Press behaviour

[Junai]

Please, don't rely on your friend's opinion about the counter evidence.

Don't listen to my opinion about the counter evidence.

 

Look at the counter evidence yourself. The real stuff, not a 2 min flick on youtube etc.

 

And as for press behaviour, well we've been through that? BBC was just incredibly incompetent and all?

 

Three years ago, a young canadian boy told me he thought 911 was an inside-job. I was in California. I laughed my ass off, and told him he was completely nuts. Today I can't even remember why refused to listen to him. As for my take on the counter-counter-evidence, i.e. the official story, well, I believed it for 5-6 yrs. Good enough? You DO know that BBC has found several of the alleged hijackers alive, don't you? Well, they're suddenly unsure about their identities now.. How about that.

 

What about Osama. You think he's still out there?

 

If they were really brilliant, they would've kept him, and produced him now when the counter-evidence

movements grows stronger. If they're that smart, they actually deserve to get away with it.

 

 

Wacko Junai.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Junai

[Walsingham]

Please, don't rely on your friend's opinion about the counter evidence.

Don't listen to my opinion about the counter evidence.

 

Look at the counter evidence yourself. The real stuff, not a 2 min flick on youtube etc.

 

Wacko Junai.

...Because we're talking a specialist subject. If we were discussing heart failure I can listen to an explanation and be convinced where a heart surgeon or consultant would know it was balls. in this case I've got a specialist who I know is totally uninterested in politics, and would probably just find it funny if it were a conspiracy, and he's telling it's just plain wrong. Wrong like quack medicine. Sounds great to teh average punter, but full of unseen holes.

[Junai]

If your friend can explain why the 47 story steel WTC7 build. collapsed in 6,5 sec w/o ever having been hit by an airplane or explosives, he can get rich real fast. You see, NIST is looking for people who can explain that, since they can't seem to get a handle on it themselves.

 

I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

 

WJ.

[Aristes]

This is the sort of argument religious folks pose to atheists. "How can you explain this natural, terrestrial, or celestial phenomenon? Since you can't explain it, it must have an outside cause and that cause must be this specific thing (God)." I'm not insulting religious folks and I'm not trying to insult you either, Junai. I'm just saying that the fact that we cannot or have a difficult time explaining something is not equivalent to proof. It certainly isn't proof of a specific cause. There might be natural factors that we don't know. There might be human errors in design or construction we don't know. There might even be outside events we don't know or understand. One of those outside events might be explosives, although those theories themselves have inconsistencies.

 

...And that's taking the assesrtion at face value. I've never had a problem accepting that there might have been some sort of conspiracy. That's the problem. There might have been a lot of things. God might have caused the building to fall by striking the foundation with an unseen thunderbolt. If we cannot prove it, we cannot trust it.

[Walsingham]

If your friend can explain why the 47 story steel WTC7 build. collapsed in 6,5 sec w/o ever having been hit by an airplane or explosives, he can get rich real fast. You see, NIST is looking for people who can explain that, since they can't seem to get a handle on it themselves.

 

I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

 

WJ.

 

Seems pretty crazy, doesn't it? However, when the main buildings collapsed you had massive shockwaves sent out, combined with enormous quantities of debris. Why did it collapse suddenly? Because that's how large structures fail. I'm self-taught naval salvaage engineering, and that's how it works. Steel is lovely stuff, but it has a real temper (no pun intended).

 

If you REALLY want to judge for yourself I guess you could train to be an engineer. I mean, at least at the end of it you'd be an engineer.

[Junai]

Seems pretty crazy, doesn't it? However, when the main buildings collapsed you had massive shockwaves sent out, combined with enormous quantities of debris. Why did it collapse suddenly? Because that's how large structures fail. I'm self-taught naval salvaage engineering, and that's how it works. Steel is lovely stuff, but it has a real temper (no pun intended).

 

If you REALLY want to judge for yourself I guess you could train to be an engineer. I mean, at least at the end of it you'd be an engineer.

