General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Page 11: Bad People

or track by Email or RSS


nawhead

Avatar for nawhead

2485 posts
Joined 10/2009

As far as I am concerned, all you need is eyes and a brain.


to be honest it's irrelevant if people think 9/11 was an inside job or not if nothing's going to happen either way.


To me it's fairly obvious. Buildings don't, and never will, collapse through themselves without an outside agent like a form of explosives.


There has never been a building that has collapsed due to fire. Never. Not once.


And fwiw I'm open to being wrong about this.


Those points aside, I welcome discourse on the issue and again I am open to being wrong about this entirely.


Playings devils advocate here, I said I am open to being wrong,


It's clearly evident I have made an informed decision about the twin towers and WTC 7 demolitions due to the number of substantiated points I have raised and shared in this discussion


I am probably wrong, and for what I consider to be good reasons, and I have held on to these ideas for quite some time.


As stated before, i'm quite open to being wrong.


I don't want to offend people but I don't think that fires did it, and ive noted my reasons, it's that simple!


I haven't ignored anything mate. I have looked into everything as much as I can.


The evidence does not point to fires. Simple.


anybody who says they have an open mind this many times, doesn't. save yourselves from the madness.

open mind = obviously 9/11 was an inside job and it's "irrelevant" what anybody thinks

words have no meaning. logic has no sway. Aristotle weeps.

Posted about 2 years ago

BaseMetal

Avatar for BaseMetal

2139 posts
Joined 01/2010

This is clearly false. There is no faith style belief system on my part when I am talking about the collapse of the towers at free fall being unprecedented and impossible due to fire. It's a fact.

I don't know who did it. I suspect that the Saudis with collaboration from Mossad, the ISI and elements of the CIA are responsible. That's irrelevant what I believe though. What is relevant are the laws of physics and to follow the evidence. The evidence does not point to fires. Simple.

Here is a talk show aired on SKY channel 200 in UK from a few months ago for more information on Judy Wood.

She doesn't care about 'whodunnits' but only about the science, here's a quote from her page on her 500 page book 'Where did the towers go?'.


Well I think I have probably wasted two hours of my life watching this. It seemed to be going fine, I agree it seems unusual to have little rubble above ground, there are several basement levels that probably took most of it though. She is entitled to her own opinion and to produce any books and web pages on this as she likes but I wont be reading or following any more links to them.
Her explanation that most of it was turned to dust by Free Energy is well beyond my possible belief point. That some people that have the ability to control matter from a distance is going too far. If it was true these secretive people would not want this to come to public attention and, I guess if I follow movie scripts, she would have been given an accident before publishing a book on this secret technologies most public achievement.


The
John Hutchison stuff on his web site has a rather convenient line.

Actual Equipment Used. Most of this stuff dates back to Tesla tecknology. The "New" equipment made today does not seem to have the same properties.



If there are new science tools/weapons that can do things well past what most peoples view that commonly known science can do then all bets are off. If I am to just take one or two peoples word for the existence of them I might as well pick my own future world and conspiracy stuff to believe in - to believe that Nicola Tesla developed some of this stuff at the turn of the last century without proof would be a bit like taking up a religion.

Posted about 2 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

hey guys sorry to bring this up as its been a while now, and obviously the last reference with regards to physics and the scientific method didnt go down too well - what do you think to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=g-vrec&context=G274c702RVAAAAAAAAAA

Posted about 2 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

mitch

Avatar for mitch

2039 posts
Joined 01/2008

hey guys sorry to bring this up as its been a while now, and obviously the last reference with regards to physics and the scientific method didnt go down too well - what do you think to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=g-vrec&context=G274c702RVAAAAAAAAAA



I liked the music.

Posted about 2 years ago

BaseMetal

Avatar for BaseMetal

2139 posts
Joined 01/2010

hey guys sorry to bring this up as its been a while now, and obviously the last reference with regards to physics and the scientific method didnt go down too well - what do you think to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98&feature=g-vrec&context=G274c702RVAAAAAAAAAA


You seem to be implying that you are using the scientific method but I don't think you are. You seem to keep linking to web pages that claim conspiracy. The unfortunate thing is that just about all of these have claimed a different cause for the collapses. I did actually look at the paper you mentioned in this post.

The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.

The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows.

