New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

911 evidence - Page 6

post #251 of 470
5/14/08 at 3:52am
Sucked into an implosion? Christ.
Reply
post #252 of 470
5/14/08 at 4:06am

"Squibs" and "Falling near the speed of Gravity"

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/squibs.jpg

First of all, the air that's being forced downwards into the building is going to be DIRTY air, full of dust and debris. It's going to go throughout the building, and eject through open or weak windows, and it's going to travel through the elevator shafts and stairs, many floors below the progressing collapse, until it finds an outlet to the outside, like a window. And the jet of air to the outside is going to be dirty. Just as you see in that picture. (An that explains the explosions in the lobby when the plane hit ... the explosion from the airplane traveled throughout the tower(s) via the elevator shafts and stairwells)

Also, look at that picture you provided. It proves that the building wasn't falling at or near the "speed of gravity", because you can see chunks of the building, and the dust cloud, curving downwards AHEAD of the collapse, because the ARE moving at the "speed of gravity", faster than the collapse. As fast as the buildings fell, the speed of "gravity" unimpeded is still a lot faster. Just look at the photo (that YOU provided) and you can see it for yourself.
Reply
post #253 of 470
5/14/08 at 4:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Riviello View Post
Sucked into an implosion? Christ.
I know. It's been explained over and over that when you collapse one floor on top of another they take up less space. Like collapsing a slinky, or an accordion, or folding your clothes flat.
Reply
post #254 of 470
5/14/08 at 8:27am
Quote:
The intact 16 story section above aircraft impact weighed 58,000 metric tons. Thus, the upper 16 of the 110 floor system, or 14.5 % of the floors, weighed only about 12.7% of the total building weight, so the majority of the mass per floor was in the lower floors.
But the initial collapse didn't affect the lower floors at first. It affected the next lowest story. Which added its mass to the collapse. Which then affected the next lowest story. Which added its mass to the collapse. So by the time you're down to even the 50th floor, you've got 60 stories worth of mass -- with gravity and acceleration on its side -- bearing down on it.
Reply
post #255 of 470
5/14/08 at 11:23am
My goal one day is to become a billionaire and spend the money to recreate the towers with the exact same everything on a deserted island. Then I'm going to fly planes into them just to see the results. I'm going to have to hit the buildings exactly like they did, so if my remote controlled 747s don't hit right, I'll need to do it again and again.
Reply
post #256 of 470
5/14/08 at 3:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
But the initial collapse didn't affect the lower floors at first. It affected the next lowest story. Which added its mass to the collapse. Which then affected the next lowest story. Which added its mass to the collapse. So by the time you're down to even the 50th floor, you've got 60 stories worth of mass -- with gravity and acceleration on its side -- bearing down on it.
Exactly.

And if I can veer off into some actual engineering, the energy model for the towers is massive. The free standing potential energy* is 1.863 terajoules. Which is equivalent to 520,000 kilowatt hours, 14,000 gallons of gas, or 450 TONS of explosives.

Once you get 1/4 of that energy moving and start converting it into kinetic energy you're looking at destrutive power on par with avalanches or landslides only completely isolated to the buildings footprint (approx. 40,000 square feet.) And energy transfer is never perfect so a lot of the energy is going to be lost other energy types, mainly sound energy and thermal energy (heat due to friction) considering the circumstances. The latter easily explaining the melted appearance on sheared columns.


*PE = mass * height * acceleration due to gravity
= 500 000 short tons * 1 375ft * 9.8m/s/s
= 453 592 370 kg * 419.1m * 9.8m/s/s
= 1 862 985 510 216.6 J = 1.863 TJ
Reply
post #257 of 470
5/14/08 at 4:45pm
PLEASE ANSWER THIS!

Talking about Building 7....how many times has a building been on fire (which was not even very visible) collapsed in a way that looked like a controlled demolition???? No building has collapsed from a fire. If you believe the conspiracy or not you have to agree SOMETHING is wrong with the official story. And if building 7 was easily explained why was it left out of the 9/11 commission report?
Reply
post #258 of 470
5/14/08 at 4:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by randyjack View Post
We all know building 7 collapsed because after the conspiracy was complete, someone realized that in their perfect planning and execution they forgot to detonate it with the towers (which would have been more believable, obviously). So they waited a few hours, and then detonated it. Much high-fiving was done. Obviously.
How in the hell would it be more believable? I mean the two towers got hit by planes and then a building that didnt get hit and had very minor damages collapsed around the same time? LOL! You think thats more believable? It collapsed later because they had the excuse of "it burned all day" which is more believable.
Reply
post #259 of 470
5/14/08 at 5:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
PLEASE ANSWER THIS!