 

Let's see, you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist b/c I listen to cookie professors from Berkely and architecs with 6-figure salaries, but you refer to your own credentials as a naval salvage engineer in order to silence my arguments. Lovely.

 

Ok mr. engineer, here's a little clip from the official NIST report;

 

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours. (p. 39)

 

They blame the collapse on fire later on. In modern history, no steel building has ever collapsed at near free fall speed into its own footprint b/c of fire, actually, no steel building has ever collapsed from office fire temperatures at all. Please take a look at the professional investigation of the A&Es for 9/11 Truth that I gave you a link to before. You won't be disappointed.

 

J.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Junai

[Humodour]

Junai, you could make a killing doing comedy for a living.

[Walsingham]

Seems pretty crazy, doesn't it? However, when the main buildings collapsed you had massive shockwaves sent out, combined with enormous quantities of debris. Why did it collapse suddenly? Because that's how large structures fail. I'm self-taught naval salvaage engineering, and that's how it works. Steel is lovely stuff, but it has a real temper (no pun intended).

 

If you REALLY want to judge for yourself I guess you could train to be an engineer. I mean, at least at the end of it you'd be an engineer.

 

Let's see, you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist b/c I listen to cookie professors from Berkely and architecs with 6-figure salaries, but you refer to your own credentials as a naval salvage engineer in order to silence my arguments. Lovely.

 

Ok mr. engineer, here's a little clip from the official NIST report;

 

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours. (p. 39)

 

They blame the collapse on fire later on. In modern history, no steel building has ever collapsed at near free fall speed into its own footprint b/c of fire, actually, no steel building has ever collapsed from office fire temperatures at all. Please take a look at the professional investigation of the A&Es for 9/11 Truth that I gave you a link to before. You won't be disappointed.

 

J.

 

 

Like I said, I know ship salvage. Anyone who tries to tell me that steel beams don't catastrophically fail is going to get shown the floor, the ceiling, and finally the door before being firmly ejected into the street. As to why did it go straight down... **** happens.

 

Leaving aside the perfectly simple engineering for a moment, why in the name of God do YOU suggest anyone would bother exploding a building they plan to crash an exploding airplane into? I mean your own personal conviction.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Leaving aside the perfectly simple engineering for a moment, why in the name of God do YOU suggest anyone would bother exploding a building they plan to crash an exploding airplane into? I mean your own personal conviction.

 

The million dollar question that the conspiracy theorists don't seem to bother with. They (the evil shadow governement) go to all the trouble to fly airplanes into our own buildings and then blow them up from the inside. Does it even cross people's minds about the time and trouble it takes to rig a building to explode? Do you think everyone was going about their day, watching the shadow agents planting the bombs, wiring and rigging them?

 

I've got a new theory. Planes didn't actually fly into the buildings. It was all some fancy CGI effects. The explosions and fire were actually the bombs the ninja shadow goverment guys snuck in on the weekend while no one was around. We've all been duped to stir up anger towards radical islam (which doesn't actually exist) so we can invade countries for oil and help stimulate the economy. Which has been working out awesome so far!

[Oner]

(which doesn't actually exist)

Made my day.

[EUIX]

The thing about press is one should always have a variety of sources I typically read a combination of yahoo news, New York Times, Economist, BBC, Guardian for news and Center for Strategic and International Studies along with Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College for my news feed, this along with a couple of forums where people regularly post news articles.

[Humodour]

The thing about press is one should always have a variety of sources I typically read a combination of yahoo news, New York Times, Economist, BBC, Guardian for news and Center for Strategic and International Studies along with Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College for my news feed, this along with a couple of forums where people regularly post news articles.

 

For me it's Associated Press (wide breadth of coverage), Voice of America (relatively unbiased American perspective), BBC (relatively unbiased British perspective), The Australian (Aus, centre-right), The Sydney Morning Herald (Aus, centrist), The Age (Aus, centre-left), Slashdot (technology), Physorg (science), Bloomberg (international), Reuters (international), and 3 news forums.

