VoxOrion wrote:Another ridiculous aspect of the Truther mentality:

"Prove my theory is wrong and then we'll talk."

This is asinine. It is literally no different than saying that you believe the word "Blue" is spelled "Felda" and demanding the person who calls you nutty prove it.

The burden of proof is squarely on one side of this thing, and it's not on the side of the "9/11 deniers".

Vox, this is why ptk meets with resistance he does. If he were only pointing out the inconsistencies and expressing that the official story might not be entirely true, we'd be on the edge of our seats, "Go on."

Showing something might not be right neither makes it wrong nor does it prove the opposite is true. Instead of leaving it at, hey I have questions, ptk goes five steps further and loses everyone as a result. ptk is wrong. He can convince people that there's something wrong with the official explanation. He just can't do by using the method he's using. He loses everyone because he goes much further than he can justifiably go.

And no, ptk you misread what I wrote. You can have opinions and ask questions. You should have opinions and ask questions. But when you use the words "I know" you go too far. You don't know any of that. I'm glad you moved back to "I'm fairly confident," but what it really should be is "I think."

In the 1990's Hillary Clinton kept shouting about a "vast Republican conspiracy." She couldn't prove it and it obscured the search for what really was happening. There was a small Arkansas conspiracy. Eventually that came out.

Questioning the official story should help expose the truth. Questioning it this way only serves anyone who might be obscuring the truth.

Here is a site with a view closer to my own and a tone closer to my own. ( i had never been to rense site before today and I can see they may be some fringe group -- i was just looking quickly for discussion of the collapse)

here

Here are two excerpts...

"...It’s important to note from the start that this book is not meant to debunk anything. Its’ main purpose is to craft a mindset where anyone who questions the official 9/11 story likely spends their weekends at Roswell. This is a psychological attack on those who dare question their government’s account of a most tragic day in our history; it’s a return fire in an ongoing information war. The purpose is not to answer pressing questions. Instead, the writers choose the path of assassinating the character of anyone who dares ask such questions. Additionally, the book plants a seed in the mind of the reader that all 9/11 Truth seekers agree on every “myth” discussed. To reinforce this, the editors focus on major strawman arguments that I will discuss briefly. ..."


"... Since the publication of the original Popular Mechanics piece, Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven Jones has released one of the most vital studies in 9/11 truth. Last year Dr. Jones began to study the possibility of a thermite reaction at both of the main towers of the WTC, thus causing their collapse. Further, Dr. Jones recently obtained a piece of debris from the rubble and was able to positively test it for the existence of compounds that would be consistent with a thermite reaction. As Dr. Jones’s study is very well sourced and thorough, the study must obviously be discredited in some fashion. Popular Mechanics carted out several metallurgic professors who disagree with the Jones hypothesis. They also quote Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.,, who was contracted to remove all debris from ground zero. Mr. Loizeaux explaines that, "Dr. Jones misunderstands the properties of explosive charges.” Other than Mr. Loizeaux’s title, no other credentials are cited for him to make such an assertion. Finally, it’s noted that, “Dr. Jones primary field of study at BYU (Brigham Young University) is metal-catalyzed or cold fusion, a study that is unrelated to engineering or the performance of tall buildings.” The key word here is “primary.” While Dr. Jones may focus on such said issues in his studies at BYU, it does not mean that he hasn’t studied basic physics and metallurgy. So once again, the reader is to rely on assumptions and half-truths in the face of irrefutable evidence and dictates of logic. ..."

Philly the Kid wrote:"...It’s important to note from the start that this book is not meant to debunk anything. Its’ main purpose is to craft a mindset where anyone who questions the official 9/11 story likely spends their weekends at Roswell. This is a psychological attack on those who dare question their government’s account of a most tragic day in our history; it’s a return fire in an ongoing information war. The purpose is not to answer pressing questions. Instead, the writers choose the path of assassinating the character of anyone who dares ask such questions. Additionally, the book plants a seed in the mind of the reader that all 9/11 Truth seekers agree on every “myth” discussed. To reinforce this, the editors focus on major strawman arguments that I will discuss briefly. ..."

I called this tactic three pages ago. Weak.

VoxOrion wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:"...It’s important to note from the start that this book is not meant to debunk anything. Its’ main purpose is to craft a mindset where anyone who questions the official 9/11 story likely spends their weekends at Roswell. This is a psychological attack on those who dare question their government’s account of a most tragic day in our history; it’s a return fire in an ongoing information war. The purpose is not to answer pressing questions. Instead, the writers choose the path of assassinating the character of anyone who dares ask such questions. Additionally, the book plants a seed in the mind of the reader that all 9/11 Truth seekers agree on every “myth” discussed. To reinforce this, the editors focus on major strawman arguments that I will discuss briefly. ..."

I called this tactic three pages ago. Weak.

Considering I've been accused of believing in the Spaghetti Monster today, sorry if I didn't credit you. People have been calling me fringist of the fringe. Not accurate. Not fair. Not reasonable.

"Not accurate. Not reasonable."

