General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

tbh, anyone who thinks "the towers fell down funny, it must be an inside job" has never heard of non-linear/chaotic systems.

so... no podcast?

the only replies on this topic you're going to get from me from now on are personal attacks. is that cool with you?

you're a tool.

you repeat the same weak arguments and don't respond to criticisms. the only thing resembling acknowledging errors of omission or commission are multiple insincere "i'm open to being wrong's." you throw around this phrase as often as possible, and yet you make no real attempts to address any flaws in your perfect vision of what happened that day. you've repeatedly shown yourself to be nothing more than a mouthpiece who's not interested in conscientious debate. you've lost all credibility in my eyes. and that is why i ridicule you.

and when you say you think the American govt is the most evil thing on the face of this earth and then turn around and say you don't hate Americans and even have American friends, you sound just like a racist rationalizing his hatred of a race.

so bugger off, kid.

...BOOM roasted!

Lets just be friendly, the fact that you are annoyed is a sure sign something is changing. I don't like to have an actual conflict (as I view debate as a sport, so I don't like it when people take it personal but most people misinterpret that fact.) Relax, it is just words on a screen, how you interpret them is the issue. We should talk about it further. Anyway, you asked so I shall reply

I will try to answer you point by point, forget it if it makes no sense to you or you are angry, this isn't a pissing contest.

the only replies on this topic you're going to get from me from now on are personal attacks. is that cool with you?

yes, fine, personal attacks are not my concern as I dont know you from Adam, I don't give one mate. nawhead, to be honest I would prefer to have a personal talk with you one to one, or at least an open discourse. We could even have an entertainment talkshow podcast - I imagine it would be very amusing, but if you prefer this route then it is cool, its up to you, clearly we disagree on this matter and I highly doubt we will come to an agreement upon it, but other topics could be good

you're a tool.

I doubt it, but for the sake of entertainment whose tool am I exactly? is it because I think the version of events we are told to believe is unbelievable, akin to a fable, is that why I am a tool to you?

If that is the case, then treat the tool like a tool. Why pay credence to said tool when there is no good reason to? Why try paint the picture of me as a crazed individual?

Would you be mad at an ADHD child if they have a hard time to express themselves or because they say nonsense? Of course not, you wouldn't be angry at someone spouting total nonsense, you'd feel sorry for them, I certainly feel sorry for people incapable of rational thought too. Your reaction however tells a different tale.

you repeat the same weak arguments and don't respond to criticisms.

Are you suggesting that the laws of physics are weak arguments?And yes when the mathematics have been solved I will agree.. yet it hasn't. . My arguments remain the same, just as 2+2 = 4

the only thing resembling acknowledging errors of omission or commission are multiple insincere "i'm open to being wrong's." you throw around this phrase as often as possible, and yet you make no real attempts to address any flaws in your perfect vision of what happened that day.

Hold your horses. I haven't ever claimed to know what actually did occur on that day. All I am actually doing is questioning the official version of events due to the massive amount of anomalies on the day. For example, the massive amount of special interest groups who have profited from that day, the fact that insider trading took place with put options, convar, the fact that they 'knew' who did it within 1 hour, but couldn't stop them while actually flying the planes.. something which has never happened before ever, let alone 4 times in one day.

you've repeatedly shown yourself to be nothing more than a mouthpiece who's not interested in conscientious debate. you've lost all credibility in my eyes. and that is why i ridicule you.

I haven't been convinced by the arguments your side of the perspective has made, they are weak and clutching at straws. Just because there happens to be more people on your side does not make you correct. Also, I understand that simply because this whole thing implies total corruption at the top level it is very disenchanting to the average person who 'loves his country, and is a free man' etc. That is a whole other debate

and when you say you think the American govt is the most evil thing on the face of this earth and then turn around and say you don't hate Americans and even have American friends, you sound just like a racist rationalizing his hatred of a race.