 

I generally avoid every single Murdoch paper except The Australian, for obvious reasons (they're retarded populist hype pieces). That's mainly Fox News, The Daily Telegraph (Aus), and the Melbourne Herald Sun (Aus) for me. The Wall Street Journal is more reputable but Murdoch insists on making it pay to view, so...

[Junai]

Leaving aside the perfectly simple engineering for a moment,

I don't know how to get through to you Wals. First of all, the American Society of Sivil Engineers, FEMA, the Silverstein/Weidlinger group and NIST spent 8 years and close to $30M twisting their brains trying to figure out how in the nine hells it all happened, and you refer to it as simple engineering. I don't know what college you graduated from, but if I was your student-counselor I'd be worried.

 

why in the name of God do YOU suggest anyone would bother exploding a building they plan to crash an exploding airplane into? I mean your own personal conviction.

As I've said before, I have no idea. I just know a lie when I see one.. (or should I say 50). There is too much bs here to just look the other way. Also, Norway has taken casualties in Afghanistan, so it matters to me. I guess it's just my nature. I'm never satisfied, and I don't trust people blindly. It has its advantages and disadvantages.

 

 

J.

[Humodour]

Leaving aside the perfectly simple engineering for a moment,

I don't know how to get through to you Wals. First of all, the American Society of Sivil Engineers, FEMA, the Silverstein/Weidlinger group and NIST spent 8 years and close to $30M twisting their brains trying to figure out how in the nine hells it all happened, and you refer to it as simple engineering. I don't know what college you graduated from, but if I was your student-counselor I'd be worried.

 

why in the name of God do YOU suggest anyone would bother exploding a building they plan to crash an exploding airplane into? I mean your own personal conviction.

As I've said before, I have no idea. I just know a lie when I see one.. (or should I say 50). There is too much bs here to just look the other way. Also, Norway has taken casualties in Afghanistan, so it matters to me. I guess it's just my nature. I'm never satisfied, and I don't trust people blindly. It has its advantages and disadvantages.

 

 

J.

 

Comedy goldmine.

[Junai]

Comedy goldmine.

Just keep an eye on your "reputable" WP..

 

 

WJ.

[Walsingham]

Leaving aside the perfectly simple engineering for a moment,

I don't know how to get through to you Wals. First of all, the American Society of Sivil Engineers, FEMA, the Silverstein/Weidlinger group and NIST spent 8 years and close to $30M twisting their brains trying to figure out how in the nine hells it all happened, and you refer to it as simple engineering. I don't know what college you graduated from, but if I was your student-counselor I'd be worried.

J.

 

 

If I run you over in a car then I can take days to do an autopsy to find out precisely how you died. But the what killed you is fairly clear.

 

Look, if you're really this bothered then learn engineering.

[Humodour]

Comedy goldmine.

Just keep an eye on your "reputable" WP..

 

 

WJ.

 

I don't read the Washington Post you silly billy.

[Junai]

If I run you over in a car then I can take days to do an autopsy to find out precisely how you died. But the what killed you is fairly clear.

 

Exactly. What is the first step? Take a thorough look at the car. Brake lines were cut?

 

I'm bothered, true, but not enough to become a police investigator. However, you don't have to be a

police investigator to point out obvious flaws and lies in official stories. An attentive mind is often quite enough. The greatest

force in this case isn't the NIST investigation, or the BBC, but the ordinary average citizen asking questions.

Simple, ordinary, questions.

 

"Sir, they found bone-fragments on top of the Deutsche Bank building, 200 of them smaller than an inch,

belonging to one single person. How can a 9/11 building collapse cause such massive body-pulverization?"

 

It's priceless to watch government officials sweat and squirm when faced with simple questions like these.

To see how they change their offical explanations year after year as simple people stand up and say;

"Sir! Hey! These 10 9/11 terrorists are actually alive and well. Look! That's the guy you singled out as a

suicide bomber!"

 

Priceless.

 

What bothers me is that there are so few people asking, despite the massive body of evidence.

 

 

J.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Junai

[Walsingham]

I'm not a police investigator, but I do know enough science and engineers to

 

a) expect unusual and unexpected behaviour in a very high energy system (i.e. unique scale building collapse)

b) not hunt for superfluous explanations when I already have a very simple one

 

You raise the question of why bone fragments should turn up in odd places and in a state of pulverisation. The simple answer is **** happens. Anyone who has even the most remote acquaintance with high energy events, like explosives or crashes will tell you some weird stuff happens. I've seen real footage of a suicide bomber's face, torn off and on the ground while the rest of their body was vapourised. Strange, and interesting, but not evidence of a conspiracy of face-removing counter-terrorists. My own uncle was shot in the face at point blank range, and the bullet went beneath the skin and came out the back of his head, leaving him with little worse than mild concussion.

 

You yourself admit that there would be no point in duplicating damage that would be expected in any case. Do you go around looking for conspiracuies when you put bread in the toaster and it comes out toasted?

 

Look, conspiracy theories are interesting. I'm also a big fan of the truth, and am inveterately nosey. But let it go. Get another hobby than 9/11.

[Walsingham]

Actually I should like to retract my anger a little. your determination is presumably indicative of a desire to right a wrong, and to stand against tyranny. I can respect that desire. However I suggest that my annoyance can only be exacerbated, since to my mind you are wasting your energy on a non-existent fight. There are a great many wrongs and injustices that deserve righting. Small domestic ones can be no less important than big international ones. Get out there and do something useful.

 

The wood is full of wolves, and you are at home, kicking the cat.

[Junai]

Forum-posting will always be cat-kicking.. With 3666 posts I'm sure you know that.

 

However, righting wrongs, whatever they are, starts by spreading information, going door to door.

Obviously I'm not convincing enough, but I do hope you'll take the time to listen to R. Gage and

observe the activities of the A&Es for 9/11 Truth- movement one day. They're not giving up, and the fight

very much exists.

 

 

J.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Junai

[GreasyDogMeat]

Righting wrongs is good and fine, but insisting on a conspiracy where there is none may turn out to be dangerous. Whoever was involved with or planned the 9-11 attacks deserves death. People start beleiving the gov was in on it with no real proof, just rabid insistance and we're going to start breeding our own retarded terrorists striking back for no reason. Conspiracy theories can be 'fun', but not in this case. Just no truth in these 'Truthers'.

[Humodour]

Forum-posting will always be cat-kicking.. With 3666 posts I'm sure you know that.

 

Don't worry, you'd be ridiculed about this just as much in real life.

 

However, righting wrongs, whatever they are, starts by spreading information, going door to door.

Obviously I'm not convincing enough, but I do hope you'll take the time to listen to R. Gage and

observe the activities of the A&Es for 9/11 Truth- movement one day. They're not giving up, and the fight

very much exists.

 

You're not convincing because your posts read like the inconsiderate jokes they are.

[Junai]

You're not convincing because your posts read like the inconsiderate jokes they are.

If my sarcastic remarks dampened your inclination towards considering alternative views in this case, I'm truly sorry. However, if you never desired to listen to anything but the mainstream media to begin with, I'd say you need another dipperful of my poison.

 

J.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Junai

[Tigranes]

For me it's Associated Press (wide breadth of coverage), Voice of America (relatively unbiased American perspective), BBC (relatively unbiased British perspective), The Australian (Aus, centre-right), The Sydney Morning Herald (Aus, centrist), The Age (Aus, centre-left), Slashdot (technology), Physorg (science), Bloomberg (international), Reuters (international), and 3 news forums.

 

I generally avoid every single Murdoch paper except The Australian, for obvious reasons (they're retarded populist hype pieces). That's mainly Fox News, The Daily Telegraph (Aus), and the Melbourne Herald Sun (Aus) for me. The Wall Street Journal is more reputable but Murdoch insists on making it pay to view, so...

 

Interesting pick. I'd generally agree, except The Age can be pretty damn lefty when it gets worked up. SMH can be a bit sensational, too, but I don't really think there is one intelligent, principled newspaper you can trust in Australia, unfortunately.

 

Better than NZ with the Dominion Post...