Talking about Building 7....how many times has a building been on fire (which was not even very visible) collapsed in a way that looked like a controlled demolition???? No building has collapsed from a fire. If you believe the conspiracy or not you have to agree SOMETHING is wrong with the official story. And if building 7 was easily explained why was it left out of the 9/11 commission report?
AHEM
Reply
post #260 of 470
5/14/08 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
No building has collapsed from a fire.
I live in a town called Chicago. Have you ever heard of it?
Reply
post #261 of 470
5/14/08 at 5:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
I live in a town called Chicago. Have you ever heard of it?

Were they made of steel?
Reply
post #262 of 470
5/14/08 at 6:02pm
Sure. Why not.
Reply
post #263 of 470
5/14/08 at 6:05pm
How much is Bush paying you people?
Reply
post #264 of 470
5/14/08 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD View Post
Why isn't anyone even talking about the fact that gravitation under general relativity falls apart below the Planck Length??? Do I need to connect the dots for you people?
It's been awhile, so I'll ask again...can we have the little green boxes back? Pleeeeeeese?
Reply
post #265 of 470
5/15/08 at 7:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
How in the hell would it be more believable? I mean the two towers got hit by planes and then a building that didnt get hit and had very minor damages collapsed around the same time? LOL! You think thats more believable? It collapsed later because they had the excuse of "it burned all day" which is more believable.
You realize that when two massive buildings collapse, they spray the local buildings with chunks of debris, steel bars, with the force of missiles. WT7 was damaged structurally by shrapnel from the towers, and the fires further weakened it. It was seen beginning to sag hours before it finally collapsed.
Reply
post #266 of 470
5/15/08 at 7:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
How much is Bush paying you people?
I often wonder how much Bush is paying those conspiracy sites. Because those sites suck in credulous anti-Bush people, and poison their arguments with nonsense. Witness Rosie O'Donnel, on the VIEW Tv show, who frequently raised issues about the Bush administration. But she started listening to 9-11 conspiracy nonsense and instantly painted herself as an idiot. I would think it a very smart strategy (call it a psychological operation) to disseminate this nonsense, in the hope of marginalizing popular movements against real Bush crimes, by making them look idiotic.
Reply
post #267 of 470
5/15/08 at 8:53am

Complete Conspiracy Debunking for WT7, for Darth and YT

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction
Reply
post #268 of 470
5/15/08 at 10:08am
Why is every major American disaster/tragedy turned into a possible conspiracy? Can't you just accept that the government isn't out to get you and that there are people out there who hate you, and would do something like this? Is Osama Bin Laden on U.S. payroll, or was his claiming of this disaster for Al Quaida a hoax, like some claim the moon landing was? It's really just infuriating. There's a lot of much worse going on in the world, and yet these conspiracies seem to mean more to Americans than the numerous international situations that I (and countless others in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, you name it) have been personally effected by. Try looking outward, instead of consistently inward.

Maybe I'm missing the point, but coming from someone who has only lived here a year or so, this all seems really selfish and even more so naive. It also contradicts the general opinion I hear that Bush is an idiot, because it implies that he has a great knowledge of history: Stalin did something similar - created a disaster in order to obtain more power/invoke martial law. I'm not a big fan of the guy, but I really like living here even more so than living in the U.K., and definitely more than in Germany or Slovakia.
Reply
post #269 of 470
5/15/08 at 10:30am
The thing is, if they wanted to manufacture a tragedy, wasn't there an easier way than arranging for two commercial airliners to fly into the World Trade Center, have them burn for an hour, and then collapse? While also having a plane hit the Pentagon and one crash into a field in Pennsylvania? I mean, that's just needlessly elaborate if all you want to do is manufacture a war.
Reply
post #270 of 470
5/15/08 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
The thing is, if they wanted to manufacture a tragedy, wasn't there an easier way than arranging for two commercial airliners to fly into the World Trade Center, have them burn for an hour, and then collapse? While also having a plane hit the Pentagon and one crash into a field in Pennsylvania? I mean, that's just needlessly elaborate if all you want to do is manufacture a war.
Not to mention the fact that, if they HAD manufactured the tragedy, why not manufacture it to support their war with Afghanistan and Iraq ? Why, if they were manufacturing it, didn't they make the hijackers Afghani, or Iraqi, instead of inconveniently Saudi ? The fact that they DID lie and stretch the truth trying to make a connection between Al-Quaeda and Iraqi Security shows you how much their efforts to use 9-11 as an excuse to go to war was NOT planned. If it were planned, the hijackers would have all been Iraqi.