Sounds about right.

I'm sorry, you're probably just straight fringe. I went a little overboard.

Laexile wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Another ridiculous aspect of the Truther mentality:

"Prove my theory is wrong and then we'll talk."

This is asinine. It is literally no different than saying that you believe the word "Blue" is spelled "Felda" and demanding the person who calls you nutty prove it.

The burden of proof is squarely on one side of this thing, and it's not on the side of the "9/11 deniers".

Vox, this is why ptk meets with resistance he does. If he were only pointing out the inconsistencies and expressing that the official story might not be entirely true, we'd be on the edge of our seats, "Go on."

Showing something might not be right neither makes it wrong nor does it prove the opposite is true. Instead of leaving it at, hey I have questions, ptk goes five steps further and loses everyone as a result. ptk is wrong. He can convince people that there's something wrong with the official explanation. He just can't do by using the method he's using. He loses everyone because he goes much further than he can justifiably go.

And no, ptk you misread what I wrote. You can have opinions and ask questions. You should have opinions and ask questions. But when you use the words "I know" you go too far. You don't know any of that. I'm glad you moved back to "I'm fairly confident," but what it really should be is "I think."

In the 1990's Hillary Clinton kept shouting about a "vast Republican conspiracy." She couldn't prove it and it obscured the search for what really was happening. There was a small Arkansas conspiracy. Eventually that came out.

Questioning the official story should help expose the truth. Questioning it this way only serves anyone who might be obscuring the truth.

Possibly for the first time in recorded internet history, I'm going on record as agreeing with everything that LAexile said. He managed to mix in a little shot at Hillary and advance his pro elephant agenda, but I'm willing to overlook that on this monumental occasion

Be still my heart. No dig at Hillary. She was right to be paranoid. They were out to get her.

Obscured in the fog of silliness and "shock" over the cover, is that there is a reasonably interesting article by Ryan Lizza on Obama's rise in Chicago politics. I say reasonbly because while it is very interesting as biography, the thesis of the article is that Obama is a very ambitious man who took political jobs and met people with an eye toward greater things than triumphing in local politics, and managed to offend some previous supporters along the way in doing this. To me this is about as interesting as "dog bites man" as it seems to be the only way to succeed in politics if you don't already have billionaire businessman, high-priced attorney or war hero to put before your name, or the surname of a former president to put after it. But it's still a worthwhile read.

Lizza also did a very interesting and (to me, anyway) balanced portrait of McCain for the New Yorker back in February, available here.

On the other hand, a quick spin through the internet has informed me that the New Yorker is elitist, and that these articles are too long to be actually read-so consider yourselves forewarned.

7 pages of 'ptk thinks 9/11 was an inside job' silliness to go!

Philly the Kid wrote:"... Since the publication of the original Popular Mechanics piece, Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven Jones has released one of the most vital studies in 9/11 truth. Last year Dr. Jones began to study the possibility of a thermite reaction at both of the main towers of the WTC, thus causing their collapse. Further, Dr. Jones recently obtained a piece of debris from the rubble and was able to positively test it for the existence of compounds that would be consistent with a thermite reaction..."

So, the towers collapsed because they had thermites?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

I do have a problem with the New Yorker cover. They show a bunch of things that would be awful if they were true (burning the American flag, having a portrait of Osama Bin Laden in the White house, carrying around a machine gun) and Barack and Michelle doing the 'terrorist fist bump.' By lumping the fist bump in with everything else, the implication is that it's evil, and unlike the other things, it's something that is true of the Obamas.

The attempt at humor is sloppy in it's execution. They expect us all to get that these things are evil but aren't really true of the Obamas, but they also expect us to get that they reversed the formula for one part of the picture.

ashton wrote:I do have a problem with the New Yorker cover. They show a bunch of things that would be awful if they were true (burning the American flag, having a portrait of Osama Bin Laden in the White house, carrying around a machine gun) and Barack and Michelle doing the 'terrorist fist bump.' By lumping the fist bump in with everything else, the implication is that it's evil, and unlike the other things, it's something that is true of the Obamas.

The attempt at humor is sloppy in it's execution. They expect us all to get that these things are evil but aren't really true of the Obamas, but they also expect us to get that they reversed the formula for one part of the picture.

See, I think they are using that other stuff to show how silly it is to think that was a terrorist fist bump. The implication is that it is the fist bump that has significance and not the Obamas doing it. A terrorist fist bump is considered "bad" if that is what they were doing. I think they are just mocking the fact that it had nothing to do with it being terrorist.

Philly the Kid wrote:
How many times do I have to say it? I DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

I just don't find the theory of planes crashing and those Towers going down as they did, credibly explained by govt and mainstream press.

Know what's good about this theory though? THERE'S 8000 DIFFERENT PIECES OF VIDEO FOOTAGE. To rig a building up to be purposefully demolished would take a long time, yet NO ONE saw it happen and there is ZERO video of it.

It's getting late, so I don't have the time to read the linked article at the moment, nor did I read or research Jones' hypothesis. Just want to quickly comment on the excerpt quoted...