I don't think the American govt is the worst thing on the earth. The worst thing is mass manipulation of society. It is terrible when people believe things that are simply not true. No matter how trivial. I respect Americans and many of my friends are Americans. Real people. I think that the constitution of the United States is the best political document that mankind has ever created.

What saddens me is that it is being destroyed by the current people controlling the US government. Why would they do that? Why was the constitution set up in such a way that powers were separated in the first place? It was to stop the cunts. Now the cunts are in charge and they're stripping away everything the constitution stood for, piece by piece.

so bugger off, kid.

Probably a waste of my time to write that as you've already made your mind up evidently.

Attack me all you want, if that makes you feel good. The fact remains that gravity exists and buildings don't fall through themselves out of sympathy for other buildings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy6FUd0_TzQ . Never have never will.

Truth in lights http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIa3PX3laog (comedy political satire - perhaps too true to be actually funny)

"This is high school math. How could anyone figure it out?"

so... no podcast?

[x] no podcast

Confirmed. It'd be fun to do though (two clearly contrary opinionated dudes) but he's not interested.

Truth in lights http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIa3PX3laog (comedy political satire - perhaps too true to be actually funny)[/i]

So I'll be referencing a NIST report (found here here pages 109-110) unfortunately I don't have a youtube link of people with scary voices talking, just an official well referenced investigation.

Explosions below me. Correct Barry.

"At 9:59am, WTC 2 collapse, and debris from the collapse struck the south face of WTC 7. At 10:28am, WTC 1 collapsed and a significant amount of damage was done to WTC 7. A large amount of debris crashed through the front center of the building from approximately the 10th floor down to ground level, and debris ripped a part of the southwest corner off from approximately the 8th floor up to the 18th floor. The collapse of WTC 1 also appears to be reposnbile for starting fires inside of WTC 7."

I believe in an interview Barry says when he got out ouf WTC 7 both the twin towers had collapsed, makes sense. It the goes on to talk about how two people in WTC experienced those other building collapses - explosions/rumbles happening whilst lights go off, sprinklers come on, smoke and debris fills their room, etc. I can see how someone could come to very interesting conclusions from that.

Walking over bodies. Correct again Barry.

"At approximately 9.30am, FDNY, EMS established a Division for assisting victims at WTC 7. An EMS triage center was established in the lobby of WTC 7 as occupants from WTC 1 and WTC 6 evacuated through WTC 7."

This doesn't mean Barry's statements are 100% explained by this, but all Barry is doing is recounting his experience which is given a plausible explanation through the report, it in no way supports a controlled demolition/dead people in the building conspiracy. Now if he said he found dead people on the 22nd floor, I'd be interested to see that, although the investigation seems to state that "The Fire Safety Director reported that the building's floors had been cleared from the top down."

I somewhat strengthened my understanding of the truthers position then looked for (and found) solid contradictory evidence in under 5 minutes. Why didn't you? And this comes up again and again, you're obviously extremely biased and don't even investigate other views of the issue. You just light all these fires hoping that there's a few that people don't put out (most you can put out yourself, see above), then when we get around to it you just light some more fires and ones that have just been extinguished.

This isn't an intelligent discussion.

You continue to go on how you're meant to be the open, free thinker just asking questions but no... this is how an open, free thinker thinks - earlier in the thread when someone was talking about the pentagon attack I went googling to see what the evidence was for a plane hitting it. When I went to popular mechanics all they said on this was something along the lines of "The lead investigator said this is clearly a plane impact." And I thought "Wtf that's it?". Just because someone says something, even if he is in a high position, doesn't make it strong evidence, in fact I would call this very weak evidence by itself. Can you understand how people like me get frustrated when you say things like "people hearing explosions and some people indirectly profiting from this is STRONG EVIDENCE to support your position"? You're playing by different rules here to everyone else.

There is no such thing as a fair and balanced debate/discussion with conspiracy theorists.