Another desperate lie was the presence of Al-Quaeda in Northern Iraq, supposedly with Saddam's blessing. Except those areas were declared off limits to Saddam and his forces by the U.N., so he had no way of controlling activity there!
Reply
post #271 of 470
5/15/08 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
How in the hell would it be more believable? I mean the two towers got hit by planes and then a building that didnt get hit and had very minor damages collapsed around the same time? LOL! You think thats more believable? It collapsed later because they had the excuse of "it burned all day" which is more believable.

Does this look like minor damage to you?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/0621.jpg/0621-large.jpg

Or this ?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/061.jpg/061-full.jpg

Gigantic holes taken out of the building's structure, AND it's on fire.
How about THIS, in the South Side of the building?

http://www.debunking911.com/7wtc.jpg
Reply
post #272 of 470
5/15/08 at 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
How in the hell would it be more believable? I mean the two towers got hit by planes and then a building that didnt get hit and had very minor damages collapsed around the same time? LOL! You think thats more believable? It collapsed later because they had the excuse of "it burned all day" which is more believable.
It burned all day, yes. On all floors. Look at this picture of the SOUTH side of the building (that the conspiracy people never show you) with all the floors on fire and belching smoke.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/0921.jpg/0921-full.jpg
Reply
post #273 of 470
5/15/08 at 12:13pm
My whole thing is that no one in the government is smart enough to pull something like this off.
Reply
post #274 of 470
5/16/08 at 3:54am
bleah
Reply
post #275 of 470
5/16/08 at 3:58am
Nevermind
Reply
post #276 of 470
5/16/08 at 1:08pm
I was watching several controlled demolitions on TV yesterday. EVERY SINGLE TIME, the explosives blew out the lower stories first and let the building collapse into the new space. They basically were destroyed from the bottom up. It's inarguable that the towers collapsed from the top down; something that seems to go against the basic techniques of the controlled demolition industry.
Reply
post #277 of 470
5/16/08 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boomstick View Post
My whole thing is that no one in the government is smart enough to pull something like this off.
And it should be DarthSidious's whole thing, too. I can kinda almost see how yt is into the conspiracy theories, but isn't Sidious supposed to think the government is inefficient and incompetent? To a libertarian, I think it'd be obvious that a few free guys with determination could pull off something that no government could equal, let alone keep secret.
Reply
post #278 of 470
5/16/08 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoDiggity View Post
You realize that when two massive buildings collapse, they spray the local buildings with chunks of debris, steel bars, with the force of missiles. WT7 was damaged structurally by shrapnel from the towers, and the fires further weakened it. It was seen beginning to sag hours before it finally collapsed.


lol
Reply
post #279 of 470
5/16/08 at 2:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Kimbell View Post
And it should be DarthSidious's whole thing, too. I can kinda almost see how yt is into the conspiracy theories, but isn't Sidious supposed to think the government is inefficient and incompetent? To a libertarian, I think it'd be obvious that a few free guys with determination could pull off something that no government could equal, let alone keep secret.

I agree with what you're saying but when the government wants something done they get it done. When they want $200 from you they will get it. They seem inefficient cause they dont give a shit.
Reply
post #280 of 470
5/16/08 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
lol
And if you read that link I posted for you and YT about WT7, you'll find tons of firefighters' anecdotes about WT7, and how they knew it was going to collapse. The Fire Chief ordered everyone back several blocks to avoid the crash, and one guy recounts the Chief yelling at him for setting up a triage (emergency medical aid center) in a park too close the WT7, which would be in the path of the expected dust cloud. Also, you'll also find plenty of pictures of steel buckling due to fires. Contrary to the Conspiracy people, who say "never has a steel building collapsed due to fire", if a building is structurally damaged, and burns out of control, it's doomed, steel or no. There is a picture of a famous fire where the outer steel structure collapsed, but the concrete core remained standing. the CONCRETE core.
Reply
post #281 of 470
5/16/08 at 3:26pm
Honestly, if you examine the evidence AND have absolutely no preconceived notion of what it will lead you to, everything points to the collapse happening pretty much the way the official story goes. The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they've already decided what happened, then they look to see what evidence supports their position. That's not how science/investigation works. You look at the evidence first, THEN formulate a theory. It's far too easy to fit any "fact" into a preconceived theory, and that's just not scientific.