Please check out this brilliant paper in full at http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html


In this paper the dust cloud gets very hot, in the Dr Judy Wood link you provided she says the opposite, people could comfortably walk in it. I am not too impressed with this paper, its result indicates approx. 10 times the heat energy than is present due to the collapse. So by implication somebody added 9 tenths of the energy. Why would anybody bother doing that? It doesn't make sense. This paper is not really very clear and I would not agree to calling it brilliant. It is difficult to follow, and it does seem to me that some double counting seems to be used. In the heating of the concrete powder and the heating of the gas/powder suspension it would be the concrete powder that gave its heat to the gas. I am not am expert and I can't follow this paper precisely but it seems to me that this energy is counted twice.

In one post Dr Judy Wood claims the steel was somehow turned to dust by Free Energy, yet in another the steel has been melted when the temperature should be too low, in another thermite is used - this would be just some important joints melting on a floor or two. In another the dust cloud had more heat than could possibly be generated by the potential energy of the falling building and so something else must be providing it (explosives ??).
How come so many different methods to achieve this conspiracy are being thrown about? Like in the Highlander in the end "There can only be one". You should make your mind up about which one to support.

The idea that just a large passenger plane flew into them causing it all seems more plausible each time I read another one of the theories.

I can remember a jumbo jet crashed in a suburb of Amsterdam and this conpletely obliterated a good sized chunk of a 15 storey or so steel framed building due to the impact alone. The Pan Am 103 crash which although larger, was not in powered flight at the time, and just one large chunk of it left a 150 by 30 foot deep crater where houses once stood. The forces of a flying passenger plane hitting a building will be immense.

I would like to know more accurately how steel frame building collapse after damage - perhaps more work should be done on this but I don't see any real point in going through unsubstantiated claims in web pages and I won't be following anymore of the links.

It is certainly a possibility that political conspiracies have happened about the 9/11 events but to me the most likely explanation of the tower collapses is due to the plane damage.

Posted about 2 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

mitch

Avatar for mitch

2039 posts
Joined 01/2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDnhBIuNzSU



Well there's 3x more scientists part of the scientists for creationism movement so using the line of thinking from the video... praise Jesus for making the Banana so user friendly.

I'm not sure the point of these videos , a person making a very biased parody of the official story where the same thing could be done in a much more compelling way for any conspiracy story, a person calling in a complaint to a tv station, and a video listing organizations containing relatively small amounts of people from each field that are 9/11 truthers.

Posted about 2 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

i'm nuts for not agreeing with the official story aren't I

Posted about 2 years ago

mitch

Avatar for mitch

2039 posts
Joined 01/2008

Well my point is that none of this is compelling in any way and if anything hurts the cause. Pointing out that a few people in generally unrelated professions support this means very little, if anything the small amount of people in these groups is telling. There's hundreds of people in scientists for creationism groups, even biologists, does that give their argument any more strength? Secondly, trying to parody the official story as implausible and ridiculous is imo shooting 9/11 truthers in the foot. "Lolol you're going to tell me guys with wire cutters working for a guy in a cave on dialysis hijacked a plane and ran it into a building?" When most if not all of the alternate theories are far, far more implausible and ridiculous.

Posted about 2 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

Well my point is that none of this is compelling in any way and if anything hurts the cause. Pointing out that a few people in generally unrelated professions support this means very little, if anything the small amount of people in these groups is telling. There's hundreds of people in scientists for creationism groups, even biologists, does that give their argument any more strength? Secondly, trying to parody the official story as implausible and ridiculous is imo shooting 9/11 truthers in the foot. "Lolol you're going to tell me guys with wire cutters working for a guy in a cave on dialysis hijacked a plane and ran it into a building?" When most if not all of the alternate theories are far, far more implausible and ridiculous.



Wait so is this what you are saying?

Fire-fighters who were there on 9/11 who lost their brothers on 9/11 support a new investigation... 'means very little'
Professional pilots who say that the way the planes were flown was a near impossibility are calling for a new investigation 'means very little'
Veterans who have served in the military and understand how operations work are calling for a new investigation 'means very little'
Scientists.... 'means very little'
Politicians.... 'means very little'
Architects... 'means very little'
Engineers,,, 'means very little'
Media professionals.... 'means very little'?

What would actually mean anything of significance then?

Does Mossad and the CIA have to make a PSA on C-SPAN and say 'Well.. about this 9/11 thing, we did it, but - we did it for your own good, it was worth it, trust us'?

