Forum menu
If I was the CIA I'd have just used a shredder
or not have left a paper trail in the first place
"For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.
It takes years of training to be able to carve steel from lumps hewn from the earths core.
I think there is a very unique mine near Sheffield where RSJ's get dug out of the ground cut to length and ready to use 🙂
nealglover - Why do I have to have that/those? Is this a Court or something? I thought it was a [i]discussion[/i] forum, so I had the impression that the qualifications required were that I join-in, have an internet connection and can type. Since you seem to think yourself qualified to judge me, perhaps you can let me know [i]your[/i] qualifications to do that. Oh no - hang on, that would be equally as pointless as your request.I'd be interested in the Professional Qualifications and relevant experience you have to make that statement ?
I'm not putting forward any alternative conspiracy, but I am perfectly entitled to find the official conspiracy story inadequate and wonder what the truth really is. I can hold whatever opinion I like without asking your permission.
"It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.
I think you can learn a lot about a conspiracy theory by the company it keeps. With a decent conspiracy theory, mad shouty cretins like O'Donnell would be embarrassing. With 9/11, she's a respected and oft-quoted voice.
Wind-ups aside, I do think there are unanswered questions which it should be ok to ask without all the "conspiracy theory" nonsense and finger pointing. And finding errors in a video doesn't mean you should dismiss it entirely - if that were the case I would dismiss the official story in its entirety purely because there is no good reason for WTC7 falling down.And, to reiterate - nobody can dismiss things with a blanket "conspiracy theory" call, especially if their own version of events is itself a conspiracy theory.
+2
tower 7 came down ever so lovely and precise didn't it 🙂
Why do I have to have that/those?
Are you really asking why someone needs to have knowledge about the subject on which they are talking. It's because if they are not we end up with statements about hows it physically impossible to melt steel
Since you seem to think yourself qualified to judge me, perhaps you can let me know your qualifications to do that. Oh no - hang on, that would be equally as pointless as your request.
If you reject the opinion of experts its reasonable to ask if you are one. It is asking if you are qualified to have an opinion on the subject- ie one that would or should be respected. I have no qualifications to dispute the findings of building experts which is why I am not doing it - you are its reasonable to ask if you are well qualified to do this
I'm not putting forward any alternative conspiracy, but I am perfectly entitled to find the official conspiracy story inadequate and wonder what the truth really is.
We are perfectly entitled to point out they are experts in their fields and you know nothing of the subject on which you speak and therefore your view has far less weight than theirs.
You are perfectly entitled to accept this as self evidently true or to get all upset and act as if this has no bearing.
You can hold any opinion you want and we can listen to the experts and you can ignore them despite knowing very little of the subject area.
[i]It takes years of training to be able to carve steel from lumps hewn from the earths core. [/i]
Thank you for that gem jy, it's made my day. Someone should explain to the actress that buildings start to sag as the steel softens, part-way towards actual melting temperature. After that, it depends.
I suppose if we believe everything we were told (and are told by people we are told are experts) then we will never need to waste any more time and money on independently led investigations and campaigns, we can remain happy in a state of ignorant bliss whilst the corporates and the state walk all over us.
Anymore videos or photos of that 757 crashing into the Pentagon?
😆I think there is a very unique mine near Sheffield where RSJ's get dug out of the ground cut to length and ready to use
I suppose if we believe everything we were told (and are told by people we are told are experts) then we will never need to waste any more time and money on independently led investigations and campaigns, we can remain happy in a state of ignorant bliss whilst the corporates and the state walk all over us.
You are right every time any expert speaks it is to trick the masses into believing what the corporations and states want us to think
There may be some middle ground between nodding to what we hear from the "state" in a north Korean style and being a conspiracist fruit loop who does not realise steel can melt an weakens when it is hot
Have you any facts to accompany your emotive plea?
Science facts, not just facts.
