all distinct possibilities one's unbiased consideration...if one is capable of it. Most people are not. Most people are very, very biased, and their primary energies are put into serving their bias, whatever it may be. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 03:01 PM (#2282342) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Wesley S My bais is that simple is best. As they say - "keep it simple stupid". The easiest lie for people to believe is the simplest. There are so many ways a convoluted plan can fail. The story that some people are trying to sell sounds a lot more like "Mission Impossible IV". Too many people have to be involved, too many people have to keep quiet afterward. And far too many things have to happen perfectly. I'll stay open to the very remote chance that it happened that way Carole has suggested - but I'll need to see some real proof. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 03:10 PM (#2282351) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce LH, MY explaination ( LGM hypergravity generators) is certainly POSSIBLE, if not very likely. So I can count on your support in the future? |
|
07 Mar 08 - 03:17 PM (#2282354) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce Remember, That doesn't mean it HAD to be that way. It just means it could have been that way. It's a distinct possibility, and there is some evidence which appears to suggest it. One should give all distinct possibilities one's unbiased consideration...if one is capable of it. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 03:19 PM (#2282358) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC But they HAD tried to blow it up before using explosives - remember? The truck in the parking garage? So why wouldn't folks have believed that this time they had tried again and succeeded? We know that the previous attempt failed. How could people believe that using the methods of the first attack again could possibly bring down the entire building? It would be obvious that people would have had to be on the inside in order to do what could not be done using methods that outsiders would have had access to. Look at all of the people in this thread who believe that only planes flying into the buildings could have possibly brought them down. These are the people who are needed to make it possible for the insiders who are responsible to be able to get away with what they did. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 03:26 PM (#2282367) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC One further point, Wesley, on the subject of 'simple is best'. The theory you are accepting is in no way the simplest one. It's actually incredibly convoluted. But it has been packaged in a way that looks simple on the surface. But when you dig down just a little bit, you can see that it requires quite a lot of very complicated maneuvering in order to fully explain what happened. And also, anything that can't be explained using the official version (and there is an enormous amount of that sort of thing), is simply ignored. That's not keeping it simple. That's relying on people's credulity in order to keep them from looking at the obvious. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 03:46 PM (#2282379) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Wesley S Well Carole - I respect you - I'm sure you've put a lot of thought into this - but it looks like we'll never agree on this. And that's why the terrorists win this time. There are so many better ways we could be expending our time and energy. Like getting a Democrat elected president. We can both think of the other as being deluded. And then move on to something productive. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 05:07 PM (#2282439) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC I don't have any problem with you disagreeing with me, Wesley. But I don't think I'm wasting my time. I think the "terrorists" will have won if we don't do everything we possibly can to protect our democracy. To my way of thinking, the only way we can protect our democracy is to keep our government transparent and accountable. To not investigate, thoroughly and independently, the events of 9/11, helps our government maintain its veil of secrecy, and its erosion of our democracy and our civil liberties. The only way we will ever get such an investigation is for the majority of voters to demand it. I think it's time for us to do that. You may see things differently, and I have no problem with that. I also appreciate that you have used a respectful tone while discussing this with me, rather than ridiculing and/or making fun of me. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 05:13 PM (#2282443) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Wesley S "rather than ridiculing and/or making fun of me." Sure - but we ALL know that you're just an old poopyhead..... "The only way we will ever get such an investigation is for the majority of voters to demand it." And what do you think the chances are that will ever happen? Slim ? None ? I don't think the conspiracy advocates are picking up much steam. Those who believe already believe - and very few people are switching sides from what I can see. What are your thoughts on that? |
|
07 Mar 08 - 05:14 PM (#2282445) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk I will if you'll do me one little favour, BB. Screw my neighbour's pooch. It's lonely and in need of some consolation, and if you did that, I think it probably wouldn't bark so much at night and things would be a lot nicer around here. ;-) |
|
07 Mar 08 - 05:18 PM (#2282450) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce LH- Think globally, Act locally. Sounds like a local problem to me... |
|
07 Mar 08 - 06:51 PM (#2282515) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC And what do you think the chances are that will ever happen? Slim ? None ? I don't think the conspiracy advocates are picking up much steam. Those who believe already believe - and very few people are switching sides from what I can see. What are your thoughts on that? I disagree. I'm one of the ones who switched sides. Although I don't consider myself a 'conspiracy advocate', any more than I consider you one. We just see different conspiracies. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 07:44 PM (#2282541) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk I switched sides too. My initial presumptions were entirely in line with the government's official conspiracy theory...I figured that 19 Al Queda guys with boxcutters and 4 hijacked airplanes did it all. Period. I held to that viewpoint for some quite time before beginning to consider some of the alternative conspiracy theories...and in time I saw some of them as considerably more likely to be correct. The one alternative conspiracy theory I have rejected without a moment's hesitation, though, is Bearded Bruce's one about the...what was it?..."LGM hypergravity generators"... ;-) That's because I knew it was completely tongue in cheek on BB's part to even offer it. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 08:20 PM (#2282572) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce "That's because I knew it was completely tongue in cheek on BB's part to even offer it. " And the ones saying that the plane ( whose engines were found in the wreckage of the Pentegon) never hit, and no-one was killed? All those empty coffins and "fake" remains... You KNOW very little- You suspect it was tongue in check, but have less evidence it is false than I do that the various "explosive" scenarios are false. My explainantion is logical, consistant with the facts as known, and to be considered just as much as any you might present. "Remember, That doesn't mean it HAD to be that way. It just means it could have been that way. It's a distinct possibility, and there is some evidence which appears to suggest it. One should give all distinct possibilities one's unbiased consideration...if one is capable of it. " Are you claiming to be SELECTIVE about what theories you are willing to accept? Only those that have the "correct" Evil Instigators? Hardly unbiased. |
|
07 Mar 08 - 08:32 PM (#2282585) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk I don't believe, for a moment, BB that you proposed your "LGM hypergravity generators" for anything but satirical and rhetorical purposes...in order to make light of some serious theories people have, based on their real intentions to uncover the truth. You were doing it to make fun of people you don't agree with, that's all. And that's no useful contribution to this discussion. It's up to you, I guess, to convince me that you actually mean it...but why worry about just me then? Take it to the world. Do a website, like some of the serious investigators have done. Put together a video that is seen worldwide on the Net. Address Congress. Appear on Oprah and tell the nation. Write to the national media. Then I will be convinced you are not merely engaging in obfuscational tomfoolery on Mudcat Cafe when you talk about LGM hypergravity generators. |
|
08 Mar 08 - 12:01 AM (#2282691) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC However, can I ask you what you believe Flight 93 was supposed to be doing? Why was it turned around, was it supposed to have a target, what is the reasoning behind the suggestion (as stated in patriotsquestion9/11, a site you have referenced several other times in other posts like the Rosie O'Donnell thread) that it was shot down or blown up? Was this supposed to be a diversion somehow? I don't have any thoughts myself about what flight 93 was doing. I think there are a number of possibilities (it is not necessary to prove, or even come up with an alternate story in order to prove that the official story isn't true). The one that is probably the least controversial would be that the government shot down the plane coincidentally and tragically, just as the passengers gained entry into the cockpit and overcame the hijackers, and for this reason, they covered up what they had done. I don't see this one as being likely, myself, but it does help to explain the fact that several eye witnesses saw a small white military-type plane flying around flight 93 just prior to and after the crash. But it doesn't explain the cell phone calls, the fact that the pilots didn't press that panic button, or the fact that the pilots allowed hijackers into the cockpit (and all of the anomalies with the other flights). Cell phones don't work at the altitude and the speed at which flight 93 was flying during the time that the calls were supposed to have taken place. Even on the ground, cell phone coverage was spotty in that area. The lady who took that picture of the mushroom plume said she tried to call 9/11 when she saw it, but that it didn't work because the cell phone service around Indian Lake is not very good. If it's that bad on the ground, there's no way it can be better at an elevation and speed at which cell phones just don't work. Why didn't the pilots push that button? That makes no sense at all. This is a huge problem in my mind. I don't have any kind of coherent theory on what that plane was doing and why (I have some guesses, but that's all), but I don't really need one to be able to say that the official story doesn't add up. I have noticed on that site that almost all of the ex-pilots interviewed give very little explanation to their own explanations for why things happened the way they did. A few of them say there is no way someone trained in a flight simulator could fly into the buildings, that it would have taken a skilled pilot to do so. That may be true, but since some of those same pilots on patriotsquestion talk about how they would never have given up the pilots chair, and the code they have the ability to transmit when they suspect a hijacking wasn't activated, then who 1) Got the existing pilots out of the way, 2)was skilled enough themselves to be able to fly a plane into a building, and 3) was willing to kill themselves in so doing? Just doesn't add up for me. It was possible, at the time, to remotely control airplanes like the ones involved in the events of 9/11. I don't know if that is what was done, but the fact that it is possible means that it is possible that the government (or a rogue element within the government) could have done everything remotely. This possible explanation clears up all of the anomalies that arise with the official explanation. |
|
08 Mar 08 - 02:36 AM (#2282721) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Teribus Once you have discussed "possibilities" which are far too numerous, you then logically have to go through the "probabilities". The latter reduces the former to what you could call leading contenders and then real evidience, forensics and eye-witness accounts eventually fines it down to establishment of what most likely happened. The one horse that all the "Government-did-it" lobby seem to have seized upon is that the objective was to destroy, i.e. bring down, the buildings that were targeted. That was not the objective in the 1993 attack and I do not believe for an instant that that was what was intended on September 11th 2001. 9/11 was a "Terrorist Spectacular", something to grab the minds of a very large audience in a way that would paralyse the "western world", they achieved that the second those aircraft hit the World Trade Centre Towers, the buildings didn't have to come down. As others have said there would have been far easier incidents to stage as "inside-set-up-jobs" that could have been undertaken and demonstrated as being the work of others far more effectively. For what did happen before the eyes of the world on 9/11, the scale and complexity of what would have had to have been done just does not enter in to what could be seen as being practicable technically or from a security point of view, which makes the "Government-did-it, Government-cover-up" line the least likely, less probable of a number of possibilities. |