With regards to the various groups asking for a fully funded, independent, subpoena powered, answering all the family members questions investigation. Are all of these people quacks in your view.. or do you think they actually took a reasonable look at the evidence?

For some reason you are choosing to believe a government that has done nothing but lie, cheat and rob the public for the last 12 years. And at the same time, it seems as if you're trying to taint normal civilians and various professionals, who are asking very reasonable questions, as loons.

Also, it is a huge slandering of the truth to say that its just unrelated fields and only a few people who support a new investigation. Loose Change has sold over 1 million DVDs in several languages, there are over 200+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, 1,500+ Engineers and Architects, 250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals, 400+ Professors Question 9/11, 300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members, 200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals, 400+ Medical Professionals.. and these numbers are growing every day.

All it takes is for someone to take a fair look at the evidence and then they understand it's fairly obvious we need a new investigation which accounts for the WTC7 demolition, the funding of the attacks and its source, that explains the collapses of wtc 1 and 2 in a manner which satisfies laws of gravity, momentum and energy, releases the videos of the pentagon, explains the shooting down of flight 93, and actually explains with a paper trail who is responsible for the attacks.

Posted about 2 years ago

Acombfosho

Avatar for Acombfosho

3147 posts
Joined 06/2008

How come so many different methods to achieve this conspiracy are being thrown about? Like in the Highlander in the end "There can only be one". You should make your mind up about which one to support.



The reason is because the official version of events has been dis-proven to be true, namely due to laws of conservation of momentum, gravity, energy.

That's why people want a new, fully funded, independent, subpoena powered, answering all the family members questions investigation where the actual truth can be determined!

Posted about 2 years ago

mitch

Avatar for mitch

2039 posts
Joined 01/2008

I certainly mis-worded what I was meaning to say. I did say generally in unrelated fields but I mean a lto of the fields are unrelated; survivors, artists, entertainers, medical professionals, etc. I would think that those numbers for people in all the groups are extremely low especially as this was a world wide event and those people in the relevant fields (architects, scientists) would be more aware of the 9/11 truth movement and the evidence than the average person.

What would actually mean anything of significance? Well ~97% of scientists (I suppose it varies depending on where you look) supporting the consensus of human caused global warming is a good one (I feel pretty lost in the climate debate myself but feel pretty ok deferring my position to them). I guess the core thing we disagree on is I think <0.01% of a group supporting any contentious issue is insignificant and you think it has significance and it's fine if we disagree on that point.

I'm not sure where all this nuts/quack/loon thing is coming on. I don't think that of those people at all, maybe my creationism comparison might have come across that way but I was just using that as example to show that relatively small amounts of people (although larger than the figures supporting your movement) in relevant fields can clearly support things which are flat out wrong. That's not to say I think 9/11 truthers are wrong but just to point out one of the reasons why I think "60 scientists, 1500 engineers, etc" isn't really the strong argument the video makes it out to be. Basically summing this all up I think the strongest position for the 9/11 truthers is focusing on the anomalies in the attack and not the amount of people in relevant fields who support this or attacking the the official story (outside the tower dynamics) as implausible as in my eyes this really weakens the position which is why I was a little confused why you were posting those links.

Posted about 2 years ago

BaseMetal

Avatar for BaseMetal

2139 posts
Joined 01/2010

The reason is because the official version of events has been dis-proven to be true, namely due to laws of conservation of momentum, gravity, energy.


This statement is false - out of all the things I have now seen and read there are no evidence that the Twin Towers collapsed faster in any way than due to the plane damage around the 80th floors. The WTC7 is most likely caused also by the damage of debrie and fires, it is harder to explain but it did not exceed any freefall speed and I find it way more likely to be caused by something like the failure of one critical column as mentioned in some reports. No physical conservation law was compromised or gravity exceeded.
Very clearly some people want there to be a conspiracy present in the collapse but Free Energy or 10 times the amount of energy present is just incredibly implausible.
Really questionable politics occurred in the wake of the disaster and this is going to help fan some crazy theories,

Posted about 2 years ago

nawhead

Avatar for nawhead

2485 posts
Joined 10/2009

and now for a commercial break

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJYxCSXjhLI&t=1m52s







we now resume your regularly scheduled programming

Posted about 2 years ago




HomePoker ForumsGeneral Poker Discussion → Bad People