I'd be interested in the Professional Qualifications and relevant experience you have to make that statement ?
nealglover - Why do I have to have that/those? Is this a Court or something? I thought it was a discussion forum, so I had the impression that the qualifications required were that I join-in, have an internet connection and can type.
well, you stated what looked at first glance like a "Fact" rather than purely a guess, or made up nonsense.
So I asked for a bit of background as to your qualification to make such a statement of fact.
That's because, I like to check the Validity of things I read online, rather than just blindly lap them up.
Since you seem to think yourself qualified to judge me, perhaps you can let me know your qualifications to do that.
I don't need to be qualified to ask questions when someone states what they want me believe are Facts.
Are you suggesting I should just Believe what you said, and not bother to find out if wether you are a world renowned structural engineer or a children's swimming coach !?
I think this may be the problem with some of the "Truth Seekers"
They don't bother to check anything, they just read stuff, and if it suits what they want to hear, they treat it as a fact that can't be denied.
Oh no - hang on, that would be equally as pointless as your request.
I think I have already mentioned why my request wasn't pointless.
Junkyard - Member
I suppose if we believe everything we were told (and are told by people we are told are experts) then we will never need to waste any more time and money on independently led investigations and campaigns, we can remain happy in a state of ignorant bliss whilst the corporates and the state walk all over us.
You are right every time any expert speaks it is to trick the masses into believing what the corporations and states want us to thinkThere may be some middle ground between nodding to what we hear from the "state" in a north Korean style and being a conspiracist fruit loop who does not realise steel can melt an weakens when it is hot
Have you any facts to accompany your emotive plea?
POSTED 1 HOUR AGO #
Well, its not an emotive plea, its a statement of personal opinion, do I need irrefutable facts to state an opinion?
Was the decision to invade Iraq not based upon sound factual evidence?
Where does North Korea fit into this ?
Well, its not an emotive plea, its a statement of personal opinion, do I need irrefutable facts to state an opinion?
Of course you dont need facts to hold an opinion.
The moon is made of cheese is an opinion however there are no facts to support this opinion.
Irrefutable facts help an opinion and refutable facts hinder one.
Is this not pretty obvious basic stuff?
I dont mean to patronise, but it read like i do.
Was the decision to invade Iraq not based upon sound factual evidence?
If you mean Weapons of Mass Destruction, then no.
The Iraq War[nb 1] was an armed conflict in Iraq that consisted of two phases.[41] The first was an invasion of Ba'athist Iraq by the United States[42][43] and the United Kingdom, and assisted by smaller forces from several other countries, starting on 20 March 2003.[44][45] It was followed by a longer phase of fighting, in which an insurgency emerged to oppose Coalition forces and the newly formed Iraqi government.[41] The U.S. completed its withdrawal of military personnel in December 2011.[46][47] However, the Iraqi insurgency continues and has caused thousands of fatalities.
Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies.[48][49][50] In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that Iraq was not in possession of WMD and cruise missiles. Prior to the attack, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD, but could not yet verify the accuracy of Iraq's declarations regarding what weapons it possessed, as their work was still unfinished. The leader of the inspectors Hans Blix estimated the time remaining for disarmament being verified through inspections to be "months".[51][52][53][54][55]
After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.?led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted.[56] Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been one of the main arguments for the invasion.[57]
I find it sad that there are some on here who are so obviously interested in science. They have a natural appetite for learning, but have been let down by their education so that they cannot distinguish real science from the cheap imitations, and know nothing about how real science works. We should be redoubling our efforts to improve the way we teach. It seems the enlightenment has passed a huge section of our society by, and in fact I think Plato is probably spinning in his grave right now at how far we are from a well developed system of thought.
The moon is made of cheese is an opinion however there are no facts to support this opinion.
Pfft! No evidence? Photographic evidence:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Obvious fake, the radiation in the van allen belt would kill all the bacteria and no cheese could develop on the moon.
Obvious fake, the radiation in the van allen belt would kill all the bacteria and no cheese could develop on the moon.
That's what radiation shielding's for. There's no cows there either, so getting the milk would be an even bigger issue.
Anyway, Wallace always takes it with him.
