Goodbye, Mr Roberts

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

the wording of your post tweaked one of my "issues"

Ah - ok. (Did one of those "good" prosecutors come after you or someone you love? My condolences if so.)

[flintlock]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

-Sigmund Freud

1)Do I think the US government capable of conceiving a 9/11 "truther" type scenario? Yes

2)Do I think they did so in this case? No

3)Does that mean they won't do something like this in the future? No

4)Could the US government have allowed 9/11 to happen by, while taking no active role, doing little or nothing to stop it? Yes

5)Can people become so wedded to a conspiracy theory that they no longer look at the issue with an open mind? Yes

6) Does that make them stupid or crazy? Not necessarily.

After reading many pages of 9/11 conspiracy talk on this forum, I still have yet to see anything convincing from a conspiracy advocate on the advantage to the conspirators of crashing a jet into AND blowing up a building vs merely crashing a loaded jet into it. Perhaps if they would concentrate their efforts on explaining this, instead of focusing on the details of metallurgy, they would at least give skeptics something to ponder.

In my opinion, if any conspiracy occurred at all, it would most likely follow along the lines of question #4 above. That they allowed it to happen in order to justify starting a war to suit their goals. Why not? It would achieve most if not all of the goals that people argue were the motivation for a conspiracy. No need for as complicated and risky effort as many propose occurred. But it's all these far fetched theories the conspiracy folks love. The simple facts are boring.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

C1ue --> Of course I do not believe it. I tried to be explicit but it was late at night . These are things I have really heard at the cooler and what you can read in mainstream articles Please also keep in mind... people WANT to believe this stuff, and the media spews out these lies constantly. It is very easy to believe things are getting better, especially for your average joe (who still has a job).

whoever this aaron is, he is a smart guy.

[skyson]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

-Sigmund Freud

1)Do I think the US government capable of conceiving a 9/11 "truther" type scenario? Yes

2)Do I think they did so in this case? No

3)Does that mean they won't do something like this in the future? No

4)Could the US government have allowed 9/11 to happen by, while taking no active role, doing little or nothing to stop it? Yes

5)Can people become so wedded to a conspiracy theory that they no longer look at the issue with an open mind? Yes

6) Does that make them stupid or crazy? Not necessarily.

After reading many pages of 9/11 conspiracy talk on this forum, I still have yet to see anything convincing from a conspiracy advocate on the advantage to the conspirators of crashing a jet into AND blowing up a building vs merely crashing a loaded jet into it. Perhaps if they would concentrate their efforts on explaining this, instead of focusing on the details of metallurgy, they would at least give skeptics something to ponder.

In my opinion, if any conspiracy occurred at all, it would most likely follow along the lines of question #4 above. That they allowed it to happen in order to justify starting a war to suit their goals. Why not? It would achieve most if not all of the goals that people argue were the motivation for a conspiracy. No need for as complicated and risky effort as many propose occurred. But it's all these far fetched theories the conspiracy folks love. The simple facts are boring.

What kind of logic is this? It is like while you looking at the pile of ash, you say:

"This stupid vandalizing obssessive kid did not just destroy the fence, he actually burn the whole fxxking house down? That is just too stupid, the house was not burned down by fire!"

I have demonstrate repeatly in the other thread, that gravity alone could not reduce three buildings into piles of dust/debris. If that is true, then there are other forces at work.

You, c1ue, and Ghent12 have not been able to challeng the fumdamentals of that proposition.

Please look through that thread again, and point out the errors in my theory.

Otherwise, we should say:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be truth".

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I have demonstrate repeatly in the other thread, that gravity alone could not reduce three buildings into piles of dust/debris. If that is true, then there are other forces at work.

You, c1ue, and Ghent12 have not been able to challeng the fumdamentals of that proposition.

Please look through that thread again, and point out the errors in my theory.

Otherwise, we should say:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be truth".

Physics doesn't work the way you want it to work, so you ignore things such as the law of the conservation of energy and mass in favor of of your inane "law of smaller objects can't destroy larger objects."