|
08 Mar 08 - 11:08 AM (#2282900) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Jack the Sailor Before the Iraq War I bought the "far easier" argument fully. But having seen the real conspiracy of the buildup to the war, I now don't. The leaders in the Bush administration, may of whom have left by now, are demonstratably capable of any lunatic plan to further their dubious causes. That is the main reason I would like to see a real and thorough inquiry. To shine a light on those cockroaches to see what they were hiding. I know they were hiding something. I doubt if it weas gravity generators. But they hid something. |
|
08 Mar 08 - 12:57 PM (#2282982) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D "I know they were hiding something." Very much like the amazing 100MPG carburetor the oil companies have sat on for 40 years....we KNOW they are hiding it, because we haven't found it. |
|
08 Mar 08 - 02:41 PM (#2283087) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk There may have been several objectives behind the 911 attacks. If you want to get a number of key people on board to support a plan, it helps if the plan can "kill 2 or 3 birds with one stone". Such a plan will satisfy a variety of interested parties, making implementation of the plan all the more effective. |
|
08 Mar 08 - 04:20 PM (#2283151) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,Guest What happened to Willie, Walter & me? |
|
08 Mar 08 - 04:20 PM (#2283152) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,Guest 200!!! That's what. |
|
08 Mar 08 - 05:56 PM (#2283225) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Jack the Sailor Bill D. I know you think that response was logical. I suspect you think that it is funny. It was neither. You know that I was talking about Saudi involvement in the plot and disregard for the people Bush called heroes that were sent in to clean up the mess. You know this because I said that when I entered this conversation. Y'all say that you are being logical, you say that you just want to talk about the truth. But when the rubber hits the road all we get it platitudes and cheap sarcasm. Government involvement in 9/11, especially the Bush-Bin Laden connections need a close look. No amount of fantasy and distraction on your part will change that. |
|
08 Mar 08 - 08:14 PM (#2283307) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk Nor will more platitudes and cheap sarcasm, but that won't stop him, Jack. As I've said before many times, everyone uses what they think is good logic when they argue. They seem unable to credit other people with doing the same, though. Other people's logic just isn't seen as good logic at all to the average arguer, because he dismisses it all about a microsecond after paying almost no attention to it in the first place... Why? Because he's too busy thinking of the next brilliant thing he is about to say in response. ;-) |
|
08 Mar 08 - 08:17 PM (#2283312) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Teribus Hey Jack the Sailor which one of the fifty-one members of the Bin Laden Family do you want to zero in on? Presumeably that you subscribe to the presumption of innocencence until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. |
|
08 Mar 08 - 09:30 PM (#2283359) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D Jack- My remark was meant in all seriousness: I have posted clear, rational explanations of the events, as researched by many, many experts, and all I hear is more speculation involving more convoluted hypotheticals determined to show that the government was 'probably' engaged in something nefarious. "Government involvement in 9/11, especially the Bush-Bin Laden connections need a close look." Fine...look closely. If you look for 20 years and still find no proof, evidence or confessions, will you give up? I somehow think that those who are emotionally convinced that there were plots beyond the known hijackers will never change their minds...no matter how detailed the counter arguments are. There ARE still people who believe the oil companies have that carburetor hidden away. |
|
08 Mar 08 - 09:51 PM (#2283371) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk Yes, Bill. And I somehow think that those who are emotionally convinced that there were NO plots beyond the known hijackers will never change their minds either...no matter how detailed the counter arguments are. It's exactly like that. The pot and the kettle are equally black. The people on both sides of this debate are equally loyal in their emotional commitment and their unwillingness to change it under under any circumstances...other than, perhaps, a full public confession in the media by some of the very people they think didn't and couldn't have been behind it...and that just ain't gonna happen. (At least I very much doubt it will.) (If it does, free drinks all around!) And that's why posting on any of these threads about 911 and expecting it to do any good is a lot like jacking off in a phone booth on 32nd Street, only you never get much pleasure out of it at all... |
|
08 Mar 08 - 10:28 PM (#2283389) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Some of us have changed our loyalty from what it was to begin with. I guess that means we are the only ones with an open mind on this subject. ;-P |
|
08 Mar 08 - 11:04 PM (#2283398) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. Bill. What in the HELL are you saying????? That you said this In all seriousness??? Very much like the amazing 100MPG carburetor the oil companies have sat on for 40 years....we KNOW they are hiding it, because we haven't found it. My friend the above had better be sarcasm and somewhat tongue in cheek. Because if it is "in all seriousness" as you said it was, it was the single dumbest thing I have ever seen on this forum. It was pretty good sarcasm. But it would make very lame serious conversation. Say it ain't so!!!! And please don't tell me that you don't think the government covered up NOTHING about 9/11. Because that would be close to the second dumbest thing I have read here. I don't believe in 100 mpg carburetors I also don't think that the Bushies were honest and forthcoming about 9/11. Teribus, Thats a pretty lame argument as well. We could start with the Bin Laden that watched the towers fall with Bushes dad. Then we could look at the Saudis were were redacted from the 9/11 report. We could then look more closely at Bin Ladens and royal family members who funded madrasas that preach hatred and trained the Taliban which took in Bin Laden and gave him a place to plan the attack. In a perfect world we could waterboard George Bush and asked him why he really let Bin Laden off the hook. If he doesn't believe that it it is torture it isn't right? Of course while we are investigating all of those things we will give the same presumption of innocence that Rumsfelds roughriders gave to any foreigner that an Afghani con man turned in for the reward in the days after the invasion. You know, the hundreds who were shipped to Guantanamo at great expense then released for lack of evidence. Then there are the ones who were waterboarded and tortured in other ways so that they gave false confessions. Yes the cowards Bush and Rumsfeld have much to be proud of and nothing to hide. Please note Bill, that the compliments to Bush and Rumsfeld written above were meant as sarcasm. If they were said in all seriousness, they would have been stupid things to say. |
|
08 Mar 08 - 11:04 PM (#2283399) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk Yeah. I know you and I have, Carol. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 01:46 PM (#2283705) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D Well, Jack, I am at a loss how to explain that my tongue-in-cheek sarcasm was a serious metaphor for the thought process I see in so many of the conspiracy theories. YOU may not believe in the 100MPG carburetor, but some DO....they have their 'evidence' and they have heard 3rd hand apocryphal stories of those who have seen one....like those who relate stories of 'evidence' that we have bodies of aliens from the Roswell incident. Thus, it follows that since no one will confess and produce what they are sure exists, there IS a cover-up. Of course those who believe that buildings were blown up and that no 757 hit the Pentagon and that Flight 93 was faked will also be sure that **this** is different from old carburetor stories and from silly Sci-Fi fans who want to believe in dead aliens in UFOs, **this** is our not-to-be-trusted government. Of course they'd cause many billions in damage and kill 3000 people just to further power & money plots for their own demented self-interest! Could it be true? I have read the 'evidence' and watched the videos and seen the images and contemplated the rationales I was pointed to, and as Ron Olesco and others have pointed out, it takes a staggering amount of players and complex, interlocking plots to weave all the parts in one huge conspiracy...NOT TO MENTION ignoring or disregarding clear and compelling evidence to the contrary - such as eyewitness to the 757 hitting the Pentagon and photos of plane parts deep inside, as well as on the lawn. "Oh, those might have been planted afterwards.." We have building engineers' long, complex explanations and detailed schematics about how WTC7 came to collapse, but since some are sure that "it couldn't have happened that way", we are treated to arcane speculation about how 'trained operatives could have snuck around and planted explosives (maybe in 3 buildings!) during weekends...or with complicity of staff...or...or..anything to stitch together enough 'what ifs' to cover all the implausables. Then we get --'dancing Massouds' and 'insiders' who controlled security (never mind that it was one board member who never had any role in daily routine) and Air Force higher ups who 'failed to scramble fighters'-- to flavor the conspiracy with dark intimations of amoral and unpatriotic citizens who want to ..... I can't even imagine WHAT their 'motives' might be. I have NO problem with simply wanting answers to confusing stories and bewildering images and videos. Questions should be asked...but they should not be answered by armchair bloggers who view some images, ignore others, and then spread astounding tales of plots based on amateur views of physics and irrational speculation. Our government has a lot to answer for in their failure to act on some real data which 'might' have helped avoid 9/11 and in the asinine way they exploited 9/11 to justify invading Iraq...but you will not get me to believe that they knowingly planned, aided or looked the other way in CAUSING 9/11. There is a fine line between asking questions and speaking as though the conspiracy is verified....and I see way too many who have crossed it. So I keep replying - and if my sarcastic metaphors in an attempt to avoid long, tedious repetition of my position is seen as "the single dumbest thing I have ever seen on this forum.", I guess I'll have to live with that...(the temptation to hunt up some of the REAL dumb ones for contrast, did cross my mind...but...) |
|
09 Mar 08 - 02:19 PM (#2283742) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS Like I said, it was good sarcasm. If it was sarcasm that you wrote "in all seriousness." That idea just hurts my head. Obviously you didn't intend to seriously say that Detroit was hiding 100 mpg dodads. So that line was NOT said in ALL seriousness. Bill, Correct me If I am wrong but your attitude and arguments seen to be lumping all criticism of the government's handling of 9/11 into the same basket and dismissing it out of hand. That doesn't seem prudent to me. As I have said on this thread. I know they covered things. I think the proper point of discussion should not be whether or not the Bushies were involved in a conspiracy but on how far the conspiracy they were involved it went. I do not know whether or not they knowingly planned, aided or looked the other way in CAUSING 9/11. I do know that in the aftermath. they have been much more brazen than that and they have hatched conspiracies that have done much more damage. I was much more willing to give them a pass on this before I got to know them. I am certainly willing to give someone who questions their version of events some leeway and I am much more inclined to direct my sarcasm towards the Bushies and to those who support their whitewash. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 03:10 PM (#2283770) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D "Correct me If I am wrong, but your attitude and arguments seen to be lumping all criticism of the government's handling of 9/11 into the same basket and dismissing it out of hand." Okay...careful correction: I do NOT intend to whitewash those aspects of government handling of EITHER the prelude OR the aftermath that were careless, self-serving and poorly followed up. I KNOW that many high levels of this administration is full of incompetent dolts. What I DO see is many attempts to suggest that since there were some flaws and failings, there was probably complicity. I actually feel that their 'doltishness' is goos reason for doubting that they could pull off an operation of this magnitude....whereas, we KNOW how a few terrorists with box cutters got on those planes. I have tried consistently to reply to 1)specific issues and various disputes over evidence... but also..2) to general errors in reasoning -and I am trained in that, though I do not teach it anymore and can no longer recite all the Informal Fallacies from memory. The import is that, when serious accusations are made...or even suggestions of serious mis-conduct put forward, good evidence is needed...not circuitous speculation. The burden of proof is on the assertor! When I see, as I have many times in this debate, the assertors daring anyone to 'prove them wrong', my hackles rise. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 03:19 PM (#2283780) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk Your hackles, Bill, have been drifting about in the stratosphere for quite some time now... ;-) ...thereby posing a threat to navigation. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 03:34 PM (#2283801) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko It was actually a 200 miles per gallon carburetor that was invented by Charles Nelson Pogue of Winnipeg, Canada back in 1935. You can look it up. Pogue applied for a U.S. patent which was supposedly withdrawn and no one ever saw the carburetor, and Pogue suddenly found himself in a well paying job distributing oil filters, presumably a payoff from the oil companies that did not want this product on the market. It is a famous urban legend, yet there are many who believe it. Could there have been truth to it? |
|
09 Mar 08 - 04:08 PM (#2283829) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC You may be trained in general errors in reasoning, Bill, but you're not really in a position to point them out if you aren't even able recognize when you're making them yourself. And a lot of the general errors in reasoning in this thread have come from you. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 04:16 PM (#2283833) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Jack the Sailor I'd like to think that US politics is carried on in a reasoned and logical manner. But it just isn't. Squeaky wheels get oiled. I say let the critics squeak until there is a new inquiry. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 05:29 PM (#2283894) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D Snopes...on 200MPG carburetors (In woodworking, the Holy Grail is a way to treat lumber so that it does not check (split when drying). 10-11 years ago, some guy claimed he could do it, but wanted millions for the secret. As of now, he has not proven that he does, indeed, have such a treatment....but he expects belief.) Carol, IF I have been less than careful in some of my phrasing in THIS thread, so that I fell below the line and committed an error, I regret it. I guess I am becoming hasty in my frustration at seeing clear explanations ignored and evidence refuted by merely saying "it could have been faked". I have made the same point about the logical errors of others in other threads where I was most careful in how I formulated my language. In those threads, where my wording was not the issue, I got sidestepping, rationalization and dissembling. It is the claims of those who wish to assert a conspiracy which are at issue, and their logic which must pass the test, not mine. I can, if necessary, correct my phrasing to comply with the rules...can you find a way to justify Gerrymandering of evidence to reflect conclusions arrived at by unproven assumptions? |
|
09 Mar 08 - 08:08 PM (#2283982) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Little Hawk Nobody's "logic must pass the test", Bill. WHAT test??? Yours? Mine? Carol's? Who supervises the test? Who passes final judgement on it? Do we get a gold star if we win "the test"? No. We don't. This is a friggin' INTERNET FORUM, Bill! And it's an obscure one at that. This is like a bunch of people yakking their heads off in your local coffee shop. The world will not care what gets decided here in some squabble about 911. There is no prize to be awarded at the end of this particular tunnel. Nothing is at stake here for anyone except the grand illusion of their own big ego imagining that they just "won" the argument, and the only prize that that someone will get...if I can go by previous threads like this one...is the joy of finally having the VERY LAST WORD in the VERY LAST POST on this thread when everyone else has simply given up in disgust and gone away and then the thread will vanish off the board. |
|
09 Mar 08 - 09:33 PM (#2284025) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D I'm sorry, Little Hawk, but despite your 6 year campaign to relegate ALL opinion to some sort of subjective equality, there are in fact, standards for logic & rationality. ;>) As to who supervises the test..anyone who understands the rules! And the 'rules' are not just arbitrary opinions, any more than the sum of 2+2 or the size of pi. Sometimes they are hard to see or complex in formulation, but they are what has been DISCOVERED about logic over the centuries, not little rules some guy made up just to pretend he had a way to win arguments. (note...this does NOT mean all illogical statements are wrong - only that they are not defensible in the way claimed. Neither are all logically correct conclusions necessarily true.) Now, if you want to assert that, in your opinion, I am wasting my time debating an issue that none of US can prove one way or another, I gotta concede you might have something! I do it because I want to see that alternate positions are represented to those I feel are not only wrong, but IF wrong, then dangerous...like representing that voting for Bush is in the best interests of my country. It ain't illegal to praise G.W., but neither is it justified. (my mom used to say "why, you're just talkin' to hear your head rattle!" Maybe that's why I type! Why do you? ☺) |
|
10 Mar 08 - 12:15 AM (#2284080) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC It is the claims of those who wish to assert a conspiracy which are at issue, and their logic which must pass the test, not mine. Bill, this is a fallacy in and of itself. It's a perfectly circular argument. "I'm right because what I say is right. What I say is right because I am right". I can, if necessary, correct my phrasing to comply with the rules...can you find a way to justify Gerrymandering of evidence to reflect conclusions arrived at by unproven assumptions? This is also a logical fallacy. It is a straw man. You are trying to get me to defend a practice that I do not admit to engaging in. It seems to me that you have very little facility for recognizing logical fallacies in practice. Earlier on, I refuted some of the "expert evidence" that you provided a link to. You did not even attempt to respond with any arguments of your own in defense of your evidence or to refute my arguments against it. You just figuratively threw up your hands, expressed exasperation, and ignored my arguments. You are doing exactly the same kind of thing you are accusing others of. But in your mind, this is ok, because you have this circular thinking going on in which you think you don't really have to defend your arguments because you know deep down that you are right, and that's all the argument you need. I honestly don't think you could recognize logic if it bit you on the nose. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 12:16 AM (#2284081) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Don Firth Logic is as precise as mathematics. Put true premises into a logically correct argument, and you will come up with an accurate conclusion. But correct logical formulations are like computer programs: Garbage in, garbage out. Don Firth |
|
10 Mar 08 - 12:47 AM (#2284097) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC That one cuts both ways, Don. And of course, often there is some dispute about what is a 'true premise'. So it's hardly an absolute as you seem to be trying to make it appear. Nevertheless, anyone who uses logical fallacies in his or her arguments is hardly in a position to be criticizing the logical fallacies of others. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 01:06 AM (#2284101) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Don Firth You use the same logical process to determine that also, Carol. What I am saying about logic is what you will hear in any logic class in college, or find in any good book on logic. Hardly anything to argue against. About like trying to argue about whether or not 2+2 actually does = 4. Don Firth |
|
10 Mar 08 - 09:42 AM (#2284256) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC You use the same logical process to determine that also, Carol. Sometimes logical processes cannot determine what is true and what isn't true. This is because sometimes there isn't enough information available to make that determination. When that happens, one has only opinion that one either argues logically or not. Such is the case with the subject being discussed in this thread. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 10:32 AM (#2284300) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D I surrender |
|
10 Mar 08 - 10:48 AM (#2284308) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Big Mick *****ROARING WITH LAUGHTER***** |
|
10 Mar 08 - 10:50 AM (#2284310) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC About time, Bill. ;-) |
|
10 Mar 08 - 10:55 AM (#2284315) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish Carol, first I just wanted to thank you for responding directly to my questions. I have to tell you that I don't believe any of the suggestions you made, but I appreciate that you took the time to answer my questions. One thing I did want to comment on is something you said the other day- "Look at all of the people in this thread who believe that only planes flying into the buildings could have possibly brought them down. These are the people who are needed to make it possible for the insiders who are responsible to be able to get away with what they did." I have looked into the alternate theories, beliefs, etc that you have suggested actually happened on 9/11. I don't believe them, but I have contemplated the possibilities of what you suggest. The fact that I don't believe your viewpoint does not make me gullible to what you call the insiders who are responsible. I have read your alternatives, I don't believe them, that does not make me a tool to a government conspiracy that you believe in, but others do not. I do not like being labelled a simpleton merely because I fail to view things the way you see them. I know that wasn't a direct attack on me, and you did not make any such accusations directly upon me, but because I believe what I believe as a free thinking rational adult, please don't assume that I am a person who made it possible for the insiders to get away with what they did. We can do this until we are blue in the face, and I don't think we will change each others minds, but please, don't place an unfair judgement on those of us who don't see things the way that you do. Thanks. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 02:01 PM (#2284483) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Don Firth Very well said, irishenglish. I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying and echo those sentiments. Don Firth |
|
