9/11 - More evidence it was set up by people in the shadows

[blueju]

I think the tinterweb is responsible for allowing people you would'nt normally give the time of day to a soapbox to make themselves feel important.

I agree, and you're a fine example.

Touche ,dreamer

 

[rickmcfc]

Lets hear some of the thoughts about 9/11 of a unintelligent and uneducated MIT Electrical Engineer who for the last 30 something years has worked as a family physician (dual major??) . Clearly he is uneducated and quite stupid.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW81Cd7nNH8&feature=related[/youtube]

The more i look into things regarding 9/11 i can understand why people think it was an inside job, but then again explanations can be offered for most things pointed out. Take that secod video for example. There is a picture of a tower collapsing, and an arrow pointing to the building saying "explosion". There is nothing there to resemble an explosion what so ever. And the bit where he says office furniture and items found in the buildings wouldnt get hotter over time, is he serious? Those videos are a bit daft really.

 

[BulgarianPride]

Lets hear some of the thoughts about 9/11 of a unintelligent and uneducated MIT Electrical Engineer who for the last 30 something years has worked as a family physician (dual major??) . Clearly he is uneducated and quite stupid.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW81Cd7nNH8&feature=related[/youtube]

The more i look into things regarding 9/11 i can understand why people think it was an inside job, but then again explanations can be offered for most things pointed out. Take that secod video for example. There is a picture of a tower collapsing, and an arrow pointing to the building saying "explosion". There is nothing there to resemble an explosion what so ever. And the bit where he says office furniture and items found in the buildings wouldnt get hotter over time, is he serious? Those videos are a bit daft really.

The hotter the fire the faster it burns its fuel. If a fire gets hotter the material will burn out faster and it won't allow energy to accumulate so the fire can't get any hotter. The temperature will get to some point where it is very hard (impossible) for it to increase only from the fixed supplies in the offices. There is also another point. If a fire burns hotter it will start consuming it's oxygen supply faster, making it impossible to sustain high temperature for a long time yet alone increase its temperature. There will be a limit to how hot it can get. So yes he is being serious.

How do you explain the powder being formed? According to him only plausible explanation is explosion. Also according to him nothing else explains how that thin powder can be formed.

 

[MCFCinUSA]

Lets hear some of the thoughts about 9/11 of a unintelligent and uneducated MIT Electrical Engineer who for the last 30 something years has worked as a family physician (dual major??) . Clearly he is uneducated and quite stupid.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW81Cd7nNH8&feature=related[/youtube]

The more i look into things regarding 9/11 i can understand why people think it was an inside job, but then again explanations can be offered for most things pointed out. Take that secod video for example. There is a picture of a tower collapsing, and an arrow pointing to the building saying "explosion". There is nothing there to resemble an explosion what so ever. And the bit where he says office furniture and items found in the buildings wouldnt get hotter over time, is he serious? Those videos are a bit daft really.

The hotter the fire the faster it burns its fuel. If a fire gets hotter the material will burn out faster and it won't allow energy to accumulate so the fire can't get any hotter. The temperature will get to some point where it is very hard (impossible) for it to increase only from the fixed supplies in the offices. There is also another point. If a fire burns hotter it will start consuming it's oxygen supply faster, making it impossible to sustain high temperature for a long time yet alone increase its temperature. There will be a limit to how hot it can get. So yes he is being serious.

How do you explain the powder being formed? According to him only plausible explanation is explosion. Also according to him nothing else explains how that thin powder can be formed.

so let's recap and get this straight then:-

- you have the most watched terrorist attack in human history where several aircraft were hijacked from US airports and flown into the Twin Towers;

- you have the overwhelming mountains of documented evidence of the terrorists planning activities, both from the terrorists themselves who claimed responsibility and also the intelligence services of both American and overseas governments who were monitoring them;

and alternatively

- you have an engineering boffin who doesn't understand something but who then concludes that bombs were planted in the buildings because of his lack of knowledge and posts a YouTube video about it...

hmmmm

I wonder what really probably happened?

it's a really tough call isn't it?

- your 'expert' is nuts because he ignores all the actual real facts in favour of complete speculation based on his ignorance;

- he also seemingly (and neither can you) comprehend the implications of what he's insinuating:

namely:-

1. if explosives were planted in the building who did it?

2. how did they know about the aircraft flight plans and timing of the attacks?

3. how did anyone lay enough explosives (to do any real damage) in the WTC without getting seen and caught?

4. why would anyone want to plant explosives in the WTC?