Let's say physics works like you think it works. Let's pretend dynamic loading is identical to static loading for the purpose of humoring you. Alright then. On your theory, the 15 or 25 floors dropped onto the rest of the building could not possibly have destroyed the rest of the building, and would have been arrested. Does this hold true if those same upper sections were raised 100 feet above the lower ones and dropped onto them? How about 1000 feet? What if a meteor of equal density and mass at the time of impact hit the building at Mach 30? According to your law of smaller objects never destroying larger objects, none of this would be a problem. The building would never be able to collapse. Is this your theory of how physics work?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I still have yet to see anything convincing from a conspiracy advocate on the advantage to the conspirators of crashing a jet into AND blowing up a building vs merely crashing a loaded jet into it.

I think that it was the sight of those buildings falling that galvanized American (and briefly even world) sentiment. That was a substantially more powerful image than the sight of two plane wrecks and rather ordinary subsequent building fires would have been.

Look at people's faces. It was the sight of those buildings coming down in a cloud of dust that caused them to gasp in shock.

Besides, the discussions of physics free fall and metallurgy do matter. By some accounts (ones I find credible) such discussions provide convincing evidence that someone, somehow, pre-planted a large amount of high explosives.

Tell me this if you choose. If tomorrow you somehow came to know as fact certain to you that such explosives were pre-planted, then would that alone cause you to seriously reconsider your conclusions as to who did it and what the role of the U.S. government was?

[Spartacus]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Ah - ok. (Did one of those "good" prosecutors come after you or someone you love? My condolences if so.)

no, never have had trouble with the law, nor has anyone close to me.

just this area combines several personal aversions -
unfairness of prosecutors ignoring exculpatory evidence,
of cops who believed the "satanism" myths,
of the entire law enforcement system incentivized to reward jailings,
of "newage counsellors" (rhymes with sewage)
of bad science combined with hysterical feminism combined with hysterical victim mentality (where the false memory stuff originated)

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

just this area combines several personal aversions -

That's a good list of things to be adverse to.

[radon]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

Your post is illogical and ripe with emotion to the point of being discarded with but the slightest of critical analysis.

1) Concern over assassination of US citizens by our own government is unrelated to the insane theories espoused by the 9/11 Truth Movement, including but not limited to holographic cruise missiles instead of planes striking the WTC, the use of tons the most exotic explosive in history, the hijacked planes landing and then decoys (remote control or otherwise) flying into the targets, and etc.

2) Exploitation of an opportunity never proves who is responsible for the opportunity itself. The 9/11 Truth Movement offers the motive of invading Afghanistan and Iraq and little else as conclusive proof of the government's involvement or complicity in the attack. This does not follow. If you think anyone was itching for the opportunity to invade Afghanistan, then I would love to see your reasoning for it. The 9/11 Truth Movement only started to pick up steam when the warmongering over Iraq was taking place, yet President Bush taking political advantage of the tragedy of 9/11 to invade Iraq does not provide any evidence whatsoever as to who was behind 9/11.

My point, which you have chosen to ignore, is that this is an experienced journalist who was willing to pursue stories which placed the government in a bad light. By supporting his censure based on a single issue you lost the opportunity to read more of his articles. As an example I brought up the the disturbing congressional testimony that vanished in obscurity because nobody dare to wire about it. To this I added that if he was not credible there would be no reason to censure him.

I have no idea how you got holographic missiles and warmongering in Afghanistan out of my support of a journalist who is willing to discuss things that the government, and citizens, find unpleasant. But then again you seem to think that attributing a position to me that I did not take so you can knock it over is somehow logical.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

2) Exploitation of an opportunity never proves who is responsible for the opportunity itself. The 9/11 Truth Movement offers the motive of invading Afghanistan and Iraq and little else as conclusive proof of the government's involvement or complicity in the attack. This does not follow. If you think anyone was itching for the opportunity to invade Afghanistan, then I would love to see your reasoning for it. The 9/11 Truth Movement only started to pick up steam when the warmongering over Iraq was taking place, yet President Bush taking political advantage of the tragedy of 9/11 to invade Iraq does not provide any evidence whatsoever as to who was behind 9/11.

I guess "cui bono" is an unfamiliar phrase to you.

Since World War I with the sinking of the Lusitania, the Anglo-American bankster cabel has always been willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents to incite popular support for wars.

It's not as if this would be the first time this has happened.

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I have demonstrate repeatly in the other thread, that gravity alone could not reduce three buildings into piles of dust/debris. If that is true, then there are other forces at work.

You, c1ue, and Ghent12 have not been able to challeng the fumdamentals of that proposition.

TPC,

I fear the threads you posted were not convincing to me in any way.

I went through each of your arguments in turn and showed that there was a credible other explanation.

Every example you've put up, I looked at.

Ultimately it boiled down to:

You believe some aggregations of aluminum and iron oxide can only have been created by man, and in turn explains the rapid collapse of the WTC towers.

I believe that 100,000+ tons of weight falling even 1 inch is more than enough to cause a structural failure - and that the 767 impact plus subsequent jet fuel fire could very much have caused the initial structural break at/near the impact point.

Your evidence failed to disprove my thesis much as your thesis is equally un-disprovable - doubly so as you stipulate all evidence has been suppressed by the gubbamint.

I will further reiterate that high energy environments have the potential to create all sorts of odd structures. In nature, high energy is not as common but equally odd artifacts result from the passage of long periods of time coupled with 2nd order effects as can be seen from this very odd natural cave formation:



Other examples of odd, but natural occurrences:

Star sapphires:



Pele's tears



Fluorite



Barite rose

[c1ue]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I guess "cui bono" is an unfamiliar phrase to you.

Since World War I with the sinking of the Lusitania, the Anglo-American bankster cabel has always been willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents to incite popular support for wars.

It's not as if this would be the first time this has happened.

There is a large difference between leaking the route/cargo manifest of a ship to the enemy vs. instigating the destruction of 2-110 story buildings using jet liners, then covering up any evidence.

Other examples are equally poor: The Maine was likely destroyed due to a coal dust explosion. It certainly was used as an excuse, but that is hugely different than creating the situation.

As I have mentioned before, if a credible person/organization were to show that the US government knew of the plot and failed to act on it due to reasons other than incompetence/inertia/disbelief, that I could believe.

But to say that the WTC buildings were destroyed due to planted explosives, and to then say there is no proof because the government cleaned it up other than some sand grain sized agglomerations of metal, that is a very low credibility path which has yet to be traversed for me.

[dummass]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

TPC,

I fear the threads you posted were not convincing to me in any way.

I went through each of your arguments in turn and showed that there was a credible other explanation.

Every example you've put up, I looked at.

I'm confused. Was this TPC's argument or Skyson's? :confused:

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I'm confused. Was this TPC's argument or Skyson's? :confused:

It was Skyson, but that's ok.

C1ue -- this debate between us reminds me in an odd sort of way of the Christian Creationism debate, with a strange twist.

My take on Creationism (I'm a long standing atheist, so may well not be presenting their case fairly) is that the Creationists are saying that the many varied life forms they see about us are too complicated to be the result of simple natural selection of random variants. Someone had to design that stuff. Personally, I find Creationists and that argument distasteful and entirely unconvincing.

Now the strange twist is this. In the present discussion of the events of 9/11, it is I, myself, who is taking a role parallel to that of the Creationists. I am saying that the material forms and the manner of collapse I observe in the evidence and videos of the WTC building failures is "too specific in form" to be the result of simply smashing alot of stuff together. Someone had to plant tons of thermite and detonate them in a specific pattern to Create what I see.

You are looking at the WTC building failures as I look at the varied life forms on earth, confident that no Designer, no Master Demolitionist, is required.

I find it a tad unsettling to be on the side resembling the Creationist view in this debate.

But fear not. Unsettling or not, I'm not moving in my convictions on 9/11. This analogy with Creationism (in which you take the side in the 9/11 Demolition debate analogous to the side I take in the Creation of life debate) does have one modest use however. I can see that you're quite unlike to be moving in your convictions on 9/11 either, unless you are presented with incontrovertible evidence that in your intuition must be man made (like bomb detonators or some such)

That's the key. Somethings we look at and figure a human (or higher power) must have designed that thing, such as for example:

Some things we look at and come to understand they can be formed by natural forces, such as the items you pictured in your post above.

The intuition as to which is which is strong in most people; not everyone is in agreement in certain cases; debates engaged with the logical, verbal or sensory portions of our intelligence are quite powerless to change these intuitions.

[Ghent12]

Re: Goodbye, Mr Roberts

I guess "cui bono" is an unfamiliar phrase to you.

Since World War I with the sinking of the Lusitania, the Anglo-American bankster cabel has always been willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents to incite popular support for wars.

It's not as if this would be the first time this has happened.

If cui bono is your standard of evidence or proof of something, then your role in this conversation is probably finished. As I said, it may be usable as establishing a motive, but it has no relevance in the function of proof of action.