Mind you, this doesn't just happen to conspiracy theorists. There are plenty of people, scientists included, who are guilty of formulating a theory first and then trying to find ways to make the facts fit their ideas. In particular, the field of paranormal research is rife with this kind of unscientific behavior, but you also find it in everything from genetics to nuclear physics.
Reply
post #282 of 470
5/16/08 at 3:52pm
The thing about "no steel building has ever collapsed from a fire" is that even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. Unless there is some example out there I'm not aware of where one of the world's largest skyscrapers suffered massive structural damage and then had jet-fuel fires burn inside of it for hours and remained standing. 9/11 was a singular event, and there isn't any real frame of reference for such extreme conditions. It doesn't mean shit that an electrical fire didn't burn down an office building somewhere when it didn't get hit by planes.
Reply
post #283 of 470
5/16/08 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
That's pretty funny, actually, and maybe you're right. I hadn't thought about that before. But how is your side of the argument any more rational than mine? Not one person here knows the empirical truth about what happened. We're all choosing what sources to believe. The NIST report and the Popular Science story and the 9/11 Commission report are all subjective analyses. They're all saying what could have brought the towers down, not what actually did bring the towers down as proven by the evidence.
Here's the fundamental problem, yt: the sources you deride as "subjective analyses" are totally and completely credible, and represent some of the best compilations of information we have on this subject. The sources you're citing in favor of your nonsensical conspiracy theories are crackpot bullshit.

Your continued denial of both of these facts is perplexing, because I don't think you're a stupid person. But are you so blinded by your hatred of the Bush administration and the "mainstream media" boogeymen that you've become this delusional? That this seems to be so is very troubling to me.
Reply
post #284 of 470
5/16/08 at 6:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
The thing about "no steel building has ever collapsed from a fire" is that even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. Unless there is some example out there I'm not aware of where one of the world's largest skyscrapers suffered massive structural damage and then had jet-fuel fires burn inside of it for hours and remained standing. 9/11 was a singular event, and there isn't any real frame of reference for such extreme conditions. It doesn't mean shit that an electrical fire didn't burn down an office building somewhere when it didn't get hit by planes.

As noted, steel buildings collapse from fire all the time. That's a lie the conspiracy people just say over and over, because it's hard to believe that they would just make something up and repeat it. And as for WTC 1 and WTC 2, the impact of the plane smashed through many steel support structures, and the explosion (probably) blew off the fire resistant foam. (it's the law in NY City that all steel structures over 1 story high must have fire resistant foam on exposed structural steel ; why is it the law if they are totally immune to heat? Obviously steel structures DO collapse during fires, or there'd be no attempt to try and keep them from overheating).
Reply
post #285 of 470
5/16/08 at 10:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonStrickland View Post
Honestly, if you examine the evidence AND have absolutely no preconceived notion of what it will lead you to, everything points to the collapse happening pretty much the way the official story goes. The problem with conspiracy theorists is that they've already decided what happened, then they look to see what evidence supports their position. That's not how science/investigation works. You look at the evidence first, THEN formulate a theory. It's far too easy to fit any "fact" into a preconceived theory, and that's just not scientific.

Mind you, this doesn't just happen to conspiracy theorists. There are plenty of people, scientists included, who are guilty of formulating a theory first and then trying to find ways to make the facts fit their ideas. In particular, the field of paranormal research is rife with this kind of unscientific behavior, but you also find it in everything from genetics to nuclear physics.
If you notice there is no "official story" since the 9/11 commission left it out of the 9/11 commission report. Why would they do that?
Reply
post #286 of 470
5/16/08 at 11:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSidious View Post
If you notice there is no "official story" since the 9/11 commission left it out of the 9/11 commission report. Why would they do that?
Because they read the shit folks like you write, and like to have a good laugh?
Reply
post #287 of 470
5/17/08 at 1:02am
Thread Starter 
This is an excellent lecture about 9/11 from theological professor and book author Dr. David Ray Griffin.