10 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM (#2284484) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce CarolC "Cell phones don't work at the altitude and the speed at which flight 93 was flying during the time that the calls were supposed to have taken place. Even on the ground, cell phone coverage was spotty in that area. The lady who took that picture of the mushroom plume said she tried to call 9/11 when she saw it, but that it didn't work because the cell phone service around Indian Lake is not very good. If it's that bad on the ground, there's no way it can be better at an elevation and speed at which cell phones just don't work." You are showing a total lack of knowledge. Let us look at what you say: "Cell phones don't work at the altitude and the speed at which flight 93 was flying during the time that the calls were supposed to have taken place." Pardon me, but they do. All the time. " Even on the ground, cell phone coverage was spotty in that area. The lady who took that picture of the mushroom plume said she tried to call 9/11 when she saw it, but that it didn't work because the cell phone service around Indian Lake is not very good. " This has NOTHING to do with the cell coverage AT THE ALLTITUDE of the plane: CELL IS LINE OF SIGHT! It is EASIER to hit a cell tower at a high altitude than at the ground, where things like mountains, trees, and buildings can block the straight-line signal path. "If it's that bad on the ground, there's no way it can be better at an elevation and speed at which cell phones just don't work." False conclusion, based on false assesment. Please learn a LITTLE about what you want to lecture us on. Your ignorance on this topic just calls into doubt whatever else you state, even when you do have something that should be considered. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 02:07 PM (#2284492) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC I'm sorry you saw that as a judgement, irishenglish. I don't see what I said as a judgement of anyone, myself, but I probably should have phrased it differently. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 02:09 PM (#2284494) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Documentation for your assertions, please, beardedbruce. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 02:55 PM (#2284541) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce CarolC 1. Where is YOUR documentation for your assertions? Mine are based on the principles of RF communications- start with the ARRL Handbook, and then get your degree in RF engineering. I have a few years experience with RF communications, from 1969 to the present. My experience covers HF, VHF, and UHF, and satillite systems in C, S, L,and Ku bands. What do you have experience in? Cell Phones are line-of-sight. The HIGHER the user ( or the Cell tower) is, the GREATER the distance from that tower that can be used for phone conversations. THIS IS A FACT: NOT subject to discussion or debate. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 02:55 PM (#2284542) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D Oh my, oh my, oh my...I may have to start going to church... |
|
10 Mar 08 - 02:58 PM (#2284547) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Don Firth I have tried to find documentation on the internet (quick and dirty search), but came up with little more than stuff trying to sell cell phone booster antennae. You probably won't accept this coming from me, Carol, but beardedbruce is right. AM radio frequencies do tend to bounce around, but FM radio and television frequencies are line-of-sight. And the frequencies at which cell-phones operate are also line-of-sight. This is one of the reasons that FM radio and television transmitter towers—and cell phone relay antennae—are usually placed on the highest point in a particular service area. A cell phone at a high altitude has a better shot at being picked up by the nearest relay station and being sent on than a phone on the ground because there is generally not that much solid matter between the cell phone and the antenna or antennae. This is not based on any presuppositions of mine, but upon data from textbooks used and notes taken in class when I was studying to take the test for my First Class FCC Radiotelephone Operator's license in the early 1970s. Interesting case in point, re: line-of-sight. The nearest cell phone relay antenna in my neighborhood is about a block down the street. I live in an apartment building. In my living room, my cell phone works just fine. Back in my office, it doesn't. No reception. Two many walls, including brick and limestone, between my cell phone and the antenna. Line-of-sight. Don Firth |
|
10 Mar 08 - 03:07 PM (#2284557) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D Here is a chart to help explain the various frequencies. (me? I just had a wisdom tooth pulled, and am chewing on gauze and exploring new realms of knowlege.) |
|
10 Mar 08 - 03:08 PM (#2284558) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Big Mick That cartoon is uproariously funny, Bill!! And dead on the mark. JTS and Carol would like me to debate the arguments they produce, but I choose not to. And the reasons are summed up perfectly by that cartoon. I believe this thread speaks more about the folks that buy into these conspiracy theories than it does about the events of 9/11/01. Jack and Carol think I am attacking them specifically. I am not, and have met them several times. Nice folks. My comments about the "tin hat brigade" are general comments on folks that want to so badly believe something is so that they do exactly what the cartoon expresses. Jack and Carol are the ones that are defending that position, so the comment applies in the general sense. If they choose to take it as a slam on them, that is on them. For what it's worth, I am sure there are anomalies in the events of those days, but they are nothing more than that. Mick |
|
10 Mar 08 - 03:43 PM (#2284597) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce "Cell phones in the U.S. operate at around 800 MHz and PCS phones at 1900 MHz, classified as UHF and low energy microwaves respectively." Wikipaedia |
|
10 Mar 08 - 04:27 PM (#2284629) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC I have some documentation for my assertions, beardedbruce, and I have no problem with posting it (when I have a little more time). I would like to see your documentation for your assertion that cell phones work (all the time, as you put it) at the same altitude and speed at which the plane in question was going. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 04:34 PM (#2284640) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Bill's cartoons are also a type of logical fallacy... Appeal to Ridicule http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html |
|
10 Mar 08 - 04:35 PM (#2284642) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Mick, I am perfectly content for you to not debate anything at all. But what you are doing is just sniping from the sidelines without offering anything of substance. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 04:52 PM (#2284659) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS From Olesko, >>>The biggest issue I have with the conspiracy theories is that they are many are illogical and almost all would require too many people to be involved or an incredible string or precisely timed events to make it an incredibly rare possiblity. There has been no clear motive raised that could not have been achieved with less risky and ultimately more effective operations.<< The above seems to be a perfect description of the conspiracy to juice up the evidence to lead us to war in Iraq. Having lead this much larger more complicated conspiracy once leads me to believe that they could have done it twice. The difference being in the 9/11 case that they had this huge hole in which to bury the evidence and the less loyal of their co-conspirators. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 05:10 PM (#2284688) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D Actually, the "going to church" cartoon/remark was (primarily) meant as a comment about me and the dilemma I have when confronted by people (in this case, NOT you, Carol) who automatically seem to buy into every strange rumor and off-the-wall idea that is proposed. The pointed thing is, I CAN'T beg God to take a 'bug report'....but the cartoon was just too relevant NOT to post. Humor can be used, Carol, as you suggest, as ridicule...but it can also be a way to encapsulate the embedded silliness of some our human interaction. (as a matter of fact, your characterization of the cartoons as "Fallacies of Ridicule" was closer than were the ones about circularityand straw man. I just wasn't willing to type 2 paragraphs explaining why.) I LOVE cartoons and good jokes which help puncture the pompous bubble we often trap ourselves in....yes, even the ones which get ME close to home. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 05:12 PM (#2284691) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish JTS, some would argue that 9/11 was the same thing as the buildup to Iraq-in other words, one large event, rather than two separate incidents. If Iraq was the ultimate goal, then for those of you who believe in government duplicity, the 9/11 attack was part A of a complicated conspiracy, which eventually led to part B, Iraq. Believe me when I tell you that IMHO Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz,Rice, et al firmly wanted to go into Iraq, and I think a lot of the people on here arguing against the 9/11 government conspiracy (such as myself) would say the same thing, and lost in this bigger argument has been that point. But as to your last point, I don't quite follow-who are the less loyal co-conspirators you refer to? |
|
10 Mar 08 - 05:40 PM (#2284716) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS Mick, It don't want to debate the facts with you. It is obvious that you have made up your mind based upon which people you trust rather than by going in detail through the science. There isn't really anything wrong with that process for making up your own mind. But it does leave you poorly equipped to enter the debate on your own. Certainly it is a inaccurate for you to clam that what you are doing is not an attack. Here is an example. If I were to say that Big Mick is a Horse's Patoot, I'm sure you would consider that a personal attack. But what if I were to prove it? Mick you just said this >>And dead on the mark. JTS and Carol would like me to debate the arguments they produce, but I choose not to. And the reasons are summed up perfectly by that cartoon. I believe this thread speaks more about the folks that buy into these conspiracy theories than it does about the events of 9/11/01. Jack and Carol think I am attacking them specifically.<< Previously you said this. >>>You are so married to your delusions that evidence, no matter how clear and irrefutable, will not move you off your position. But your use of the old conspiracy tactic, which is to switch the burden of proof to those who don't buy into your delusions, won't work here. Scientists and engineers with no dog in this show have answered all your assertions and questions. These are not country and western singers, or comedians. They have laid out exactly how this happens. <<< When a man says "you" to the other person as he diagnoses the other person's delusions and their alleged attachment to them, it certainly CANNOT BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN a personal attack. When he admits to choosing such attacks over actual debate, as he seems to have done in his last post, then he comes pretty close to my definition of being a horse's patoot. When after having committed these personal attacks with them right there on the screen, for everyone to read he continues to say that he has committed no personal attacks. He confirms my suspicion! On this thread, he certainly is behaving like a horse's patoot! But that said, he a very entertaining horse's patoot and knowing his musical gifts I love to be anywhere his band is playing in the next week or so, to celebrate St Paddy's and all! |
|
10 Mar 08 - 05:48 PM (#2284730) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC You are correct about the circular argument, Bill. What you were doing was more of an appeal to authority "because I said so" argument. In this case, you are positioning yourself as the authority. You are saying that only those on the other side of the argument need "pass the test", but not your side of the argument. And this would be because your side has the government experts on it? If that is the case then it is a circular argument. "The government's experts are right and not lying. Why? Because they are the government's experts." If you are not only talking about the government's experts, then you have to contend with the fact that I have provided plenty of people with expertise on the subject at hand who are also experts, and whom you have completely ignored. What sort of logical fallacy is that? A straw man attacks an argument different from opposition's argument. STRAW MAN Misrepresentation or recasting of an opponent's position to make it more vulnerable. Usually this is done by distorting the issue to a ridiculous extreme. http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/cis120/logicalfallacies.html Can you show me any examples of my having "gerrymandered evidence to reflect conclusions arrived at by unproven assumptions"? |
|