5. how would anyone American who ever dreamt up such a moronic plan (assuming they were in any position of authority) not get arrested for high treason the moment they shared their brilliant brainstorm with another American?

This last question is for anyone who thinks the attacks were actually an 'inside' job.

Do me a favour, stick to reading the Beano (if you can make sense of what you read) or watching cartoons if you're incapable of rationally processing, making intelligent determinations of things, and LEARNING.

You, along with everyone else who is suckered in by these ridiculous assertions and truly idiotic ravings, do yourself no credit. You make yourself look extremely stupid. Why I wonder? Could it possibly be Dunning-Kruger?



Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[BulgarianPride]

The more i look into things regarding 9/11 i can understand why people think it was an inside job, but then again explanations can be offered for most things pointed out. Take that secod video for example. There is a picture of a tower collapsing, and an arrow pointing to the building saying "explosion". There is nothing there to resemble an explosion what so ever. And the bit where he says office furniture and items found in the buildings wouldnt get hotter over time, is he serious? Those videos are a bit daft really.

The hotter the fire the faster it burns its fuel. If a fire gets hotter the material will burn out faster and it won't allow energy to accumulate so the fire can't get any hotter. The temperature will get to some point where it is very hard (impossible) for it to increase only from the fixed supplies in the offices. There is also another point. If a fire burns hotter it will start consuming it's oxygen supply faster, making it impossible to sustain high temperature for a long time yet alone increase its temperature. There will be a limit to how hot it can get. So yes he is being serious.

How do you explain the powder being formed? According to him only plausible explanation is explosion. Also according to him nothing else explains how that thin powder can be formed.

so let's recap and get this straight then:-

- you have the most watched terrorist attack in human history where several aircraft were hijacked from US airports and flown into the Twin Towers;

- you have the overwhelming mountains of documented evidence of the terrorists planning activities, both from the terrorists themselves who claimed responsibility and also the intelligence services of both American and overseas governments who were monitoring them;

and alternatively

- you have an engineering boffin who doesn't understand something but who then concludes that bombs were planted in the buildings because of his lack of knowledge and posts a YouTube video about it...

hmmmm

I wonder what really probably happened?

it's a really tough call isn't it?

- your 'expert' is nuts because he ignores all the actual real facts in favour of complete speculation based on his ignorance;

- he also seemingly (and neither can you) comprehend the implications of what he's insinuating:

Do me a favour, stick to reading the Beano (if you can make sense of what you read) or watching cartoons if you're incapable of rationally processing, making intelligent determinations of things, and LEARNING.

You, along with everyone else who is suckered in by these ridiculous assertions and truly idiotic ravings, do yourself no credit. You make yourself look extremely stupid. Why I wonder? Could it possibly be Dunning-Kruger?

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Again the dunning-kruger? You mate are a joke.

You provide no answers to his questions.

You accuse me of being unintelligent and incapable of rational thought. Go enjoy reading your dunning-kruger page. Spent more time in it please, and maybe you can see how stupid you are acting.

Based on ignorance? The man has studied more physics than you can imagine. You think just because his views are unorthodox that he is stupid and ignorant? For fucks sake not everyone can be an engineer and only a few of the engineers are from MIT. Clearly he is stupid enough to believe anything. The reason i posted the video was to show you that "experts" have disputed views. He isn't a structural engineer but he is more cable of rational though than you are. Speaking from experience, engineering is the hardest discipline in any university yet alone MIT. No "boffin" could of made it out.

Do me a favour, stick to reading the Beano (if you can make sense of what you read) or watching cartoons if you're incapable of rationally processing, making intelligent determinations of things, and LEARNING.

This here just summarized how stupid you are. You are not worth my time.

 

[ElanJo]

EJ I know you're saying you're not a conspiracy believer about 9/11, but it simply couldn't happen:

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=139026" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=5&t=139026</a>

People think 'the government' did it, maybe because they don't trust governments, or they don't understand governments, or they don't like governments (I mean who does?) but governments are administered by individual people, and they are all (in our society) accountable.

So... thinking about WTC 7 and that video of 'experts' not understanding how it fell down that someone posted on the last page -

- just because they don't understand within the limits of their expertise how it came to fall down, it doesn't follow that it was blown-up by the US Government, or anyone else for that matter;

For instance, to demolish a building using explosives takes a lot of time and planning - and explosives!

Imagine you're an explosives contractor. If someone approached you to demolish a building that wasn't condemned what on earth would you think?