9/11 The Myth and the Reality

I'm not arguing this subject anymore, so don't bother throwing the rope over the lynchin' tree. If you find the Bush/Cheney version of events credible, that's your business. I'm posting these links for any lurkers who don't.
Reply
post #288 of 470
5/17/08 at 1:28am
Now you're getting nasty. C'mon.
Reply
post #289 of 470
5/17/08 at 1:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
If you find the Bush/Cheney version of events credible, that's your business.
Hey, a stopped clock's right twice a day.
Reply
post #290 of 470
5/17/08 at 3:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
I'm posting these links for any lurkers who don't.
Then for the benefit of the lurkers, I'd like to point out that theological professor and book author Dr. David Ray Griffin believes that The Pentagon wasn't struck by an airplane and that the phone calls from Barbara Olsen from Flight 77 to her husband didn't actually happen or he was simply duped by fake phone calls.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...60405112622982

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9/11 The Myth and the Reality
Myth Number 9: There is no doubt that Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour, struck the Pentagon.

A third major problem with the official story is that there is considerable evidence that it could not have been Flight 77 because it was not a Boeing 757. For one thing, the strike on the Pentagon, unlike the strikes on the Twin Towers, reportedly did not create a detectable seismic signal.

Also, according to several witnesses and many people who have studied the available photographs, both the damage and the debris were inconsistent with a strike by a large airliner. That issue, however, is too complex to discuss here, as is the issue of the what should be inferred from the conflicting eyewitness testimony.

Deferring those topics to another time, I will conclude by pointing out that the suspicion that the Pentagon was not struck by a 757, as the government claims, is supported by the fact that evidence was destroyed. Shortly after the strike, government agents picked up debris and carried it off.94 Then the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, so that any remaining forensic evidence was literally covered up.

http://911blogger.com/node/8408#comment-139890

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theological Professor Dr. David Ray Griffin
Reasons for Still Doubting the Olson Calls

Does this evidence, that Flight 77 did have seat-back phones, mean that we must infer that Barbara Olson’s alleged call to Ted Olson really occurred? Of course not. All the reasons that had previously been given for doubting it still hold.

He feels the same way about the phone calls from Flight 93...

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11930

Quote:
Originally Posted by Book Author Dr. David Ray Griffin
Feasibility of Voice Morphing

Deena Burnett reported that she received four cell phone calls from her husband, Tom Burnett, while he was on United 93. In order to emphasize that I do not believe that she was lying, I have suggested that she was duped---that she received calls from someone using voice-morphing technology. Kornkven, incredulously describing my scenario, writes: “The perpetrators . . . are able to voice-morph Tom Burnett’s voice so masterfully that they are able to fool his wife not once, not twice, but on at least three and maybe four calls.” He thereby seems to be suggesting that the idea that the voice-morphing could have been good enough to fool Deena Burnet is implausible.

In D9D, however, I pointed out that already in 1999, Washington Times journalist William Arkin reported witnessing a demonstration in which the voices of Generals Carl Steiner and Colin Powell were perfectly duplicated. I also reported an advertisement for a voice changer said to be good enough for people to fool their spouses.[5] I am not sure, therefore, why Kornkven considers implausible the suggestion that Deena Burnett was fooled four times.
Reply
post #291 of 470
5/17/08 at 7:39am
Well of course we should believe a philosopher and theologist over the mass of physicists, metalurgists, engineers and fire fighters. You know, people actually qualified to talk about it.
Reply
post #292 of 470
5/17/08 at 9:04am
Wow, this really pisses me off. Not only is this beyond stupid, but so insulting to the families. In order to please their small minds and fulfill their conspiracy theory fantasies now they have to trash on the memories of families as well.

And yt, the Bush/Cheney version? I like how nothing that you have posted even addresses the report I posted on the first page. Again, done by a credible expert in the field with long and verifiable credentials. Published in a public manner ... nothing again you have posted even addresses his points. I know you are not an engineer, but if you don't even grasp a bit of what he is talking about, maybe going back to school wouldn't hurt you so much.
Reply
post #293 of 470
5/17/08 at 10:43am
You conspiracy wack-jobs are pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Mind-numbingly, disgustingly pathetic.

If you believe this shit then what are you doing about it? The world is clearly going down a terrible, horrifying path, with clear, identifiable enemies. What are you doing to bring the world's attention to this? Why aren't you getting bright minds together to discuss your irrefutable evidence, to convince them? Smart people would "get it" wouldn't they? Wouldn't they? Aren't there enough liberal academics free of government influence to create a real movement? You need only convince them. So what are you doing about it? Why aren't you organizing, writing, planning?

I'll tell you why. Because you're a small minded, psychological misfit.

