The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

I can do even better than that,

Apparently not. You were asked for the context, which you failed to provide.

Here's a bit of what NIST said when we don't just pick and choose what to quote:

More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels; however, these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C

Hmm. So while NIST said nothing got above 250°C in their sample , they also said that this could not be considered representative of the other 97% of the perimiter columns.

Put simply, NIST make it clear that this finding should not be used in exactly the way that it has been used here, and you feel that its somehow better to not point this out?

here is the thermal analysis from NIST...

No, its not. Its one small section of the thermal analysis from NIST.

I would also ask why you link to it somewhere other than in NIST's documentation. There aren't many credible reasons for doing this. Indeed, the above example shows just how important context is...so would you like to tell us where they actually come from? You do know, I assume...

One place I found one of these pictures was here where NIST also point out that fire temps (as opposed to column temps) reached 1000 degrees and weakened perimiter, core columns, floor supports etc.

Given that the cores in your diagrams show temps higher than the point at which steel starts to weaken, it would seem that your "better than that" actually supports what NISTare saying. The diagram shows teh columns should have begun to weaken. Neither you nor NIST believes that this weakening on its own would be sufficient to bring down the building.



jc

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

To make that ridiculous statement it's obvious you have serious trouble deailing with what is staring you in the face. If you really need to keep believing that all three buildings merely collapsed then why don't you just completely ignore this thread?

I don't believe that they "merely collapsed". I believe that a combination of severe structural damage combined with damaged fireproofing and a sustained fire caused the buildings to collapse.

tunaman wrote:

Your constant denial in face of all the evidence is sad enough, but what's really sad is that you are going to great lengths, trying to convince other people from looking at the evidence for themselves.

I want people to look at the evidence. What I don't want is for them to draw nonsensical conclusions about an utterly fantastic theory, when the same evidence points to a scientifically valid explanation.

tunaman wrote:

Let's apply [Occam's Razor] to 9/11 then...

The obvious assumption should be that it was an inside job...

I need to stop you right there. The application of Occam's Razor doesn't involve starting with the assumption that you want to prove.

tunaman wrote:

These so called experts knew what they were saying wasn't true, but their lies were vital in stopping people asking serious questions.

I don't know if it applies here, but on the Politics board if you're going to accuse someone of lying, you're required to prove that they knew what they were saying to be false. Can you do that?

Jocksereire

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1375208054676470714

oscarBravo

Jocksereire wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1375208054676470714

What about it?

Jocksereire

who do people think are lying here? Norad or the FAA? Or both?
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/griffin/griffin-faulkner-8-30-2006.mp3(right click and save)

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't believe that they "merely collapsed". I believe that a combination of severe structural damage combined with damaged fireproofing and a sustained fire caused the buildings to collapse.

Apart from completely dodging my question...

Since when is 56 minutes a sustained fire?

I want people to look at the evidence.

Really?

You have a very strange way of going about it...

What I don't want is for them to draw nonsensical conclusions about an utterly fantastic theory

Like the pancake theory, you mean?

when the same evidence points to a scientifically valid explanation.

Since when has gravity been an explosive force?

Your only defence to the obvious demolition of all threee buildings continues to be disbelief...

I need to stop you right there. The application of Occam's Razor doesn't involve starting with the assumption that you want to prove.

I guess you must have missed what I said...

If there was any country in the World, where something like 9/11 couldn't happen without inside help, then it would be the US.

I don't know if it applies here, but on the Politics board if you're going to accuse someone of lying, you're required to prove that they knew what they were saying to be false. Can you do that?

Seeing as jet fuel cannot possibly have burned at a high enough temperature to melt steel, that is proof that they were lying, in a desperate attempt to stop people from asking questions...

Unless of course you are naive enough to think they were just idiots, who had no idea what they were talking about...

Diogenes

tunaman wrote:

Apart from completely dodging my question...

Since when is 56 minutes a sustained fire?

A fire burning steady and unbroken for nearly an hour isn't a sustained fire?

I guess you must have missed what I said...

If there was any country in the World, where something like 9/11 couldn't happen without inside help, then it would be the US.

Huh again and it boils down to, if it was an "inside job" how did the US government silence the thousands of people who would be needed to pull it off.

Seeing as jet fuel cannot possibly have burned at a high enough temperature to melt steel, that is proof that they were lying, in a desperate attempt to stop people from asking questions...

No one no one is claiming that the steel just melted however jet fuel burns at a level to weaken steal, your refusal to look at that just beggars belief.

Unless of course you are naive enough to think they were just idiots, who had no idea what they were talking about...

That would be an accurate description of the entire 9/11 "truth" movement.

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels; however, these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C

So will you finally admit that any claims people like you make, that the steel reached any higher temperature is merely wild speculation?

Hmm. So while NIST said nothing got above 250°C in their sample , they also said that this could not be considered representative of the other 97% of the perimiter columns.

So where was the rest of the steel?

Oh yeah, that's right it was quickly shipped off and melted down...

Put simply, NIST make it clear that this finding should not be used in exactly the way that it has been used here, and you feel that its somehow better to not point this out?

It seems that the criminal destruction of nearly all the evidence is not good enough for you...

Now you want to disregard the only available physical evidence we have?

I would also ask why you link to it somewhere other than in NIST's documentation.There aren't many credible reasons for doing this.

I want people to form their own conclusions...

One place I found one of these pictures was here where NIST also point out that fire temps (as opposed to column temps) reached 1000 degreesand weakened perimiter, core columns, floor supports etc.

Why do you keep pointing out the temperature of the fire, when you must know that it would have far exceeded the temperature of the steel?

Given that the cores in your diagrams show temps higher than the point at which steel starts to weaken, it would seem that your "better than that" actually supports what NISTare saying. The diagram shows teh columns should have begun to weaken.

The official story states that the steel had to have weakened by at least 50%, yet you know as well as I do, that steel heated to 250C will not even get remotely close to achieving this...

oscarBravo

tunaman wrote:

Apart from completely dodging my question...

What question? Why don't I ignore this thread?

It speaks volumes that you think a discussion that only considers one possible view of events would be a useful one.

tunaman wrote:

Since when is 56 minutes a sustained fire?

Define "sustained fire" for me, so. 57 minutes? 61 minutes? Three hours? Ten years?

tunaman wrote:

Really?

You have a very strange way of going about it...

That's an example of what you accused me of earlier: a meaningless point.

tunaman wrote:

Like the pancake theory, you mean?

No, I don't mean it. You know I don't mean it. If I meant it, I wouldn't have been arguing against the bullshít demolition theories for the last several hundred posts.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of logical fallacies? :rolleyes:

tunaman wrote:

Since when has gravity been an explosive force?

Since when did I say gravity was an explosive force?

Oh, I see: it's another logical fallacy. You say the buildings exploded. I say they collapsed. Therefore I'm arguing that gravity is an explosive force. Heaven forbid you'd let logic intrude, even briefly, into your worldview.

tunaman wrote:

Your only defence to the obvious demolition of all threee buildings continues to be disbelief...

Another meaningless point, and another logical fallacy. The buildings were not obviously demolished. The sum total of your "evidence" to date is approximately equivalent to me showing you a photograph of the WTC taken in 1998 as "evidence" that they never collapsed at all.

tunaman wrote:

I guess you must have missed what I said...

If there was any country in the World, where something like 9/11 couldn't happen without inside help, then it would be the US.

I saw what you said. It's not a premise, it's a conclusion. It's a broad and sweeping conclusion with no worthwhile evidence offered to back it up. Therefore it's useless as a premise on which to base further argument.

tunaman wrote:

Seeing as jet fuel cannot possibly have burned at a high enough temperature to melt steel, that is proof that they were lying, in a desperate attempt to stop people from asking questions...

It's not proof of anything. It may be all the evidence required to constitute proof in a bizarre conspiracy theorist's world, but - taken in isolation - it's not even enough to be considered an opening argument in science, law, or any other field where the word "proof" has real currency.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

So will you finally admit that any claims people like you make, that the steel reached any higher temperature is merely wild speculation?

No, but I will admit they weren't based off direct measurements.

Will you in turn admit to either:

- knowingly misrepresenting information
OR
- representing someone else's claims as evidence without ever bothering to check whether or not it was accurate

I'll alternately accept any other reason as to why you tried to mislead people with the out-of-context information that you've misused in exactly the way the context said it couldn't be.

If you do that, I'll explain to you why the lack of direct measurement isn't as big a deal as you make it out to be. I'll explain why decades-old scientific modelling techniques are more than adequate. I know you don't like science, and treat it with a contempt similar to what I'd have expected from a Quaker in the middle ages on the same subject, but you'll just have to live with that.

I want people to form their own conclusions...

You want them to form their own conclusions, based on your interpretation of the evidence (which as we've already seen involves misinterpretation at times), a lack of science, as well as a healthy dose of untested assumptions mixed with a refusal to accept any official evidence thats based on tested assumptions.

The notion that they can take evidence from the NIST report, seperated from all of the context of the NIST report, to draw conclusions about the NIST report is just ludicrous.

If you really want them to form their own conclusions, as opopsed to just lead them to yours, you'd supply context and tell/let them to look at it for themselves.

Its possible you don't know where they come from, that you're yet again regurgitating an argument from another MIHOPer and you haven't done your own "due dilligence" to check its veracity.

Its possible you do know wher it comes from, and like the quote above, you're trying to hide context that shows you're misrepresenting it.

But the one fact thats inescapable is that by not supplying the references, you're lessening people's ability to form their own conclusions, not enhancing it.

Why do you keep pointing out the temperature of the fire, when you must know that it would have far exceeded the temperature of the steel?

Why do I keep doing it? Can you show me where I've done it before?

The official story states that the steel had to have weakened by at least 50%

Where? Show me where in the NIST report this was concluded.

Or is this just another bit of "information" that you'd prefer to keep context-free to help people draw your own conclusions?

<edit>
I can't prove this claim to be false. Other than telling the reader to read all of the thousands and thousands of pages, I cannot prove that NISt do not, somewhere, conclude a weakening of 50%. Even then, I can't prove it isn't mentioned in some document I didn't link to.

Tunaman, on the other hand, can at one stroke show that he knows what NIST actually said in the report he refuses to believe, that he knows what he's talknig about, and that the position I claim to hold is far less certain than I make it out to be.

In short, there is no good reason for tunaman to fail to rise to this challenge unless he is wrong. I believe he is.
</edit>

Jocksereire

More lies from the US government. It seems like telling lies has become the norm from the Bush government ever since 2001

9/11 HEROES IN
TOXIC CLOUD

DOCTORS' SHOCKING PROOF: 7 OF 10
RESCUERS SUFFERED LUNG DAMAGE AFTER WTC
COLLAPSE

By CARL CAMPANILE and DAVID SEIFMAN
GRIM STATS: 70 percent of WTC responders had new respiratory ailments or pre-existing ailments that got worse. Photo: N.Y. Post: Matthew McDermott GRIM STATS: 70 percent of WTC responders had new respiratory ailments or pre-existing ailments that got worse.
Photo: N.Y. Post: Matthew McDermott
Email Archives
Print © Reprint
Feeds Newsletters
September 6, 2006 -- A staggering 70 percent of emergency workers at Ground Zero developed new or worsening respiratory problems from breathing highly toxic air, according to a grim health study announced yesterday.

Mount Sinai Medical Center doctors - who said the study provides conclusive proof that the WTC site caused illnesses - also found 61 percent of first responders and cleanup workers had no health problems before 9/11 and became ill after working downtown.

Another 9 percent had pre-existing health ailments - such as asthma - but became sicker from working at or near the collapsed trade centers.

One-third had "abnormal" lung capacity - more than double the national rate. And the number of workers who came down with pneumonia also increased significantly, the report said.

Mount Sinai officials called the findings grim, and predicted that many workers will struggle with lifetimes illnesses.

Some will likely develop deadly lung diseases like asbestosis.

"There should no longer be any doubt about the health effects of the World Trade Center. Our patients are sick," said Dr. Robin Herbert, co-director of the hospital's unit that has monitored and treated 16,000 responders.

"Our patients are very, very highly exposed, and are likely to suffer health consequences for the rest of their lives."

The persistent respiratory illnesses - and expected wave of cancers in the years to come - should come as no surprise, said Philip Landrigan, Mount Sinai's head of community and preventive medicine.

"What these people inhaled was extremely toxic. It was pulverized dust. It was like Drano. It penetrated deep in the lungs, deep in the sinus cavities," he said, adding that that "trillions upon trillions of shards of glass" were also ingested.

"It's very logical to project long-term disease," he added.

Mount Sinai is now tracking cancer and other diseases that develop among workers.

The Mount Sinai study comes on the heels of mounting criticism that city, state and federal politicians haven't done enough to treat and provide medical coverage to sick Ground Zero workers.

The press event at Mount Sinai took on a politicized tone.

Sitting on the dais during the release of the scientific findings were Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler - all Democrats and frequent critics of the White House.

Yesterday, they all teed off on the Bush administration for resisting helping 9/11 "heroes" and for saying the air was safe shortly after the attacks.

"It was obvious that the air was hard to see through, let alone hard to breathe," Clinton said. "Our government was not telling us the truth."

John Howard, the Bush administration's 9/11 health czar, was also present.

He didn't respond to the attacks against the administration, but called the findings "extremely important."

At City Hall, Mayor Bloomberg announced yesterday that he's allocating $37.5 million over five years to help World Trade Center responders deal with their health problems - although he questioned the link between Ground Zero air and illnesses.

"I haven't seen the study. But I don't believe you can say specifically a particular problem came from this particular [thing]," the mayor said.

Bloomberg provided $16 million to expand a WTC treatment program at Bellevue Hospital that was established in August 2005 with a $2.4 million, two-year grant from the American Red Cross.

Officials said the added funds would allow the program - which has a one- to two-month backlog for routine appointments - to treat 6,000 patients for free over five years.

Bloomberg also set aside $21.6 million so the Health Department could increase the unit assigned to investigate WTC health issues from seven to 20 employees.

But the mayor insisted his actions - coming just days before the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack - weren't an admission that more should have been done earlier.

"A lot of data is just coming, in terms of damage or symptoms that people have," Bloomberg said.

Lawyers representing 6,000 sick workers in a class-action suit against the city said Mount Sinai and City Hall are years behind the curve in diagnosing how sick people are.

The plaintiffs' legal team claims that nearly 400 Ground Zero workers have cancer and more than 50 others have died from WTC-related illnesses.

"I have clients with kidney disease, leukemia, liver disease. The people are getting sicker," said lawyer David Worby.

"They're tracking people with a cough. I'm tracking people who are dying."

carl.campanile@nypost.com

Diogenes

jock what on earth is the point of the above, how does it prove a conspiracy?

civdef

It's all part of the "Gummamint is bad, mmmmk?" movement.

Jocksereire

nah its just more lies by the US government theyre on a roll with lies you see

Jocksereire

28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job
Highlights missing Pentagon trillions as potential motive

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 7 2006

A 28-year CIA career man and a former skeptic of alternative 9/11 explanations has gone further than ever before in voicing his convictions that the attacks bore the hallmarks of an inside job and the three buildings in the WTC complex were brought down by controlled demolition.

Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. Since then he has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies.

In Christison's recent article, Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11, he afforded credibility to the notion that "significant parts" of the official 9/11 story were false and after careful research he concluded that the twin towers and building 7, "were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings."

Christison went further on The Alex Jones Show, agreeing that the attacks being an inside job was the "most likely possibility."

"David Griffin believes this all was totally an inside job - I've got to say I think that it was too," said Christison.

Christison initially approached the subject unwilling to even consider that elements of the government could be engaged in such heights of criminality but his research quickly began to change his mind.

"Just about half a year ago it dawned on me that not only was I trying to avoid an issue that might be extraordinarily important - more important than any other issue," said Christison.

"I have since decided that....at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen."



Christison (pictured) stated that the suspicious collapse of the three buildings, including building 7 which wasn't hit by a plane, were likely the result of controlled demolitions.

"The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes."

"All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions."

Jocksereire

now if anyone has the patience to listen to this interview this is great stuff!!! But its 3 hours
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/malloy/MalloyShow-(03-08-2006).mp3 you gotta love the bush quotes

oscarBravo

Jocksereire wrote:

28-Year Career CIA Official Says 9/11 An Inside Job
Highlights missing Pentagon trillions as potential motive

...for flying planes into the World Trade Centre?

Jocksereire wrote:

A 28-year CIA career man and a former skeptic of alternative 9/11 explanations has gone further than ever before in voicing his convictions that the attacks bore the hallmarks of an inside job and the three buildings in the WTC complex were brought down by controlled demolition.

Where's his proof? Where's the evidence? Where's the painstakingly detailed research?

Or is this more of the same - like tunaman, telling us that it's perfectly obvious from the visual evidence that [strike]a missile hit the Pentagon[/strike] the WTC was demolished?

Jocksereire wrote:

now if anyone has the patience to listen to this interview this is great stuff!!!

What's good about it?

Jocksereire

oscarBravo wrote:

..Where's his proof? Where's the evidence? Where's the painstakingly detailed research?

Please show me proof that Al Queda did the 911 attacks coz the FBI cant even do that!
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html

Show me the evidence. if this was a courtroom, it'd be up to the prosecution - in this instance, the U.S. Government - to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that things happened they way they said they did. They cannot.

What's good about it?

Ah just listen to it it makes a mockery if the whole US government and their storey.....great stuff altogether

Jocksereire

The official FBI website .....Bin Laden

DESCRIPTION

Date of Birth Used: 1957 Hair: Brown
Place of Birth: Saudi Arabia Eyes: Brown
Height: 6'4" to 6'6" Sex: Male
Weight: Approximately 160 pounds Complexion: Olive
Build: Thin Citizenship: Saudi Arabian
Language: Arabic (probably Pashtu)
Scars and Marks: None known
Remarks: Bin Laden is left-handed and walks with a cane.


CAUTION

Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.


REWARD

The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.


SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ARMED AND DANGEROUS

Diogenes

Jocksereire wrote:

Please show me proof that Al Queda did the 911 attacks coz the FBI cant even do that!
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html

Show me the evidence. if this was a courtroom, it'd be up to the prosecution - in this instance, the U.S. Government -

Are you asking us to prove that either A) 19 men flew planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, and crashed in Pennyslivania, or that 19 men did so under the orders of Al Qaedia?

to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that things happened they way they said they did. They cannot.

Theres a world of difference between what you know and what you can prove in court. Theres little way to prove something irrefutably, if there was this thread wouldn't be happening. However in the absence of concrete proof, and undeniable evidence we must apply occam's razor.

Ah just listen to it it makes a mockery if the whole US government and their storey.....great stuff altogether

Cheers however loose change has already taken valuable pointless hours out of my life

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

What question? Why don't I ignore this thread?

Yet again you still don't answer my question...

It speaks volumes that you think a discussion that only considers one possible view of events would be a useful one.

People have already had the pancake theory peddled for the last 5 years, by apologists like you, who are living in denial...

Define "sustained fire" for me, so. 57 minutes? 61 minutes? Three hours? Ten years?

How about 18 hours?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

The One Meridian Plaza Fire

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

That's an example of what you accused me of earlier: a meaningless point.

It was an observation of your continued denial...

No, I don't mean it. You know I don't mean it. If I meant it, I wouldn't have been arguing against the bullshít demolition theories for the last several hundred posts.

The pancake theory remains a fantastic unexplored theory, so it fits your description precisely...

And you have the nerve to accuse me of logical fallacies? :rolleyes: Since when did I say gravity was an explosive force?

I asked you the question...

Yet again you resort to the fallacy...

Oh, I see: it's another logical fallacy. You say the buildings exploded. I say they collapsed. Therefore I'm arguing that gravity is an explosive force. Heaven forbid you'd let logic intrude, even briefly, into your worldview.

Everybody can see the buildings exploded, only people like you in denial, continue to claim they just collapsed...

I saw what you said. It's not a premise, it's a conclusion. It's a broad and sweeping conclusion with no worthwhile evidence offered to back it up. Therefore it's useless as a premise on which to base further argument.

It was a statement based on fact, something you are so afraid of doing...

It's not proof of anything. It may be all the evidence required to constitute proof in a bizarre conspiracy theorist's world, but - taken in isolation - it's not even enough to be considered an opening argument in science, law, or any other field where the word "proof" has real currency.

They claimed something that was impossible, so they knew they were lying...

Ciaran500

Good to see this thread is still going around in one big circle bringing up the same points over and over.

tunaman

bonkey wrote:

No, but I will admit they weren't based off direct measurements.

You really are as slippery as an eel...

So what are you resorting to when you claim the steel got any hotter, if it isn't speculation?

I'll alternately accept any other reason as to why you tried to mislead people with the out-of-context information that you've misused in exactly the way the context said it couldn't be.

I am presenting the only available physcial evidence, and now you are crying like a baby, as it shows up the pancake theory for the work of fiction it is...

The notion that they can take evidence from the NIST report, seperated from all of the context of the NIST report, to draw conclusions about the NIST report is just ludicrous.

The NIST report and you are the one's that have drawn ridiculous conclusions from all the evidence...

If you really want them to form their own conclusions, as opopsed to just lead them to yours, you'd supply context and tell/let them to look at it for themselves.

Back in the real World, not many people are going to read hundreds of pages of a report, that totally avoids explaining the so called collapses...

Just like you they are experts at avoiding discussing the real issues...

But the one fact thats inescapable is that by not supplying the references, you're lessening people's ability to form their own conclusions, not enhancing it.

Your eyesight must be bad, as in case you hadn't noticed the charts have NIST written on them in big letters...

Where? Show me where in the NIST report this was concluded.

Did I say it was in the NIST report?

The pancake theory relies on severe weakening of the steel, in case you hadn't noticed...

tunaman

Ciaran500 wrote:

Good to see this thread is still going around in one big circle bringing up the same points over and over.

It's due to disinfo artists like bonkey and oscar, who either haven't got the balls to face reality, or they don't want the 9/11 myth to be exposed, as it just isn't in their interests...

tunaman

oscarBravo wrote:

Or is this more of the same - like tunaman, telling us that it's perfectly obvious from the visual evidence that [strike]a missile hit the Pentagon[/strike]

When did I ever say a missile hit the pentagon?

Oh yeah, I didn't...

I have had enough of you and bonkey with your blatant disinfo tactics, so here is a list of some of the rules of disinformation they live by, so everybody can see the incredibly dishonest tactics you use...

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a394fc1cf0ba9.htm

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

You have been exposed now, so everything you say will be watched like a hawk by everybody.:)

Gordon

tunaman wrote:

I have had enough of you and bonkey with your blatant disinfo tactics, so here is a list of some of the rules of disinformation they live by, so everybody can see the incredibly dishonest tactics you use...

I think you're resorting to petty smokescreening now and really taking this off topic. As if this thread isn't tricky enough to make head or tail of - you go and add mass accusatory ramblings tunaman. Kinda like a troll tbh. If you have to insult someone to make your point then the point wasn't strong enough to begin with.

tunaman

Gordon wrote:

I think you're resorting to petty smokescreening now and really taking this off topic. As if this thread isn't tricky enough to make head or tail of - you go and add mass accusatory ramblings tunaman. Kinda like a troll tbh. If you have to insult someone to make your point then the point wasn't strong enough to begin with.