Was the decision to invade Iraq not based upon sound factual evidence?
If you mean Weapons of Mass Destruction, then no.
The Iraq War[nb 1] was an armed conflict in Iraq that consisted of two phases.[41] The first was an invasion of Ba'athist Iraq by the United States[42][43] and the United Kingdom, and assisted by smaller forces from several other countries, starting on 20 March 2003.[44][45] It was followed by a longer phase of fighting, in which an insurgency emerged to oppose Coalition forces and the newly formed Iraqi government.[41] The U.S. completed its withdrawal of military personnel in December 2011.[46][47] However, the Iraqi insurgency continues and has caused thousands of fatalities.
Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies.[48][49][50] In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that Iraq was not in possession of WMD and cruise missiles. Prior to the attack, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD, but could not yet verify the accuracy of Iraq's declarations regarding what weapons it possessed, as their work was still unfinished. The leader of the inspectors Hans Blix estimated the time remaining for disarmament being verified through inspections to be "months".[51][52][53][54][55]
After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.?led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of
the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted.[56] Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been one of the main arguments for the invasion.[57]Posted 3 minutes ago #
Therefore is it it not a safe to say that not all
factsare reliable?
And that if just one part of any supposed factual event or incident is suspect then the rest must be viewed skeptically until re-proved with irrefutable evidence.
Therefore is it it not a safe to say that not all facts are reliable?
No that would be like assuming that because you have been lied to before everything you hear , from anyone, is a lie and should not be trusted
One problem is that following that rule the above is also a lie and cannot be trusted [ same applies for the scepticism principle - you need to be a sceptic abut that "truth" as well and therefore reject it]
Another example would be sight - sometimes you have mistaken things for other things therefore you must assume what you see is NEVER true either. It makes little sense to do this
Its also true that some facts we believe will be wrong - you cannot then use this as proof that this fact , we are discussing, is wrong you still need evidence to persuade us and I am still waiting for it.
And that if just one part of any supposed factual event or incident is suspect then the rest must be viewed skeptically until re-proved with irrefutable evidence.
Again it depends what the fact is and how critical it is to the whole principle
For example the IPCC report on global warming incorrectly gave information on glacier melting in the Himalayas. Now the paper makes millions of claims and only this one has been shown to be false [ remember how many sceptics have looked at every part. this error hardly disproves that man made global warming is occurring.
Evolution had no mechanism for transmission for a century till DNA was discovered- did nto make it wrong though it was "suspect".
As for irrefutable nothing is irrefutable if you try hard enough
Evolution [ I cannot think of any stronger theory with such strong evidence from divergent fields] for example is doubted by the religious who have a book to disprove it.
I find it sad that there are some on here who are so obviously interested in science. They have a natural appetite for learning, but have been let down by their education so that they cannot distinguish real science from the cheap imitations, and know nothing about how real science works. We should be redoubling our efforts to improve the way we teach. It seems the enlightenment has passed a huge section of our society by, and in fact I think Plato is probably spinning in his grave right now at how far we are from a well developed system of thought.
THIS
IME conspiracists tend to be quite bright and knowledgeable but rather ignorant on epistemology and science and therefore prone to reaching erroneous conclusions.
I can see why they do it though
Anyway, Wallace always takes it with him.
No he didn't. He took CRACKERS. Have you not even seen the documentary? Look at ALL the evidence FFS. He took crackers to the Moon, to go with the cheese the moon is made of. Sheesh...!
Junkyard,
Barley`s !!!
I give up, you`re like a Jack Russell on a mop head !
Im not exactly sure what it is in particular about 9/11 that draws in so many conspiracy people
but i think a lot of americans* have a very hard time accepting that the worlds number one global superpower was dealt such a massive blow by a few guys from a 3rd world country ( [u]I[/u] know Saudi isnt necessarily 3rd world)
and all their apache gunships, aircraft carriers, drones, etc couldnt do a thing to stop it
and more importantly no matter how many assault rifles and handgus with hollowpoint amo youve bought from wallmart and stashed in your closet you are powerless
and it was the skyscraper; the ultimate symbol of america's real power as a the capitalist powerhouse that proved to be so vulnerable
for many americans (including rosie o'donnel)the default position of 'blame our evil government' is a much easier pill to swallow
* for americans you can also substitute westerners
Junkyard,
Barley`s !!!