You might consider:-

1. You may get noticed wiring a building for detonation;

2. You'd be committing a crime against property;

3. You'd be killing people in the process;

3. You might therefore contact the authorities, the FBI/CIA/Police etc immediately.

Now the morons on here would at this point probably pipe up with something like "but you couldn't go to any of them because they're all in on it" but they'd be wrong again...

As the link I've posted explains, if one crackpot in the 'government' (which people mistakenly ascribe to be this malevolent dark entity doing evil for its own ends and wicked motives - like "to make money" or for "oil") came up with this sort of idea, as soon as they mentioned it to anyone else in 'the government' (which is beginning to sound like a Hale & Pace joke) they'd get themselves locked-up in the looney bin and wouldn't pass GO or collect $200.

Which brings me on to another point. In our modern-day accountable governments (where although money is frequently spent on stupid things) everything is accountable. Sure people embezzle money, and sure people are corrupt - on a routine and regular basis. Criminal activity is rife on an individual and in some cases even on a smaller collective basis - see this by way of an example:-

<a class="postlink" href="http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/09/city_of_bell_officials_arreste.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010 ... rreste.php</a>

However, there is absolutely no way any such blatantly obvious and high treasonable crime is going to be able to be funded with public money - it would immediately implicate those involved and would lead straight back to the idiots perpetrating it... aside from such a plan never getting off the ground in the first place for reasons I've mentioned already; ad nauseam.

The whole idea that hijackers flew into the Twin Towers which brought them down, but then Americans wired and detonated WTC 7 (I mean what the fuck for people???) is just so utterly nonsensical for all the reasons I've just mentioned and a whole lot more that I can't even be bothered to think about that I'm incredulous at the stupidity of people even considering such ideas.

I guess people are not only a little naive, but they are also paranoid.

The ladies and gentlemen of the FBI, CIA, City Councils, Senates, Houses of Parliament (in our case in the UK) and the House of Representatives in the USA are all just like us. They are all doing their jobs, which in the cases of those just mentioned involves protecting the lives and liberties of their fellow countrymen. If you know any FBI or CIA people you know they take their jobs and their careers (and oaths of allegiance) extremely seriously. Their job is to explicitly protect us from criminals and threats to our security.

They are all individuals, making their best moves as to what is in their best interests.

So I ask any of you lot who *think* for one moment that because some engineer or professor or firefighter doesn't understand how WTC7 came to collapse whether this is reason enough to point to a fanciful and completely irrational explanation that somehow WTC7 fell victim to an inside plot of conspiratorial Americans who were following some strange sort of plan for their own ends?

Perhaps the most obvious explanation is the right one; that after 1,000,000 tons of shit from WTC1 and WTC2 fell down next to it, the resultant collateral damage caused eventually brought it down too.

Not the big shocker or secret society conspiracy story the paranoid and persecuted would like, but there you go; it's Occam's Razor.

I don't not believe in "9/11 truth" because of the arguments in your post, as rational as most of them may be (I reject the claim that people in power are accountable. What's Bush doing these days? Kissinger? the list goes on...)

I don't believe because there's no good evidence to seriously suggest that it was an inside job. Empirical evidence trumps rational arguments.

EJ, you can't even get a BJ from an intern these days as they'll be all over your case!

;o)

which means you're going to be held accountable (not that you're not capable of making some bloody stupid decisions, or getting your country into a lot of hot water, or just in general being a turkey)

Whilst some of the professional conspiracy theorists (ie. those who are quick to believe every conspiracy they come across) have an overly emotional, irrational, negative view of governments and people in positions of power, I think you have an overly emotional, irrational, positive, almost romantic, view of governments and people in positions of power.

I get the feeling that were there to be good evidence that 9/11 was an inside job you wouldn't -nay, counldn't- accept it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but, in the post I am replying to, there is a telling lack of admittance about intentionally immoral decisions and policies taken by people in positions of power. Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Iraq, these sorts of things are just silly little blunders by political Frank Spencers...

 

[Skashion]

5. how would anyone American who ever dreamt up such a moronic plan (assuming they were in any position of authority) not get arrested for high treason the moment they shared their brilliant brainstorm with another American?

This last question is for anyone who thinks the attacks were actually an 'inside' job.

Do me a favour, stick to reading the Beano (if you can make sense of what you read) or watching cartoons if you're incapable of rationally processing, making intelligent determinations of things, and LEARNING.

You, along with everyone else who is suckered in by these ridiculous assertions and truly idiotic ravings, do yourself no credit. You make yourself look extremely stupid. Why I wonder? Could it possibly be Dunning-Kruger?

You are the best example of Dunning-Kruger on this forum.

I've been over this one several times. The Chiefs of Staff have devised such plots before. It was called Operation Northwoods (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010 ... hwoods.pdf</a>) and was signed off on by Lyman Lemnitzer who not only was not prosecuted for high treason but was made Supreme Allied Commander of NATO only a year later after sharing it with President Kennedy. Read it. It was ultimately rejected but all it would have taken was for McNamara or Kennedy to approve it. One person away. Luckily for US would-be victims, Kennedy had given up on invading Cuba by that point.

There you have it, evidence that the highest levels of US government can plot exactly what CTers/Truthers said happened on 9/11 and not get prosecuted for high treason.

 

[bluemanc]

I don't not believe in "9/11 truth" because of the arguments in your post, as rational as most of them may be (I reject the claim that people in power are accountable. What's Bush doing these days? Kissinger? the list goes on...)

I don't believe because there's no good evidence to seriously suggest that it was an inside job. Empirical evidence trumps rational arguments.

EJ, you can't even get a BJ from an intern these days as they'll be all over your case!

;o)

which means you're going to be held accountable (not that you're not capable of making some bloody stupid decisions, or getting your country into a lot of hot water, or just in general being a turkey)

Whilst some of the professional conspiracy theorists (ie. those who are quick to believe every conspiracy they come across) have an overly emotional, irrational, negative view of governments and people in positions of power, I think you have an overly emotional, irrational, positive, almost romantic, view of governments and people in positions of power.

I get the feeling that were there to be good evidence that 9/11 was an inside job you wouldn't -nay, counldn't- accept it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but, in the post I am replying to, there is a telling lack of admittance about intentionally immoral decisions and policies taken by people in positions of power. Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Iraq, these sorts of things are just silly little blunders by political Frank Spencers...

Add to that Iran,Russia,Pakistan,Switzerland,& more or less every country in the world.

 

[MCFCinUSA]

Whilst some of the professional conspiracy theorists (ie. those who are quick to believe every conspiracy they come across) have an overly emotional, irrational, negative view of governments and people in positions of power, I think you have an overly emotional, irrational, positive, almost romantic, view of governments and people in positions of power.

I get the feeling that were there to be good evidence that 9/11 was an inside job you wouldn't -nay, counldn't- accept it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but, in the post I am replying to, there is a telling lack of admittance about intentionally immoral decisions and policies taken by people in positions of power. Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Iraq, these sorts of things are just silly little blunders by political Frank Spencers...

You mistake my assessment and knowledge of these events for being blindly in love with politicians EJ; I dont particularly like politicians personally, and neither do I trust them. Governments tend to be inefficient, at times corrupt (on an individual basis) and occasionally incompetent. I'm no fan of them.

Nevertheless, my personal positions don't have any influence over making sense of a situation like 9/11, or trying to help others overcome their deep ingrained ignorance.

There is no evidence for anything other than an intelligence cock-up with regards to 9/11.

This is one of the most stupid and sad situations to see people making such arses out of themselves.

That's basically my position EJ.

I've posted enough up about this sort of stuff because I can't abide ignorance and stupidity.

It insults my intelligence to see the 'arguments' advanced in threads like this by people who seem either too lazy to think for themselves, or who are too stupid to realise how dumb they're being.

The title of this thread should read '9/11 - More evidence that I'm incapable of reasoning with any capacity for discerning rationally, and that possibly I have a tendency for paranoia/persecution and/or a detached view of reality'.

Seriously.

It's just like someone watching a con artist performing the Three Card Monte street hustle (with cards or the similar con with balls & cups) and then because they can't see how it was done claiming that little green men from Mars were responsible for what they saw. Explaining to them that the hustler (who was after all the only person present and manipulating the balls) was using sleight of hand is to no avail; they still believe the fanciful and completely illogical explanation, even if the hustle is otherwise explained and documented.

Yes, really it is this ridiculous and people who honestly believe in something not quite being right about the collapse of the WTC buildings have got serious problems.

Talk to me about JFK's assassination and we may find common ground on something not being right, but not in the above case.

What this thread also proves is that you cannot win an argument with a moron; they simply drag the conversation down to their own level, and beat you with experience.

:o)

 

[BulgarianPride]

There we have it. We are all morons. MCFCinUSA is the most intelligent and educated person on bluemoon. Nobody else is capable of matching his stupidity. Please don't try as soon as you get down to his moronic levels he will beat you with experience.