The reason this thread is so tricky is because of their avoidance tactics...

I have wasted enough time trying to have an honest discussion with them, so it's time they were exposed.

Gordon

If they are avoiding questions, then you too are, tunaman. This thread is, as has been noted a few times, going in circles. Both sides have their views, those views are based on knowledge, so at the end of the day why are we all here? To gain knowledge I would have thought. And if both sides will not be swayed by the other sides' knowledge then there is no point to this thread other than gaining a broad knowledge in both directions.

Have you gained any knowledge tunaman? Have you been enlightened to any of your opponent's knowledge? Do you think they have been enlightened by any of your knowledge?

Personally I have seen a lot of interesting stuff here, and been enlightened by both sides, however I still have my previous views on 11/9.

Nick_oliveri

Ahh nads, this is going to go (more) downhill from here. Exactly the reason i opted out.

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

You really are as slippery as an eel...

No - I just know why your question is misleading and amn't willing to fall for it.

So what are you resorting to when you claim the steel got any hotter, if it isn't speculation?

I told you - as soon as you explain why you misused a quote, I'll give you this answer.

If you won't explain why you misused the information, then I'm not willing to discuss that particular point further with you because I can't proceed without knowing if your approach was a genuine mistake caused by lack of research on your part, a deceitful attempt to mislead people, or some other reason I haven't been able to predict.

I am presenting the only available physcial evidence,

No, you're not. You're mis-presenting the only available physical evidence because you used it to make exactly the one allegation that the people who took this report went to pains to point out it could not support.

Now you're refusing to explain why you did that.

and now you are crying like a baby,

If it makes you feel better, yes - I have an issue with you mis-representing information and I see no reason to continue discussing the point until you can clarify why you misrepresented it.

No-one would have had an issue if you supplied the full quote and argued then - as you are now doing - that it clearly showed how inconclusive the physical evidence of heating was. But thats not what you did. You used it to argue that the evidence conclusively showed that heating was insufficient.

So you're not only trying to dodge why you misrepresented evience, but you've even changed your story about what the evidence means now....and now you also try to belittle me for pointing out your disingenuity.

as it shows up the pancake theory for the work of fiction it is...

You obviously haven't read either the NIST report, nor the FAQ that they released in August 2006 where they clarify that the claim they support the pancake theory is erroneous. They support a similar chain of events, but which is not sufficiently consistent with the pancake theory to be correctly termed the same thing.

But don't let that stop you. You continue mis-naming it....

Back in the real World, not many people are going to read hundreds of pages of a report, that totally avoids explaining the so called collapses...

Not many...just those who want to be able to offer an informed opinion on it. You're not one of those, I take it.

Your eyesight must be bad, as in case you hadn't noticed the charts have NIST written on them in big letters...

Yes, and your misused quote was also from NIST. I want the reference to where it came from so that you can clearly show you're not engaging in the same tactics as with the quote you misused.

You've been shown to misuse information from the NIST report at least once already. Now you're refusing to supply the references for another NIST-sourced piece of information and complaining about how big the NIST report is and how regular people can't be expected to read it all...

Did I say it was in the NIST report?

You said it the "official story". The NIST report is the official story. Anything which came before it has been superceded by NISTs findings, no matter how much you'd like it to be otherwise.

If NIST did not supply this 50% figure then its not the official story. It doesn't matter who said it, where, or when. If its not supported by NIST, its not the official story.

If NIST did supply this 50% figure, then it is the official story, and you should have no problems supplying a reference.

So? Gonna ruise to the challenge? Or once again show that providing chapter and verse just isn't your thing, thus adding weight to the possibilities that :

a) You made it up / Its not the official story
b) You're misrepresenting information again
c) Its someone else's claim which you've regurgitated without verifying.

The pancake theory relies on severe weakening of the steel, in case you hadn't noticed...

Then show me where NIST say that what they support is the pancake theory you're referring to.