Merely debating them on equal grounds allows them a stand to argue and gives credence to their beliefs, which are purely based on impressions, selection bias, and paranoia against big government. It's like debating evolution with creationists - one of them doesn't belong up there. One is based on facts and serious empirical research, the other on cherry-picking, belief and whackjobbery. Fine if they hold their beliefs in the personal space, or if they choose to profess these beliefs on the public space, but it doesn't stand on equal ground to debate. There is no ethic obligation to debate something that is not even real in the first place.

No one is denying that there was a conspiracy: a few selected buggers trained to pilot ships, gain falsified papers, hijack planes and throw them kamikaze-style at the WTC and the Pentagon.

There's a widely known adage that as soon as more than two people get involved into a secret criminal conspiracy it won't stay a secret for long : people will talk, even drunk or in pillow talk. The fact that ten years later, if there was a secret government conspiracy of that magnitude, not one shred of evidence was ever been leaked tends to demonstrate that there is no proof to leak, which speaks louder than any Loose Change or Zeitgeist movie.

That said, I don't consider them bad people, it's a matter of personal opinion. Everyone is misguided somewhere, because belief is a matter of opinion, not fact. Those who use these beliefs and propagate them for personal profit, however, are scumbags.

If that is the case, then treat the tool like a tool. Why pay credence to said tool when there is no good reason to? Why try paint the picture of me as a crazed individual?

Would you be mad at an ADHD child if they have a hard time to express themselves or because they say nonsense? Of course not, you wouldn't be angry at someone spouting total nonsense, you'd feel sorry for them, I certainly feel sorry for people incapable of rational thought too. Your reaction however tells a different tale.

i apologized for calling you crazy before. it was a cop-out on my part to dismiss you outright. so i'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt now by calling you a tool. crazy people always stay crazy, but tools can be sharpened one day.

I somewhat strengthened my understanding of the truthers position then looked for (and found) solid contradictory evidence in under 5 minutes. Why didn't you? And this comes up again and again, you're obviously extremely biased and don't even investigate other views of the issue. You just light all these fires hoping that there's a few that people don't put out (most you can put out yourself, see above), then when we get around to it you just light some more fires and ones that have just been extinguished.

This isn't an intelligent discussion.

+1

and +1 for mitch podcast

It is absolutely fine to disagree with my perspective. I won't really think anyone is crazy or label them as such for not agreeing with notion that the governments account does not really represent the absolute truth. I think that other agencies were involved than simply only the 19 hijackers we are told are responsible (17 of which were Saudis, non of which were Iraqi, Iranian or from Afghanistan).

I think this isn't true simply due to the people who have massive amounts of experts with experience who are saying 'hold on wait a minute this is false because in my experience that doesn't really happen this way..' there are hundreds of very senior people.. all of them don't agree that the governments version of events is telling the story accurately.. http://patriotsquestion911.com/#About

To simply label these people and others that agree with them, such as myself, as 'conspiracy theorists'/'cherry-picking'/'whackjobbery'/'scumbags'/'crazy'/'tools' doesn't really do anything but highlight that all you can do is refer to government reports which have been repeatedly shown to be proven false.

Oh, and mitch I'll take you up on the podcast if you're up for it, you're the uber troll and im the conspiracy 'nut' - could be interesting!

http://physics911.net/the-world-trade-center-forensics-reference-page

http://patriotsquestion911.com/Counterterrorism_Veterans.pdf

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf?format=pdf

http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article%20Military%20Officers%20Challenge%20911.pdf

http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article%20State%20Dept%20911.pdf

http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article%20Republican%20Appointees%20Challenge%20911.pdf

http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article%20CIA%20Veterans%20Challenge%20911.pdf

of course you can ignore these statements off hand, or say that they are biased. However if you choose to do so, please don't simply attack the messenger and not the message. Peace

oh, hai.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i69Xb2ZMgGI&&t=41s

of course you can ignore these statements off hand, or say that they are biased. However if you choose to do so, please don't simply attack the messenger and not the message. Peace