I give up, you`re like a Jack Russell on a mop head !
I have no idea what any of that means tbh but i assume it is a collection of ad hominems because you have no argument against the rational points I made in my post.
Why not try and counter my points- its what happens in debates and insults are unlikely to be found to be persuasive and reflect badly on you
Kimbers I think most conspiracies seem to be US based and require
1. Big [media] "world changing" event
2. Govt and therefore spies - ie its easy to make the link
3. Americans - many of whom just think everything their govt says is a lie and they would do anything [ applies to some lefties this as well]
the three biggies are surely
JFK
Moon Landings
9/11
I think it is no coincidence they are all american
There may be some mileage in the JFK one tbh if I had to pick as some of the story is interesting
Therefore is it it not a safe to say that not all facts are reliable?
Daley Thompson wouldn;t have made such a leap even at the peak of his career.
Thats interesting [seen the story before FWIW] as it would be spun either way
1. they report it early - even though its still standing in the background * and it does not fall down = the BBC are liars why should we believe anything the media says
2. it falls down later - see they had a script and got it wrong- its a conspiracy I tell thee
Either way this fact can prove a conspiracy whatever the outcome over WTC7.
This is what they do ith facts rather than actually think about what it means
*Its seems obvious that doing it live there would be inaccurate reports confusion hell even hysteria about lots of stuff and reporters would be flustered etc- hardly surprising some facts were wrong and they reported on incomplete knowledge.
Junkyard - Member
Junkyard,
Barley`s !!!
I give up, you`re like a Jack Russell on a mop head !I have no idea what any of that means tbh but i assume it is a collection of ad hominems because you have no argument against the rational points I made in my post.
Why not try and counter my points- its what happens in debates and insults are unlikely to be found to be persuasive and reflect badly on you
Well I do not insult folk over a forum unless they insult me first and you havent done that, Barleys is an old Lancashire school yard saying meaning I give up normally used whilst play tag or bulldogs etc.
The term jack russell on a mop head denotes a persistent character, its more of a compliment IMO.
The points I am trying to make re: 9/11 :
1/ The official story comes from a US government that IMO holds very little credibility when it comes to telling the truth.
2/ The official story itself is one huge coincidence theory, total acceptance of this story and the ensuing actions taken by the Bush administration is (IMO) a surrender of any future objective,resistance to government policy.
The Blair/Bush love in before and after 9/11 ensured we in the UK were dragged into this (dare I say it ) debacle.
1/ The official story comes from a US government that IMO holds very little credibility when it comes to telling the truth.
2/ The official story itself is one huge coincidence theory, total acceptance of this story and the ensuing actions taken by the Bush administration is (IMO) a surrender of any future objective,resistance to government policy.
This is just nonsense based on a false premise. It's so confused as to be pointless countering.
Barleys is an old Lancashire school yard saying meaning I give up normally used whilst play tag or bulldogs etc
These days kids say bowley for the safe zone - Cant recall what we said as kids [ in lancashire] to give up - we were never quitters like you 😉
1/ The official story comes from a US government that IMO holds very little credibility when it comes to telling the truth.
Well sort of but not everyone was a govt employee and just because you are it does not mean you will lie- See Doctors and teachers for example [ notice hiw i dont say the police though 😉 ]. Not accepting a 9 /11 conspiracy does not mean I think the US or any govt is some sort of trustworthy organisation who would never lie to me. Of course they would lie to me and of course they will lie to me. However this does not mean they have done this time.
2/ The official story itself is one huge coincidence theory, total acceptance of this story and the ensuing actions taken by the Bush administration is (IMO) a surrender of any future objective,resistance to government policy.