"... Since the publication of the original Popular Mechanics piece, Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven Jones has released one of the most vital studies in 9/11 truth. Last year Dr. Jones began to study the possibility of a thermite reaction at both of the main towers of the WTC, thus causing their collapse. Further, Dr. Jones recently obtained a piece of debris from the rubble and was able to positively test it for the existence of compounds that would be consistent with a thermite reaction. As Dr. Jones’s study is very well sourced and thorough, the study must obviously be discredited in some fashion. Popular Mechanics carted out several metallurgic professors who disagree with the Jones hypothesis. They also quote Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.,, who was contracted to remove all debris from ground zero. Mr. Loizeaux explaines that, "Dr. Jones misunderstands the properties of explosive charges.”

Just so no one has a mistaken assumption... thermite isn't an "explosive" and isn't used for demolition. It's a composition used to create a aluminothermic reaction, short bursts of heat most commonly used in some forms of welding (beams, rail, etc.).

While a thermite reaction may have been theoretically possible since airplanes are tons o' aluminum and aluminium is highly combustible and there was probably some oxide present in the towers, it's rather unlikely as a thermite reaction requires a precise mixture of aluminum and metal oxide. IOW, would have been one heck of a coincidence that the amount of aluminum from the planes and amount of oxide (rust) from beams, etc. were in the exact proportion to accidentially create a thermite reaction. Also, a thermite reaction occurs in short bursts, it doesn't provide a prolonged source of heat. And the amount of heat it can take to ignite thermite in the first place would likely be enough to weaken the columns and beams itself.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:It's getting late, so I don't have the time to read the linked article at the moment, nor did I read or research Jones' hypothesis. Just want to quickly comment on the excerpt quoted...

"... Since the publication of the original Popular Mechanics piece, Brigham Young University Physics Professor Steven Jones has released one of the most vital studies in 9/11 truth. Last year Dr. Jones began to study the possibility of a thermite reaction at both of the main towers of the WTC, thus causing their collapse. Further, Dr. Jones recently obtained a piece of debris from the rubble and was able to positively test it for the existence of compounds that would be consistent with a thermite reaction. As Dr. Jones’s study is very well sourced and thorough, the study must obviously be discredited in some fashion. Popular Mechanics carted out several metallurgic professors who disagree with the Jones hypothesis. They also quote Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.,, who was contracted to remove all debris from ground zero. Mr. Loizeaux explaines that, "Dr. Jones misunderstands the properties of explosive charges.”

Just so no one has a mistaken assumption... thermite isn't an "explosive" and isn't used for demolition. It's a composition used to create a aluminothermic reaction, short bursts of heat most commonly used in some forms of welding (beams, rail, etc.).

While a thermite reaction may have been theoretically possible since airplanes are tons o' aluminum and aluminium is highly combustible and there was probably some oxide present in the towers, it's rather unlikely as a thermite reaction requires a precise mixture of aluminum and metal oxide. IOW, would have been one heck of a coincidence that the amount of aluminum from the planes and amount of oxide (rust) from beams, etc. were in the exact proportion to accidentially create a thermite reaction. Also, a thermite reaction occurs in short bursts, it doesn't provide a prolonged source of heat. And the amount of heat it can take to ignite thermite in the first place would likely be enough to weaken the columns and beams itself.

What's your belief about whether or not there was molten steel at the bottom of the buildings?

Francis Branigan, World renowned author of the de facto standard text "Building Construction for the Fire Service", and probably the world's most eminent authority on building collapse*, studied the fall the the towers. His conclusion was that without a shadow of a doubt the airliners caused the collapse. Sorry, I can't find a link- I think I read the hardcopy in Fire Engineering or some other fire service publication.

That's good enough for me.



*- until he died, that is

Died or assassinated?

ashton wrote:I do have a problem with the New Yorker cover. They show a bunch of things that would be awful if they were true (burning the American flag, having a portrait of Osama Bin Laden in the White house, carrying around a machine gun) and Barack and Michelle doing the 'terrorist fist bump.' By lumping the fist bump in with everything else, the implication is that it's evil, and unlike the other things, it's something that is true of the Obamas.

The attempt at humor is sloppy in it's execution. They expect us all to get that these things are evil but aren't really true of the Obamas, but they also expect us to get that they reversed the formula for one part of the picture.

What it does is take something that's true, the fist bump, and the ridiculous media invention, it's a terrorist thing, and then exaggerates it. People who read The New Yorker will get it. This sort of political humor is edgy because it takes on a controversial subject head on.

Last night I was listening to NPR. They had a guest who wrote a book about politician's famous lines. Someone called up and said that George H.W. Bush's line, "A Bill Clinton Presidency would be Jimmy Carter II" was memorable but the most ridiculous thing. When the host suggested it was equivalent to Obama's line, "McCain is another four years of Bush" the caller said in a huff, "No it's not. That one's true."

This cover mocks Republicans. I'm not offended. Yet somehow Democrats are offended.