I will ignore these links, I have looked quite carefully at too many of the earlier ones you have given and to me they have been mostly ridiculous. I can see absolutely no evidence at all of any other involvement over the collapse of the two main towers, they were simply hit by planes and collapsed. I can see no reason at all why any USA agency would even want to try to make this worse. Even if the towers had remained standing sadly 1000+ people would have died and this is a big enough terrorist attack to get the american people behind any attempt at capture/reprisal of any terrorist organisation. No need to stupidly complicate the situation by using the secret Free Energy weapons or wire it up with explosive. Why ?????
The WTC7 collapse is quite easily explained by the 911 investigation of the damaged section collapse. And in this case 2000+ people died in the earlier twin tower collapse what is the point of bringing this building down. The CIA and the FBI had offices there but as far as I can tell nobody else seems to have died in this. Do you think that these organisations would bring WCT7 down and spread everything all over New York to hide some papers or the like? It would be far more sensible just to wait and destroy everything in safety at a later date. None of the conspiracy stuff makes any sense at all when you do actually think it through.
I'll start a new conspiracy about WTC7. The CIA didn't like the colour of the new wallpaper they had previously put up but they knew funds were tight. When they saw the adjoining building go down and their one was already evacuated they realised their moment and brought WTC7 down - they now have the shiny new offices they wanted.
Nobody is really that concerned about the collapse of WTC7, only the massive loss of life in the other towers, it is only that it looks like a controlled demo job, and it only looks like this. It is not controlled - it is simply due to the fire damage.
(I am sorry if anybody did die in the collapse of WTC7 - when I looked I couldn't find any information on this)

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/majorityopinion.htm

What would happen if you developed a strong opinion on an issue, and later found that the majority of people disagreed with you?

You might think that such a revelation would encourage you to rethink your beliefs. But a new study suggests people often react just the opposite: people grow more confident in some beliefs when they find out later that a majority of people disagree with them.

“It may be that you feel proud because you were able to disprove, in your own mind, an opinion that most people have accepted,” said Richard Petty, co-author of the study and professor of psychology at Ohio State University. “You actually become doubly sure you were right.”

Majority opinion, in this case, implies that people have taken a look at the evidence and made a rational choice based upon that information. When it comes to 9/11 - They haven't. Buildingwhat is a case in point of this fact. When a judge is asked about WorldTradeCenter7 and his response is 'building what?' How can you come to the conclusion that this has even entered into the mainstream debate? It hasn't, has it? hence why we are discussing it on an internet forum and this isn't and has never been a mainstream discussion. People who question the collapse and say, wait this doesn't make mathematical or physical sense are not out to get you, they are just asking reasonable questions.

On the other hand the so called majority (the same majority of people who vote without having a clue why they are voting aside from partisan politics or the substance of who they are voting for) have just nodded and agreed at the official account without taking a critical look at the official explanation for themselves.

When people question that version of events, rather than say 'hey actually there have been cases where NORAD didn't intercept before, or yeah I remember when there was simultanious war drills going on at the same time as an actual event (7/7 London), or hey yeah I remember when X building fell through itself due to fires before'... Instead said 'majority' says, no, you are wrong, and nuts for questioning the official account, while at the same time these people are paying higher taxes thanks to the war on terror, the wealth gap has grown, the military industrial complex is bigger than ever, and actual active participation within their own 'democracies/rederal republics' is at an all time low - who are they kidding? Themselves evidently

I'm over the whole 'wow you're nuts for not believing the very same people who have made billions for a phoney war in the middle east.' thing.

I'm open minded enough to accept I could be wrong, as stated before, but so far all I have been greeted with is nonsense arguments, all you seem to be doing is instead of showing me how I am misguided is trying to justify your ignorance of the facts.

You can easily attempt to say I am not qualified to make such claims, fine, but why would so many serious professionals put their reputations on the line to disagree with the so called 'consensus'?

The consensus does not exist.

Don't confuse silence/absence of information, with a majority consensus. At this point it is simply the government Vs verifiable experts who disagree with the account the government has portrayed. And a bunch of people like yourselves who would rather ignore basic high school maths and physics to hold on to the idea that you are actually right.