I'm sorry, maybe I've just been in China too long but this kind of obnoxious ignorance is starting to make me queasy.
Reply
post #294 of 470
5/17/08 at 11:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
This is an excellent lecture about 9/11 from theological professor and book author Dr. David Ray Griffin.

9/11 The Myth and the Reality

I'm not arguing this subject anymore, so don't bother throwing the rope over the lynchin' tree. If you find the Bush/Cheney version of events credible, that's your business. I'm posting these links for any lurkers who don't.
The thing is, you haven't been arguing the subject. Arguing usually involves listening to the other side and presenting your own opinions. You're ignoring the links and tons of evidence that everyone's been putting out showing clear inconsistencies in the conspiracy theorist's ideas. The way you're being closed minded and lumping everyone in with buying the Bush/Cheney version of events (which I don't even know what the fuck that means) is ridiculous and demeaning. You also have admitted that you don't know shit about the subject and are just getting into it, which means that you really don't have a voice on it, especially for the rest of us who've been reading up on it for years.

This whole thread is a mess.
Reply
post #295 of 470
5/17/08 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
This is an excellent lecture about 9/11 from theological professor and book author Dr. David Ray Griffin.

9/11 The Myth and the Reality

I'm not arguing this subject anymore, so don't bother throwing the rope over the lynchin' tree. If you find the Bush/Cheney version of events credible, that's your business. I'm posting these links for any lurkers who don't.
So, we're either with you or against you?
I've always enjoyed yt's contributions in the Politics forum, and we agree on most things, so this is just sad.
Way to lose all credibility, yt! Enjoy discussing your paranoid delusions with your fellow nutcase, DarthSidious.
Reply
post #296 of 470
5/17/08 at 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amphibatron View Post
Then for the benefit of the lurkers, I'd like to point out that theological professor and book author Dr. David Ray Griffin believes that The Pentagon wasn't struck by an airplane and that the phone calls from Barbara Olsen from Flight 77 to her husband didn't actually happen or he was simply duped by fake phone calls.
Wow. So not only do all the people involved with planting explosives in 3 WTC buildings and the pentagon and those who shot down flight 93 have to keep a secret, but those who faked phone calls from the passengers of flights 77 and 93 also must be out there keeping the conspiracy quiet. Do I need to point out that spoofing such calls adds no real benefit to the powers behind the conspiracy ("let's roll" aside)?
Reply
post #297 of 470
5/17/08 at 1:01pm
Thread Starter 
This is a very thought-provoking lecture, even if you think two of Dr. Griffin's points are invalid. And as I posted earlier, if you feel this whole thing is all sewn up by the Bush/Cheney report, that's great. Go with God. You have made up your minds that the empirical truth is contained somewhere in the 911 Commission report, FEMA or NIST, or elsewhere, and I'm happy for you. But I can't share your confidence no matter how much you ridicule me or tell me how I "disappoint" you. I'm posting further links for people who don't share that unshakable confidence.

But don't accuse me of not looking at your links and references when I do, but how many people in this firing squad actually watched Dr. Griffin's lecture in entirety?

El Cap, I did post a response.
Reply
post #298 of 470
5/17/08 at 1:15pm
The martyr act is pathetic. I agree with Greg David, this is getting pretty sad.
Reply
post #299 of 470
5/17/08 at 1:21pm
I don't have to rub my face in a pile of bullshit to know it's bullshit.
Reply
post #300 of 470
5/17/08 at 4:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
This is a very thought-provoking lecture, even if you think two of Dr. Griffin's points are invalid.

The problem with his lecture is that it's designed to build towards those two very invalid points. There's a reason he saves the "a plane didn't hit the Pentagon" and the "faked phone calls" theories for last. And even though he doesn't specifically mention the faked calls in the lecture, it's implied with the no plane nonsense. And we know from his books, blogs and interviews that this is what he believes.

Just as Scientology doesn't hit you over the head with the craziest shit they believe the first day you walk through the door, this lecture is designed as a gradual procession through 9/11 conspiracy beliefs. It saves the most outlandish claims for last. You can't just push the "no plane/faked calls" theory onto someone and expect them to swallow it wholesale, first you have to condition them to believe that it's possible. That way, when the audience leaves your lecture and has the choice of purchasing the six books that Dr. Griffin has written on the subject presented to them in the lobby, they don't just keep on walking to their car.

Myth Number 1: Our political and military leaders simply would not do such a thing.

to


Myth Number 9: There is no doubt that Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour, struck the Pentagon.


It's incredibly calculated and incredibly dishonest.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse