TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

NY Post: 9/11 conspiracy group pushes vote for investigation (36 posts)

26. BrianG
    Member

    marc, the BBC video is an hour long. Would you care to point me at where the "very large" fires were in the video? Very large compared to what? Very large compared to a 47-story steel-framed building? Very large compared to high-rise fires in Caracas, Beijing, Shanghai. Dubai. Grozny and Moscow? Or "very large" compared to no fires at all?

    You do know, don't you, that NIST tells us that fires persisted on only 6 floors, and that the impression of smoke billowing out of every south side window on WTC7 was just an illusion?

    Yes, the peedunkers tell me that there's no point in asking for new investigations, because if the ones we had were dishonest then the new ones would likely be just as dishonest. The difference is that in the new investigations we would have thousands of architects and engineers poised to call any bullshit.

    It is not necessary that we have a real political chance of getting a new investigation. It is sufficient to to make the demand in order to raise public awareness, and to put the issue in history. There will be new investigations. That's what historians do. There will be new computer models, as the computer modeling power available to NIST in 2005 becomes available to every engineering school in the world by 2018.

    "We" means the people who are calling for new investigations. If you are not among us, I'm sorry for you.

    The signatories to the AE911truth petition (last time I checked) included 119 structural engineers, 40 highrise architects, 40 PhD engineers, 10 Stanford engineers, 3 PhD structural engineers, and 11 Fellows of the American Institute of Architects.

    Obviously the airplane impacts did not bring the towers down, because they stood for up to 102 minutes after. NIST said it wasn't the impacts and it wasn't the fires--it was the damage to the fireproofing that brought the towers down. Of course the damage to fireproofing in WTC7 was negligible.

    Posted 9 years ago #
27. BrianG
    Member

    John, a scientist is only as rigorous as his sponsors allow him to be. If you don't know the influence that government, corporate, and DoD funding has on academic science departments, you should try to catch up.

    You are employing arguments right out of the peedunker playbook. I'm well familiar with them.

    You say "No amount of evidence or logic or reasoning can penitrate your programmed responses."

    I say: try some evidence or logic or reasoning instead of assuming I am a cultist.

    You say "You speak with such expertise about things you know NOTHING about."

    I say: How do you know what I know nothing about? When did you go over my C.V.?

    You say: "You spin reality to you're own liking."

    I say: What reality did I spin? And what makes you think it's to my liking? Before "Fahrenheit 9/11" I considered excess interest in 9/11 to be morbid and prurient. I eagerly anticipated the release of the NIST report in 2005 because I hoped it would deal with the obvious inadequacy of the FEMA report from 2002. I was much disappointed with the obvious inadequacy of NIST's $20 million report. I would love to be released from the sense of obligation to inform the public of the need for new investigations. You're not doing a very good job of it.

    You say: "smearing living witnesses who fought to save lives"

    I say: I didn't smear anyone. Pointing out that Fireman Miller never gave us his full name is simply a technical observation--one that should be of interest to any honest scholar.

    You say: "Your logic is paper thin."

    I say: Show how. I've held my ground tabling with all comers dozens of times.

    You say: "There is virtually NO professional or academic research or peer reviewed debate."

    I say: So 2242 architects and engineers don't impress you. Well how many architects and engineers can you name who will courageously stick their professional necks out and publicly endorse NIST's collapse sequence?

    I didn't say the firefighters are liars. I said they were misled by the illusion that smoke was pouring out of every south side window of WTC7. NIST acknowleged that this was an illusion. NIST said fires persisted on only six floors.

    I'm not hawking any disinformation. I'm only hawking facts, science, and honest evaluation of the evidence. I have made no conclusions about the buildings (I'm not a high-rise engineer, after all) except that the reports are incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest--and we need new investigations.

    Posted 9 years ago #
28. truthmover
    Administrator

    Brian, I'm guessing you know all the info about CD.

    But it's clear to me that you know nothing about marketing or counter intelligence.

    This pointless conversation above, that you clearly enjoy, has nothing to do with justice.

    But more importantly, it's indicative of someone who has been totally duped and yet has no way to see that. CD doesn't matter. Everything you are saying could be true and you could still be a part of the problem, wasting your time and ours as much as any Alex Jones fanboy.

    CD is how pop culture dismisses 9/11 truth, NOT because that's the biggest threat. CD is the focus because it is the LEAST threatening and sounds the craziest. People made up their mind or had it made for them and they aren't changing it.

    Most people think CD sounds stupid. And no amount of 'fact' is going to change their mind. And any 'progress' made by CD promoters is instantly and easily dismissed trotting out all the same old 'experts' who are easily convincing enough to prevent you from making any promotional progress.

    You don't have a viable strategy. There is no viable strategy for mainstreaming CD hypotheses. And so you are just tragically revving your engine in place.

    Posted 9 years ago #
29. JohnA
    Member

    Brian -

    No I'm not impressed with names on a petition. I have no way of verifying it. I consider AE911TRUTH a fraudulent organization and I am hardly impressed with a petition on their website.

    But - the facts remain - until such time as some of those "professionals" you pretend to speak for actually come forward and publish some real science in a real forum under the scrutiny of their peers - you might as well be hawking a petition in favor of intelligent design.

    And the idea that the world's most prominent experts are ALL under the control of sponsors - leading to a worldwide blackout on the mass murder of thousands on 9/11 - is simply childish nonsense.

    Again. You're an amateur. Your opinion is worth NOTHING to me. I am familiar with the foot stomping righteous indignation of the purveyors of disinformation. A tale told by an idiot - full of sound and fury - signifying nothing. You're not QUALIFIED to have an opinion.

    Instead of wasting time on forums debating Big Foot and UFOs - why don't u spend more time finding an engineer who is willing to write a REAL paper on the subject? If you feel sooooo strongly about this rubbish - why aren't you doing more to facilitate real debates among qualified experts

    Posted 9 years ago #
30. BrianG
    Member

    The truth movement needs some professional market research. Does CD really sound crazy to our audience, and if so, what makes it sound crazy? Early in my awakening to 9/11 I went to see Philip Zelikow speak, and when a woman stood up behind me and started hollering that the CIA had funded al Qaeda I thought that was absolute lunacy. I was very surprised when the cops treated her with kid gloves, allowing her to spout off for some time before they escorted her out. Do you really think that CIA complicity in the attacks is any less loony-sounding than CD? And yet in 2007, polls show, 62% of Americans believed that some elements in the government knew about the attacks, and allowed them to go forward.

    I try to avoid talking too much with people who agree with me, 'cause it's a waste of time. I asked mark for information because I like to expose myself to new information. I have had many discussions with people who claimed there were massive fires in WTC7, and every time they turned out to be full of shit. I respect mark, so I thought that he might have better information, but his reliance on an argument like "the evidence is in this two-hour video and no, I won't tell you where" is unfortunate.

    I wasn't trying to sell anything, (and wouldn't expect success with you guys if I were) and I don't try to sell CD to anyone, so expecting me to develop a strategy for promoting CD is not fair. I was simply seeking information and clarity. I couldn't think rationally about CD myself until I imagined that al Qaeda agents rented offices in the towers and sneaked out at night to plant bombs in the elevator shafts. And discussions with debunkers showed that the claims that the op would be too complicated, somebody would have seen something, somebody would have talked--were all hooey. I've never been a CD believer but I don't think it's impossible.

    As to the inadequacy of the official reports, the situation is the same in the NIST reports as in the 9/11 Commission report--the people who place their faith in them have not bothered to read them, and glib peedunkers are not knowledgeable enough to defend them on factual grounds and rather than address the issues of they rely on ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments to give the impression that they know what they're talking about. But the incomplete nature, the circular reasoning, the blinkered avoidance of problem questions are even more apparent in the NIST reports than they are in the 9/11 Commission.

    I suppose we could be facing a grand conspiracy where nanothermite and space beams distract from the legitimate CD claims, which themselves distract from the inadequacies of the official NIST reports, which themselves distract from the inadequacies of the Commission report, which itself distracts from original research into the background of the 9/11 op--and all this distraction serves to keep the perps hid in plain sight. I don't know.

    I just know that continuing to agitate for answers to the widows' 273 unanswered questions and to the ten mysteries of the towers' demise that NIST declined to address seems like the best strategy I can devise. I'm certainly open to suggestions.

    Posted 9 years ago #
31. mark
    Member

    I don't try to sell CD to anyone, so expecting me to develop a strategy for promoting CD is not fair. I was simply seeking information and clarity. I couldn't think rationally about CD myself until I imagined that al Qaeda agents rented offices in the towers and sneaked out at night to plant bombs in the elevator shafts. And discussions with debunkers showed that the claims that the op would be too complicated, somebody would have seen something, somebody would have talked--were all hooey. I've never been a CD believer but I don't think it's impossible.

    ---

    If you're pushing the AE911Truthiness petition, you are pushing the demolition hoax.

    If you cannot bother to watch the BBC video showing (1) the demolition promoters making fools of themselves and (2) very large fires that worsened the structural damage to WTC 7 -- then I recommend finding another hobby to occupy your time.

    Posted 9 years ago #
32. truthmover
    Administrator

    You don't seem at all open to suggestions. You'd rather argue with John, who is simply enjoying calling you names. And the notion that you aren't a CD advocate is false simply by your activity here. 9 out of 10 of your posts and comments here are related to CD and frankly it seems like you just use this place as a staging ground for devil's advocacy to refile your CD argumentation.

    Here's the question you keep avoiding...

    Given that infiltrators and dupes are responsible for the prominence of CD hypotheses in the movement and that CD is exactly the meme used to undermine the credibility of the movement, and given that the available information hasn't lead to justice or really shown any signs of having any momentum toward that end, how is it a productive use of anyone's time to promote CD research?

    I'm interested in your answer, but I've already spent hours arguing that it's not worth anyone's time, and I think that is clearly demonstrated by our experience. No one cares if CD research is you hobby. Actually I find that repugnant. What good is it?

    The Terror Timeline didn't lead to justice. Those 273 questions. Crossing The Rubicon didn't open a crack in public consciousness of deep state geopolitics. All that is based on mainstream reporting. There's a huge implication to be drawn from that which you can't simply ignore.

    If very available mainstream facts justify a new investigation, then interesting hypotheses and a few facts about the physical evidence are simply irrelevant. That just seems like basic logic to me.

    And the important point about that irrelevance is that groups like Ae911truth are very literally undermining 9/11 truth by distracting people and wasting money.

    Posted 9 years ago #
33. truthmod
    Administrator

    A few years ago I might have tried to lock a thread like this where people seemed to be going in circles debating in a seemingly unproductive way. Today I'm just glad people are still using TM to maintain some communication on these issues.

    "Common sense" and layman'a logic may seem to convince us that CD is legit but they should also lead us to the realization that CD and what it represents have been the downfall of the movement. For people who believe in CD wholeheartedly I think it's especially important to have this realization.

    Everyone is welcome to their opinion here as long as they are clearly debating in good faith.

    As far as the technical details "proving" or "disproving" CD go, I could care less and I think they are a total waste of time.

    Posted 9 years ago #
34. mark
    Member

    The biggest secret of the removal of JFK is not how many shooters were shooting but that the perpetrators knew they would get away with it doe to fear and apathy among the politicians, media and public. A similar situation exists for 9/11 -- if there was a serious chance that those who allowed the attacks would face substantial scrutiny they would not have dared.

    Posted 9 years ago #
35. JohnA
    Member

    That's exactly true Mark.

    Posted 9 years ago #
36. JohnA
    Member

    "You don't seem at all open to suggestions. You'd rather argue with John, who is simply enjoying calling you names"

    Wtf? This is personally insulting and I think I've shown more than enough patience specifically detailing exactly why I oppose the continued insertion of CD into the public discourse on 9/11.

    Do u think all I'm doing here is trolling?

    Posted 9 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.