I disagree using this as an pretext for the "axis of evil" BS was political posturing by a disingenuous right wing buffoon and was clearly manipulation of the events - a conspiracy would have at the least implicated Saddam as the main person surely?
Truth is often stranger/less consostent than fiction as it does not have to be as well thought out.
look at football last season Man city win the league in the last minute of extra time by scoring to beat their city neighbours on goal difference because they had given them a drubbing at their rivals ground after a player was sent off. were this a hollywood movie you would have laughed at it for being so clichéd
the truth is often strange and inconsistent- fiction is often consistent and more reliable as it has planned for every eventuality
{paranoid mode]Probably makes more sense to be suspicious of the stuff with no gaps in it [/paranoid mode]
I dont disagree with your general stance re govts but we still need some actual evidence
Bowleys .....! is that the private school version 😉
Agreed that truth is invariably stranger than fiction (I have just done 5k on the concept 2 in 20 minutes, 2 x 50 pressups and 1 x 8 rep tabata on the concept 2)however I cannot accept the US govt, version on 9/11.
One aspect I have difficulty with is the takeover of the planes,
4 sets of at least a 4 man cell manage to kill (how many?? 3,4 5 flight attendants??) make their way on to the flight deck, wrest control of the plane from the pilot/co pilot (whilst covered in copious amounts of warm sticky blood from the flight attendant who they have just killed with a stanley knife)and then take control of a modern, complex aircraft and set course for .........the 72 coal eyed virgins, this scenario occurred successfully at least 3 times (lets disregard flight 93 for now), then accurately navigate to Manhattan and Washington and hit their intended targets.
The British and American special forces training depts have hell of a lot to learn from these guys, in fact if they could practically train a few platoons of soldiers to be able to carry out such a mission then they could over run the modern western armies relatively easily.
We will never really know what went on that day, I definitely do not know and therefore cannot provide any actual, factual evidence, but I do have have a natural right to both disagree and comment.
ps Apologies for the late response.
Does anybody know how many hijacked passenger planes had been used as flying bombs against skyscrapers before 9/11?
Does anybody know how many hijacked passenger planes had been used as flying bombs against skyscrapers before 9/11?
Your point being ?
You go on different flights from me if you think it would be hard to take out flight attendants - what is their main weapon - a winning smile or their overpowering perfume?
As for flying the planes, though i lack expertise, i assume they are not that hard if you can actually fly - not least because the did it. I suspect if I was planning to do this I would make sure i could do the flying bit and probably train to take out the perfumed smiling ninjas that guard the planes 😉
Nice gag about private schools though 😀 and I can neither afford it nor would i if i could - thankfully my kids are not dumb enough to need it 😉
Your point being ?
Is there a precedence of people flying passenger planes into skyscrapers?
The reason the 9/11 scenario has never been repeated and civil aircraft have not been successfully hijacked since is that most aircrews and passengers now would fear that the plane would be used as a suicide wepon so would have nothing to lose by fighting the hijackers. Pre 9/11 the best survival strategy was to cooperate and hope for rescue or a negotiated outcome . That is why 9/11 succeed because it was a game changer.
The reason the 9/11 scenario has never been repeated and civil aircraft have not been successfully hijacked since is that most aircrews and passengers now would fear that the plane would be used as a suicide wepon so would have nothing to lose by fighting the hijackers. Pre 9/11 the best survival strategy was to cooperate and hope for rescue or a negotiated outcome . That is why 9/11 succeed because it was a game changer.
This.....
they have also changed flight deck security as well so that it is near impossible to get into the flight deck
you may get the plane but not the plane
Would pilots open it if you started shooting passengers?
I dont know
Would passengers sit there whilst you shot them all - I doubt it.
Is there a precedence of people flying passenger planes into skyscrapers?
Is this rhetorical ?
If so, It might be better just to make your point rather than ask questions that don't require an answer, but don't make a point either.
Is this rhetorical ?
Nope, it is an actual question.
so you are not sure of the answer then ?