10 Mar 08 - 06:31 PM (#2284779) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS >>I don't quite follow-who are the less loyal co-conspirators you refer to?<< Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that there was a Neocon conspiracy to commit 9/11. I'm simplu saying that Olesko's argument that it was impossible because the conspiracy would have had to have been too large, is not as airtight that he appears to think it is. My argument about co-conpirators is in response to Olesko's that too many people would have to have known and that many would inevitably come forward. I'm not saying that there were less loyal co-conspirators I'm saying that if there were less loyal co-conspirators there would be good reasons why we haven't seen them. We have seen plenty of Bush's co-conspirators come forward, most notably Richard Clark. But if there had been a Richard Clark involved with "Operation Plant the Charges" he almost certainly would not have been told the date and time of the demolition and someone would have found a job for him in the first tower on or above the floor where the first plane hit. So that he, like the evidence would be buried in that very large hole. By the way I don't use the term Necon out of any particular phobia or hatred for them. It is just that if there is a conspiracy, they are the most likely leaders. Just as they WERE the leaders of "Operation Saddam is a Clear and Present Danger". irishenglish you also said. >>>JTS, some would argue that 9/11 was the same thing as the buildup to Iraq-in other words, one large event, rather than two separate incidents.<<< Yes that is true. Those, according to Mick would be "the tin hat brigades." I am not one of the people who argues that. On this thread, I've argued only three things, 1. That Mick is making personal attacks. 2. That Bill D is not being all that logical. (Please note that since then he has not tried to be logical and is using humor and much to his credit, much of that humor has been self deprecating.) 3. That Ron Olesko's arguments are not convincing. At first I thought that he was asserting facts not in evidence but after a more thorough look at his position I found that he had qualified his arguments upon introducing them but then treated them as facts and argued strongly for them for the purpose of this argument. From reading all of his posts, I get a strange message, He seems to be basically saying. "I cannot know all the facts, neither can you. But I think that there couldn't have been a conspiracy because that would have been too complicated to pull off. So I will answer your points and questions with the argument that it could not have happened because it was too complicated to pull off. " I have been trying to poke holes in Mr Olesko's apparent house of cards. The more I think about it, the more I think that Yes, this bunch of clowns could have pulled off this conspiracy. I'm not saying that they did. I'm simply saying its plausible. My main contentions are 1. that they did pull off "Operation Lead the Country into a Quagmire" So that it is possible that they could pull of a much less elaborate operation. 2. That there was a huge coverup involving 9/11 and that we cannot know exactly what has been covered. 3. Of all the Neocon's and right wing nutjobs out there at least a few of them have to be on the ball and not total keystone cops. What if some how all of those got assigned to the 9/11 conspiracy and the losers went to work in the Pentagon, In Cheney's office and in writing speeches for "President" Bush? Could not these hypothetical and oh so elusive "Competent Neocons" not have pulled off this relatively simple operation and slipped off into the dark night before the train coming down the tunnel caught their less able brethren on the cowcatcher that is sober reflection in the light of day? |
|
10 Mar 08 - 06:39 PM (#2284789) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS >> Of all the Neocon's and right wing nutjobs out there at least a few of them have to be on the ball and not total keystone cops. << Please note that I call the above my "A Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day." argument. I figure that probability favors 9/11 being one of their successful operations because their failure rate appears to be way worse than 11 out of 12. ;-) |
|
10 Mar 08 - 07:06 PM (#2284805) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I cannot know all the facts, neither can you. But I think that there couldn't have been a conspiracy because that would have been too complicated to pull off. So I will answer your points and questions with the argument that it could not have happened because it was too complicated to pull off. It sounds so much nicer coming from me. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 07:12 PM (#2284811) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Yes, I do think a conspiriacy was possible - but not practical or a plan that an organized group would have attempted. It is really quite simple and not hard to understand. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 07:34 PM (#2284829) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D "In this case, you are positioning yourself as the authority. " No, I was positioning **authorities** as authority. I was claiming that highly qualified and neutral experts disagreed with you. Except that, I was saying that I am qualified to recognize basic logical & philosophical errors. (Saying that I sometimes am less than perfect in MY attempts to make my point do not absolve you of your errors.) Now, this (disputes about logical fallacy) is apart from whether or not there WAS a conspiracy or whether buildings CAN be demolished in the sneaky ways suggested by those you agree with. Those issues need to be dealt with by experts, and mostly have been. If you intend to doubt the conclusions of certified experts, just BECAUSE they were hired and approved by a commission set up BY the government...which you refuse to trust or believe....what are we to do to convince you? There is circularity! Whom would you ask to examine the various forms of evidence? Who would certify THEIR reports? It all comes down to this: If some are convinced that these complex plots actually perpetrated by, or with the acquiescence of, our own govt., they need a LOT more than "it 'could' have happened this way". That is a downward spiral fueled by the very attitude I have been warning against..."I don't trust the govt., therefore I will view their conclusions ..even those of the 'experts' they approve...with disdain....which means I will have to come up with alternate conclusions, even if they seem hard to believe..." etc.. There is no end! And you wonder why I employ sarcastic humor sometimes when I try to comment on the mind-set that DEMANDS answers that can't be found and/or changes the definition of 'fact' to suit the moment? Lucy Van Pelt declaiming "I wonder how a black jelly-bean ever got to be Queen?" is merely an exaggerated example to avoid asking "How DID they get fake plane parts into the Pentagon so photographers could take pictures of them and divert us from trying to find out what they REALLY did with a 757 and all those people." Yep...I get kinda sarcastic when evidence of real plane parts is ignored in order to enhance a conspiracy theory. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 08:17 PM (#2284868) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS >>>(I) don't trust the govt., therefore I will view their conclusions ..even those of the 'experts' they approve...with disdain....which means I will have to come up with alternate conclusions, even if they seem hard to believe..." <<< I think it prudent to distrust this government and pretty much everything that their "experts" have said in the past 7 years. Do you believe what their experts have said about Global Warming? About condoms and aids prevention? About Evolution? About Economics? Please don't tell me that you think that ongoing tax cuts to the rich stimulate the economy. How about Experts like good old "Brownie" in charge of FEMA? Would you take legal advise from Alberto Gonzales? Would you have Donald Rumsfeld tell you how to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis? How about Karen Hughes, do you trust her? She was put in charge of US P.R. for the whole Arab World. Do you trust her expertise? How about UN Ambassador John Bolton? Did you believe Colin Powell, military expert, after his famous Speech to the UN. Bill Frist was a medical doctor who got up in front of the Senate and "reported" that as a medical doctor he was certain that Terri Shaivo was not brain dead. After the autopsy showed that she was literally missing most of he gray matter, did he even back down? Rove was Bush's most trusted expert. Would you believe a word from his mouth? Government experts said that Saddam had WMDs because the Vice President bullied them into it. Bush is now standing up in front of the country saying that the country will not be safe until we give telephone companies immunity from being sued for breaking laws which he claims were not broken in the first place. Bill D. I think you have hit upon the number one most effective argument that there was a conspiracy. Because these Assholes, who literally lie about everything say that there wasn't. The Republican Side of the Commission had Bush, Delay's and Frist's. How can you possibly have so much faith in them. My experience tells me that if this governments says ANYTHING, it should be questioned and questioned vigorously. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 09:21 PM (#2284945) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D "How can you possibly have so much faith in them. My experience tells me that if this governments says ANYTHING, it should be questioned and questioned vigorously." Jack...if you read a lot of my posts, you'll be aware just how little I think of this administration in general. NOTHING I have said should suggest that I 'have trust in them'! But I view these things like I do people...every one must be considered on its own merits. In fact, I just said recently that their very incompetence makes it VERY hard for me to believe they could have either planned OR aided such a complex plots without someone slipping up. But, quite apart from that, I will not go from "I don't like them or trust them to do what they need to for the benefit of old retirees like me...or the rest of the country." to believing that they would knowingly and willfully HARM the country in such a hideous way. I KNOW why certain militant Muslims would do that, and I have seen their admissions and threats to do more. They plotted for 5 years to pull off that one...the plot was a one-time, deceptively simple one. You say that "My experience tells me that if this governments says ANYTHING, it should be questioned and questioned vigorously." ....but my experience says that this is a self-defeating, endless exercise. All you could do would be to 'question'...forever. You could not be right every time, but you'd never know when! This why I say that it is necessary to know what KINDS of things to seriously investigate....such as the weak and immoral excuses for invading Iraq! Those are all but proven, whereas complicity in 9/11 is not even in the realm of direct accusation of anyone in particular. "Trained operatives 'might' have set charges in WTC7 during holidays and sat around hoping those planes would hit when they were supposed to!"..etc...etc... I guess that where we have to agree to disagree...you are willing to believe 'they' (a pretty vague 'they') are capable of anything, and should be investigated for ANYTHING that goes wrong, while I am not. Once you are committed to distrusting everything, you don't even have a good idea of how to recognize contrary data when it arrives! I don't care to get into that infinite regress...You can chalk it up to stubbornness or whatever you wish, but we seem to have a basic psychological difference about how to look at it all. I guess it will have to be like that. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 11:34 PM (#2285013) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS >>>I guess that where we have to agree to disagree...you are willing to believe 'they' (a pretty vague 'they') are capable of anything, and should be investigated for ANYTHING that goes wrong, while I am not. Once you are committed to distrusting everything, you don't even have a good idea of how to recognize contrary data when it arrives! <<< Ding! Ding! Ding! Straw man!!!!! The "they" is not vague at all! I've named them. George Bush and the Neocons. I have not committed to distrusting "everything" I have a specific and I think very reasonable distrust of George Bush and the Neocons. They are habitual and pathological liars. It would be very foolish and naive to trust them or their 'experts' on any major issue. I can make up my own mind on many issues. But for some, evidence was hidden and no proper investigation has ever been allowed to take place. I didn't say ANYTHING that goes wrong. Just the things they have had their hands on. Or happened on their watch, Anything that has not been independently investigated. Like Katrina: Like No Child Left Behind: Like the sub-prime mortgage crisis: Like the Iraq war and the buildup to it and Yes, even 9/11. Again, after all of the lies, I fail to see how you trust them and their 'experts' and the political hacks they appointed to investigate 9/11. Frankly it is baffling. Is it some sort of herd instinct. ;-) By the way, this quote below is mean petty and totally, totally uncalled for. >>>you don't even have a good idea of how to recognize contrary data when it arrives!<<< I don't know where you got that idea, I plainly can recognize contrary data. I can also recognize contrary people, and on this issue you are certainly one of those. Stop looking at the trees and take the peek at the forest. The forest is scary and dark the forest is telling me now that knowing what we know now about Bush and the Neocons, we should take another look at 9/11. Why do you have a problem with this? >>> believing that they would knowingly and willfully HARM the country in such a hideous way. <<< The Iraq war has done us much more harm and been much more hideous. Would you have to see all of those armless, legless, eyeless and brain damaged young men and women assembled on the mall in Washington to realize this? The damage that the 9/11 attacks did to our economy was miniscule compared to that war. People died in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast because their National Guard and its equipment was in Iraq. You would need to have the 4,000 US dead from that war die on the same day? Two or three at a time is just as hideous for me. Are you thinking about the 5 million Iraqi refugees and the hundreds of thousands dead? Of course they would do something that hideous. They already have. Where have you been for the past seven years? I'll accept data about structural steel and collapse rates and any of that from independent experts. I don't believe that it was energy weapons as some have proposed. But don't tell me that the reason there was no conspiracy was because these men were not morally weak enough and cowardly to engage in one to Hasten the Utopia they envision. From what I have seen of them I believe that in planning it, their only concern would be if they did it, could they get re-elected. |
|
10 Mar 08 - 11:35 PM (#2285016) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC No, I was positioning **authorities** as authority. I was claiming that highly qualified and neutral experts disagreed with you. No, you are positioning yourself as the authority. You are assuming the authority to say that, 1. the authorities you are presenting as evidence are automatically more right than any other authorities, and 2. that the authorities you are presenting always tell the truth. You possess no such authority, which makes your argument a logical fallacy. Those issues need to be dealt with by experts, and mostly have been. If you intend to doubt the conclusions of certified experts, just BECAUSE they were hired and approved by a commission set up BY the government...which you refuse to trust or believe....what are we to do to convince you? If you can't see the flaw in this argument, there really is no hope for you. Please show me where I have ever said I doubt the conclusions of those experts BECAUSE they were hired and approved by a commission set up BY the government. (Hint: logical fallacy on your part - assuming facts not in evidence.) The fact is that I have NOT ever said this. In fact, when I posted my disputes with one of them earlier in the thread, I ONLY disputed his arguments. But you have chosen to ignore that post of mine, and pretend that I did not make it, and you chose not to respond to my refutation of his arguments, or even acknowledge them. And I have said several times right here in this thread that I originally accepted the government's version of events. You have chosen to ignore this as well. Logically, this would mean that my attitude about not trusting the government came after I realized that I found other scenarios for what happened on 9/11 more credible than the government's numerous versions. And I have shown that there are many certified experts who do not agree with your certified experts. But you have ignored those as well. Just because an expert is certified doesn't automatically prove that they are telling the truth in every case. That is something that you have taken on faith. So you are giving your experts the benefit of the doubt just because they are working with the government, and you are doing it on faith. Or at least, you are expecting us to accept it on that basis. I, on the other hand, tend to believe the experts who make sense to me. Some of these experts, by the way, used to work for the government, and have resigned because of the way the government is handling this issue. I have mentioned this before, and you have chosen to ignore it as well. That's got to be at least ten logical fallacies all wrapped up in one right there. Yep...I get kinda sarcastic when evidence of real plane parts is ignored in order to enhance a conspiracy theory. Considering all that you, yourself, have ignored, I would say that's a whole lot of the pot calling the kettle sooty. Real plane parts are not proof of anything all by themselves. You need to be able to explain all of the other anomalies, as well as provide us with a lot of physical evidence that either no longer exists, or that the government will not release before you can prove anything. Some of the physical evidence that I am going on is the projectile that hit the Pentagon itself. I have seen it from the front tip to the back end, and what I have seen simply is not tall enough to be the kind of plane that the government is saying it was. So who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes? Logic would tell me that having seen the physical evidence, it makes no sense for me to accept anything on faith. Perhaps you would like to respond to my refutations of one of your experts rather than ignoring them. Or are you ignoring them in order to enhance your own particular conspiracy theory? Shall I start getting sarcastic now? |
|
11 Mar 08 - 11:39 AM (#2285342) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC On the subject of the cell phones. The experts on this page do a pretty thorough job of debunking what beardedbruce has to say on the subject. Apparently, just knowing what kind of frequencies cell phones use does not make you an expert on how cell phones work in practice... http://911review.org/brad.com/sept11_cell-phones/engineer_tech.html The scientist on this page tests whether or not the government's version is even possible... http://physics911.net/projectachilles |
|
11 Mar 08 - 01:48 PM (#2285460) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D I'm sorry I got this far into this. You know my basic position, and I know yours. I think that anyone reading these threads can pretty well see our relative positions, but I also suspect that most everyone who BOTHERS is already in one camp or the other, and is not likely to change their minds because of what either of us say. You, Jack & Carol, seem to have a very large capacity to research and debate not only the facts & evidence, but also to question the internal motivation and clarity of thinking and manner of expression of those who disagee with you. It has gone beyond whether you are right, I am right, or whether 'right' can even be determined. I am recovering from dental surgery and have work to do in my shop that is suffering. The constant demands that I document everything I say, whether about facts or about 'what I said about what YOU said about what I said' etc., would, if I complied, have me doing little else. (I honestly do not grasp where YOU find the time & energy). You are obviously honest and concerned and passionate about these issues, and I suppose that, if there is ANY substance to your suspicions, it will be discovered by folks who share both your passion & who have the time to sort it all out. All I can do is reiterate my basic skepticism and assure you that I will read what I can .... and wait & see. Obviously, if anyone finds clear and undisputed evidence, it will make the news. The only possible way you (plural) and I could attempt to conduct much more of this debate would be face to face, with opportunity to say "hey...wait, that's not what I said or meant" and clarify (if possible) the rules.....but that's hardly likely. (You know...I debate here with Mick about guns, with beardedbruce and Ron Davies about politics, and with several Mudcatters about religion & astrology ...and I get along with them fine in 'real life' and often see them all at the Getaway or elsewhere....but there, we simply don't get into those debates. As you know, 'real life' relationships don't fare well if these issues get the upper hand. I think I'd like to preserve that situation.) I ain't 'gone', I just don't do well on a treadmill these days. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 02:12 PM (#2285482) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Looks like it ends in a tie |
|
11 Mar 08 - 02:34 PM (#2285503) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce "at 30,000, there would be very little energy left to ANY signal, and would have nothing to "bounce off of"" You need to study electrical engineering a little. YOU ARE NOW CLAIMING that Cells don't work at a distance of 5 miles from the tower. It this were so, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN the nuumber of Cell calls each day that do go through? I have talked to spacecraft with a few watts on the spacecraft, and gotten a signal here on earth with no problem- a little more than your impossible 5 miles. My 30 years of RF experiience trumps his 15. Sorry, I am twice the expert. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM (#2285509) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Bill D "Looks like it ends in a tie".... *grin*...can't tell...the scoreboard has shorted out under the load. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 02:44 PM (#2285516) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Episode 49 of Mythbusters - they proved that cell phones work on planes. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 02:53 PM (#2285522) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Bill, I really don't think you do know my positions. I think that you have taken a little bit of what I have said and lumped it into some sort of giant amorphous concept that you have of everything everyone has said who disagrees with the government, and you're applying this concept that originates with you to all of us who disagree with the government's version of events. I think this explains why you regularly make assumptions and incorrect assertion about what I think and believe. I really am not interested at all in debating anything with you. But I object to your practice of stomping all over anyone who holds different ideas on this subject than you and maintaining that you are the only one who could possibly be right. As I have already shown more than once in this thread, I don't care whether or not anyone else agrees with me on this subject. I just don't think you or anyone else has a right to make attacks on or even to patronize (as you so often do) anyone who sees things differently than you. Clearly, your arguments have nothing whatever to do with logic, and are purely emotional in nature. That's not how you like to present yourself, but it is how you operate in these discussions. That cartoon you posted with the guy saying "someone's wrong on the internet" is a perfect representation of yourself. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 02:55 PM (#2285524) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC beardedbruce, it looks to me like you didn't bother to read all (or even very much) of what I posted the links to for you. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 03:04 PM (#2285539) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS Bruce, The dude made a lot of points that seemed pretty reasonable such as the "lists", that fact that there are few towers in rural areas and most damningly that the antennae for the towers are pointed down. It seems pretty convincing. I'd like to see your 30 years of experience in general RF refute his 15 years of specific experience. Bill, I agree totally. I'd hate to think that something as meaning less as an Internet debate would interfere with our friendship. Ron, Have you been looking at Bill's score because you own was too small you see? |
|
11 Mar 08 - 03:23 PM (#2285563) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,jts Ron Olesko loses yet again. >>>Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 11 Mar 08 - 02:44 PM Episode 49 of Mythbusters - they proved that cell phones work on planes.<<< They attempted to prove that cell phones did not interfere with aircraft avionics. They conducted their experiment ON THE GROUND in a MOCK UP of a plane. Mythbusters 49 has NOTHING to due with ANY ASPECT of the CURRENT DISCUSSION! Talk about your logical fallacies! On the Logical Fallacy scoreboard, I'd say that you are three points down just from that one sentence. http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cellphones_on_plane.html |
|
11 Mar 08 - 03:32 PM (#2285571) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish Guest-you are partially correct, they used a mockup, before switching to an actual corporate jet parked on the tarmac, which your link mentions, but I'm sure you knew that. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 03:44 PM (#2285584) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: bobad Some other views re. Phone calls from Flight 93 |
|
11 Mar 08 - 04:19 PM (#2285616) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce "damningly that the antennae for the towers are pointed down." The radiation pattern of the cell antenna is certainly REDUCED directly above the tower, and the signal MOST LIKELY used a tower off to one side or the other (especially since you claim there were NOT any towers in the immediate area- Thus the signal directly above the tower has no significance. Or do you want to change that, now?). As for aiming "at the ground", the 3 dimensional pattern would be set to INCLUDE the ground surface- the REST of the pattern would be in the air. Now you are claiming that you can't use cell in tall buildings? The point is that a low power signal can be received HUNDREDS of MILES away IF IN DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT. At the frequencies involved, THAT is not subject to debate. Sort of like those airplanes talking directly to control centers and airports: If they can see them, they can talk to them. At 30,000 FEET ( less than 5 miles) they can see a good distance. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 04:27 PM (#2285624) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce "It seems pretty convincing. I'd like to see your 30 years of experience in general RF refute his 15 years of specific experience." My 30 + years of experience with RF communications from air and space vehicles at high speeds vs his 15 years with ground use standing still? You are giving me a free pass here. The plane was in the air, moving: WHAT part of his experience applies? |
|
11 Mar 08 - 04:50 PM (#2285645) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko poo-poo JTS!! Score keeping? You aren't even playing in the majors and I doubt you could hit a curve. Yes, Episode 49 has relevance to the current discussion. The subject was whether cell phones could interfere with a plane's instruments - and part of the episode proved that you can get service on an airplane. Now, if you wish to discuss this - please stop your whining and mocking of those who have different opinions. If you want to refute an opinion or a misrepresentation of fact - please do so. But stop this nonsense. It is not helping your case and your tactics are apparent to anyone who reads this. It isn't working JTS. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 07:06 PM (#2285774) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Big Mick These so-called truth advocates are not interested in straight debate. Carol, in this case, says I should respond to her tripe. I will not. I have pointed out in any number of threads my answers to the tin hat brigade's assertions. Instead, Carol and her protector, JTS, want to focus on people who disagree with them. I will say one more time, I think ALL of the conspiracy theorists have a screw loose on this stuff. The fact that you have chosen to be the front folks on this is your problem. You choose to develope theories and find evidence to support your theory instead of the better system of taking the evidence, factor in what happened and motive of the perps, and then making the best conclusion. See the panel of the cartoon that Bill linked to above to know what is wrong with the conspiracy theorist's methods. And take a few minutes and read bobad's link on the cell phone phony info. And Jack....... you come off like a high school kid arguing with your buddies when you do this "Olesko" stuff. Seems to me that you are the one making it person specific. This is my last post on this thread. Have fun running in endless "gotcha" circles. Mick |
|
11 Mar 08 - 09:13 PM (#2285892) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS Mick, You had better be joking. Personal attacks are not allowed in this forum. So if you are not on this thread to discuss the issues and you are not joking around. Some responsible moderator ought to be deleting your posts. Olesko brought up the score thing I assumed it was a joke. Talking about a score in a discussion was too juvenile to be anything else. I responded because I thought it was funny. I was playing along with his joke. If he is now whining about my joking response that reflects his lack of maturity, not mine. If he doesn't want jokes in his direction he hadn't out to send them in mine. Yeah it is kind of high school to respond to another person's joke. But since he started the joke. It was hardly and personal attack. Olesko, Stop what? Refuting your nonsense? I'll tell you this, I've talked to Carol on my cell phone on several aircraft. Yes! Cell phones can work on airplanes or mock ups of airplanes on the ground! The issue at question is whether they work at altitude, flying 500 mph over rural areas. The producers of that show said that they were not able to test service on an airliner while flying. Their test was on that ground in a mock up. It proves nothing. It has nothing to to with the discussion at had. It is you who has to give up this nonsense. Do your homework. Argue honestly. Include a fact or two. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 09:22 PM (#2285900) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Thanks for proving my point JTS. Nice mouth. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 10:47 PM (#2285959) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,surfin in, surfin out Boy, this place has some folks in it that need hobbies. I have just spent a lot of time reading through this topic, and I think I will write a paper on it next semester. JTS needs to go check out a book on passive aggressive behaviour. CarolC lacks the ability to accept any kind of reasoned argument or proof, I think she should seek some help. Big Mick and Ron Olesko don't know when to shut up and quit baiting the others. Bill D tries to be a voice of reason and logic in an insane asylum. bearded bruce seems to be really knowledgeable, but has credential envy. There are a couple of other decent blokes trying to have a reasonable discussion, but how do you do that with daft bunch of conspiracy theorists? I should get a pretty good grade. You sure can't make this up. surfs in, surfs up |
|
11 Mar 08 - 11:27 PM (#2285978) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC I see the trolls have showed up. Mick, that's what happens when the moderators of a forum provide a bad example for the members, as you are doing in this thread. You should know better. |
|
11 Mar 08 - 11:33 PM (#2285980) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS si, si Thanks for the dime store diagnosis Sigmund. You may want to think twice before you hand that in. Your instructor may not be the arrogant self important ass that you appear to be. You have appear to have gathered from Mick's example that insults, disguised amateur psychology is acceptable here. We accept it from Mick because he is being funny. You are merely tedious. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 12:08 AM (#2285994) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC beardedbruce, you are ignoring quite a lot of what was said in the pages I linked to. The first thing that I think should be addressed is applications. You were working with applications in which the cell phones were intended to be used under the conditions that you have described? The experts in the links I have provided were working specifically with the kinds of conditions that would have applied to the flights we are talking about in this thread. We know that these applications are designed primarily for the use of people who are on or near the ground. These are the problems that come up with that particular application of cell phone technology (from the site I linked to)... "POWER Analog phones can use more power as allocated by the FCC. the phones could use a MAX of 3 watts, but ONLY for non-hand-held so on a plane, i would suspect, they were all hand- held phones. Hand-held phones can use a MAX power of .6 watts as per FCC. but most digital phones actually only go up to a max of .4 So the calls on the flights could have been different technologies, CDMA, or GSM (analog was almost ALL phased out by then) and could have been 800mhz OR 1900mhz Frequency 800mhz is a longer wavelength than 1900mhz longer wavelengths travel better THROUGH objects, shorter ones (like 1900mhz) are more "line of sight" In layman's terms, 1900mhz is closer to light, easily blocked by any object even a piece of cardboard, but 1900 can BOUNCE better. CDMA - signal strength a CDMA phone is trained to try and use the strongest signal. (cell site) and it will change from one, to the next IF it can. (often, it tries, but the signal strength has changed since it polled the level) Since probably most of the cell calls were CDMA (most popular) at 1900mhz (again most popular) you have digital technology at a high Frequency. the MAIN problems are.... at that height, the (digital) phone would not be able to use the closest signal to it. The closest signal would be from UNDERNEATH the plane. at 30,000, there would be very little energy left to ANY signal, and would have nothing to "bounce off of" so, it (the closest signal) would hit the bottom of the plane and stop. so , to make a call, the phone would have to use signals from even father away. which creates a bigger problem. Handoffs.... the phone (CDMA) uses a handoff list, sent by each cell site it talks too. if you go from a site from the east side of a plane at 30,000ft, then, the BEST signal, starts to come from a site on the WEST side of the plane, those sites could be 100 miles from each other. since each site has a handoff list of only a certian number of sites (the list -usually- only contains sites that are next to it.) at 30,000ft, it is VERY doubtful that the next strongest signal, would be from the next closest site the phone would be seeing dozens of signals, from dozens of sites, from miles apart of each other. the signal strength for each of these would vary GREATLY within milliseconds. Believe me, its hard to OPTIMIZE these sites correctly for cars going 50mph on the ground. The sites antennas are OPTIMIZED toward highways, and cities, and usually DOWN-TILTED. At 30,000ft, even 1 degree of down-tilt would make the RF energy totally useless. (you can research antenna patterns + down-tilt) Even if the antenna is NOT downtilted, there is a natural "roll off" Even if an antenna is pointed straight alongg the horizon, the farther you go ABOVE the top of the antenna, the power rolls off Different systems - Border Handoffs... Since different carriers may use different frequencies AND technologies, when you cross a border, the phone drops. PERIOD. (border handoffs work in many places NOW, but not in 2001) the different technologies, phones and frequencies could NOT cross carriers boundaries. (if bought a phone in New Orleans, and flew to Baton Rouge, the New Orleans system could NOT handoff to the baton rouge system) now, you could re-originate the call and be ROAMING, but as soon as you go over the border it drops. i don't know exactly what the borders for different carriers were in 2001, in Pa but going 500mph, you are sure to cross one in 1/2 hour at the MOST i would guess. Now, all that aside, i tried it. Several times. on several flights. (i know your not supposed to, but that is because it effects the carrier (SPRINT etc...) NOT the electronics of the plane. So rest assured i endangered no one. I was able to make a call or 2 before the plane lifted off (and actually 1 failed right there on the tarmac) Several times i was able to get signal strength, even over 20,000ft but the call never actually connected. (at least not over 2,000ft) I had made about 20 calls. I have HEARD of people using cell phones on planes, but i never got a clear answer as to the altitude, except one guy who flew a cesna at 2,000ft (or under ?)" |
|
12 Mar 08 - 07:53 AM (#2286169) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish JTS, again, minor point, but on Mythbusters they performed those tests, first on a mockup, then on a corporate jet parked on the tarmac. That's a half truth you are bringing up. Notice I'm not talking about the results, I just want you to be accurate with what you say. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 10:03 AM (#2286292) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce CarolC.. Nice set of quotes. When you have your EE degree, or at leats a 3rd class radio operators permit, you might actually understand what was said, and how it does NOT support your assertion that "Cell phones can't work in airplanes at 30,000 ft" The CENTRAL lobe of an antenna pattern can certainly be downward ( ie, set so that the bottom edge of the main lobe is at ground level, or even below) and the antenna will still receive signals from high elevations. As for 800 vs 1900 mhz, BOTH are primarily line of sight, as is the 120 and 240mhz "aircraft " bands that are used to talk between aircraft and grouing ( ATC and towers) "Hand-held phones can use a MAX power of .6 watts as per FCC. but most digital phones actually only go up to a max of .4" Let me see... .4 watts at say 50 miles (Using the accepted radiated signal strength dropoff of the square of the distance ) vs 10 watts at 300 miles ( aircraft typical ranges) vs 5 watts at 750 miles ( average power and spacecraft distances) I will let you figure out the relative power levels, since you claim to know so much about this topic. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 10:11 AM (#2286301) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce "The closest signal would be from UNDERNEATH the plane." No, YOU stated that there was someone on the ground ( where the cell is optimized) that was NOT able to get a cell call throught to report the crash- SO THERE WAS NO CELL TOWER UNDER THE PLANE The signal would go ( out of any window or RF hole in the aircraft (ie, a hole greater than about 2 x the wavelength of the signal) and NOT in all directions. It would then be received by whatever towers were in THAT direction, within line of sight. "those sites could be 100 miles from each other. since each site has a handoff list of only a certian number of sites (the list -usually- only contains sites that are next to it.) at 30,000ft, it is VERY doubtful that the next strongest signal, would be from the next closest site the phone would be seeing dozens of signals, from dozens of sites, from miles apart of each other. the signal strength for each of these would vary GREATLY within milliseconds." So, the signal strength would be fluctuating so greatly between antennas 100s of miles away that they cannot determine which has tthe strongest one, but not even detectable 5 miles away? You really need to stick to topics you have some understanding of. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 10:13 AM (#2286304) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce "at 30,000, there would be very little energy left to ANY signal" Gee, is that because the air is too thin for it to breathe? 30,000 ft is less than 5 miles- are you claiming that cell phones will not work 5 miles from a tower??? |
|
12 Mar 08 - 10:23 AM (#2286313) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce "the phone would be seeing dozens of signals, from dozens of sites," Yet the area was so rural that there was no signal on the ground, and the signal could not even be seen, since it was at 30,000 ft????? Either it would NOT see the signal, or it would- MAKE UP YOUR MIND what you want to claim! |
|
12 Mar 08 - 10:25 AM (#2286317) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce GUEST,surfin in, surfin out, You should get a Mudcat name and come back more often. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 10:30 AM (#2286323) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce http://www.cushcraft.com/comm/support/pdf/Antenna-Performance-C-14B37.pdf |
|
12 Mar 08 - 10:44 AM (#2286335) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS >>>TS, again, minor point, but on Mythbusters they performed those tests, first on a mockup, then on a corporate jet parked on the tarmac. That's a half truth you are bringing up. Notice I'm not talking about the results, I just want you to be accurate with what you say.<<< That could well be true. I did not see the episode. I did read the producers disclaimer that they were not able to do the tests in a flying airplane. As I said before, I know from experience that one can talk on a parked airplane, at an urban airport on the ground. It may interest people to know that I recall getting only 3 bars of signal but I had all the bars in the airport. I'm on an expert, but I would speculate that the difference may have been due to the metal skin of the planes. But that has no relevance on the debate as to whether it could be done at altitude, at 500 mph over a rural area. By the way. I believe that the people on flight 93, did make those calls using the skyphones. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 10:54 AM (#2286353) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: WFDU - Ron Olesko The episode explained that they could not do the the tests on a plane due to FAA regulations- Mythbusters cannot break the law with their tests. They did explain that you can receive cell service on an airplane - which is why there is a movement to have the regulation changed in the first place. The FAA claims that cell phones will cause interference. It does have relevance to the debate about whether cell phones would even work on a plane. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:07 AM (#2286372) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: GUEST,JTS Bruce, I'm not sure you understand what the gentleman Carol was quoting was saying. A lot of the things that you seem to think were contradictory were combined arguments to show that the signal would be weak and unstable. Maybe you should read what he has said with that in mind. I like what you said about the compared signal power though. It made sense. But it does beg the questions about the Aircraft's aluminum hull blocking most of the signal and the dozens of towers that the phone might see at 50 miles away confusing the handoffs. Wouldn't the geometry of the Planes "rf holes tend to be constantly changing in relation to the towers as the plane traveled. Though I guess if the person had his or her head in the porthole opening next to the window facing the nearest highway or city he or she could minimize such effects. Also there is something I have observed about my own phone. My phone reception gets pretty crappy below three bars. At one or two bars, especially in a moving car, the sound is bad and dropoffs are frequent. The best reception I have observed in a plane is three bars. I know that this is not scientific. But If I were in a plane today and allowed to use my phone over a rural area. based on that experience, I'd be shocked if it worked. I'd expect the signal to be low because of the distance and even lower because of the plane. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:08 AM (#2286375) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC I didn't say "Cell phones can't work in airplanes at 30,000 ft". I said they can't do that at that height going at that speed. You are (conveniently, in my opinion), ignoring the problem of 'handoffs' which, when combined with the other factors has created a problem for people wanting to talk on cell phones in airplanes at altitudes above a couple of thousand feet and going at speeds of a few to several hundred miles an hour. You are addressing only the problem of signal, but you apparently don't know enough about the technology being used in practice for civilian use to understand the problems associated with handoffs. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:13 AM (#2286380) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce "Aircraft's aluminum hull blocking most of the signal " Except that through any hole ( ie, window) larger than 2 x wavelength. Most aircraft used for passenger service have windows... at 1900 mhz, the wavelength is... less than 6 inches. 1/2 wavelength in ft = 462 / frequency in MHz (f I remember correctly from dipole calculations) |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:17 AM (#2286383) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Teribus "I didn't say "Cell phones can't work in airplanes at 30,000 ft". I said they can't do that at that height going at that speed." - CarolC. Ah CarolC you mean that "Cell" phones work in aircraft at 30,000ft as long as the aircraft is stationary, well that's about as plausable as your theories about 9/11 |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:17 AM (#2286384) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce "you apparently don't know enough about the technology being used in practice for civilian use to understand the problems associated with handoffs. " I do understand handoffs- but do you? The handoff would occur WHEN ANOTHER TOWER got a stronger signal. If the signal is on one cell, it stays there until another cell gets a stronger signal or the signal strength drops below the required level. As for your comment, I can certainly say that "You apparently don't know enough about the technology being used to understand the problems associated with the conspiracy theories you seem to believe." |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:21 AM (#2286387) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: beardedbruce YOUR referenced expert claims ""at 30,000, there would be very little energy left to ANY signal"" My comment was in reply to that- which YOU insisted I had not read. "30,000 ft is less than 5 miles- are you claiming that cell phones will not work 5 miles from a tower??? " If HIS statement is true, MY question is certainly a valid one. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:23 AM (#2286391) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC No, Teribus, I only said under what conditions they would not work. I did not say under what conditions they would work. But I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand a distinction like that one. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:28 AM (#2286394) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC When you put all of the problems that the author of the pages I linked to have raised together, and you combine those with the tests and the anecdotal evidence we already have (people reporting failure when trying to place cell phone calls in planes), I think the evidence outweighs your theories, beardedbruce. You have not reported any anecdotal evidence in civilian applications, nor any tests. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:30 AM (#2286397) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Of course, the government could easily prove that the cell phones did work in the planes by simply releasing the phone records, which as far as I know, they have not done. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:51 AM (#2286427) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: catspaw49 Sorry Bruce.....You only have thoeries whereas Carol has facts............................. Carol, just what the hell is it that constitutes a fact versus a thory? Your belief in it? LOL........Seems to be the criteria. Spaw |
|
12 Mar 08 - 11:55 AM (#2286430) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Wesley S One of my concerns is that looking at the quanity and quality of posts so far is that for some people this is no longer a topic of interest. It's a full blown obsession. How much time do y'all spend on this topic per day? |
|
12 Mar 08 - 12:48 PM (#2286498) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: irishenglish I know I'm done-this has gotten too technical to comprehend. I'm going to stop while I'm ahead, before I really insult someone on here, which I wouldn't enjoy doing. I'm sure I'll see you all again on here in some capacity,but none of us is likely to change each others minds so I think I need to get back to the music, the reason I came on this board in the first place. Just got the new Oysterband CD the other day, and have been grooving on that, a real gem, and I'll leave you to the discussion. Cheers-irishenglish, or Robert |
|
12 Mar 08 - 12:55 PM (#2286505) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Jack the Sailor Bruce, You have said a number of informative things and, for me at least, clarified some of the points raised by the cell phone technician that Carol quoted. Thank you. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM (#2286613) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC It's all theories, catspaw. Nobody has provided any proof of anything - only theories about what could have happened. As I said, proof would be the phone records or the video from the Pentagon that the government refuses to release. Or the metal from the WTC buildings that has been destroyed at the behest of the government. Gee... if they won't let anyone see the real proof, I wonder what they have to hide... Even the FBI doesn't consider Bin Laden a suspect for 9/11, even though he's on their most wanted list for other things. Their reason? Not enough evidence that he was responsible. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 02:45 PM (#2286624) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC And by the way, neither you nor anyone else can find a post from me in which I have said I have proof of anything. I have only maintained that no one in the government has provided proof of anything either, and that there is considerable evidence that they are lying. My point has never been that I know what happened. My point has consistently been that there are too many anomalies and inconsistencies for the government's version to be accepted at fact value. My point is and has always been that we need an independent and verifiable investigation into what happened The fact that you and the others keep choosing to put words in my mouth that I have never said says nothing whatever about me, and everything in the world about you (and them) and your own motives. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 06:45 PM (#2286846) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Teribus 300 Up |
|
12 Mar 08 - 06:49 PM (#2286849) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Teribus Oh "the metal from the WTC buildings that has been destroyed at the behest of the government. Gee... if they won't let anyone see the real proof, I wonder what they have to hide..." They're not doing all that good a job of hiding some of it - quite a lump of it now exists as the US Navy's latest Amphibious Assault Ship the USS New York - Just thought CarolC and JTS would like to know that. |
|
12 Mar 08 - 10:05 PM (#2286988) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC Actually, I am aware that they do have some of the metal, and what they have shows that the temperature of the fires in the twin towers were considerably lower than what would have been necessary to cause the steel to weaken and sag, as the government is saying happened. |
|
13 Mar 08 - 12:05 AM (#2287089) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Jack the Sailor >>They're not doing all that good a job of hiding some of it - quite a lump of it now exists as the US Navy's latest Amphibious Assault Ship the USS New York - Just thought CarolC and JTS would like to know that.<< I could not care less where the metal is. But if you are saying that they reprocessed it and put it in a ship then you are reinforcing Carol's point. But your words indicate smug self satisfaction. Are you engaged in a George W. Bush impression? Pretending that you are mentally impaired to mock the President is not very nice at all. |
|
30 Apr 08 - 03:53 AM (#2329455) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: Ebbie humph |
|
30 Apr 08 - 12:29 PM (#2329857) Subject: RE: BS: Willie Nelson, Walter Mondale & 9/11 From: CarolC For the sake of continuity, I would like to point out that this thread was refreshed by a Guest whose post was deleted. |
