General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

had to laugh @ nawhead, posting then responding to his own post. quality.

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. All the emotional turmoil of that day aside, this fact remains.

I don't think that even this is too important. What I do think is important is who has benefited. And, even more importantly, who's paid the price?

The whole Bush junta milked a huge cash cow from this war on terror they invented. The US people paid for it, with their taxes and they accepted it because the Bush junta said we are doing this to keep you safe and defend your freedoms (while at the same time taking many of said freedoms away). The Iraqi people paid for it. The Afghan boys paid for it. The Iranians will pay for it next. Read PNAC's own thoughts on this matter and the game is up, it's obvious.

One day, poor boys will refuse to fight rich mens wars. then there will be peace.

had to laugh @ nawhead, posting then responding to his own post. quality.

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. All the emotional turmoil of that day aside, this fact remains.

I don't think that even this is too important. What I do think is important is who has benefited. And, even more importantly, who's paid the price?

The whole Bush junta milked a huge cash cow from this war on terror they invented. The US people paid for it, with their taxes and they accepted it because the Bush junta said we are doing this to keep you safe and defend your freedoms (while at the same time taking many of said freedoms away). The Iraqi people paid for it. The Afghan boys paid for it. The Iranians will pay for it next. Read PNAC's own thoughts on this matter and the game is up, it's obvious.

One day, poor boys will refuse to fight rich mens wars. then there will be peace.

I think you have brain cancer.

Because I have a different opinion to you?

Just look at the state of the world in comparison to pre 9/11. It is substantially worse for the man on the street in almost every regard.

Acomb is their any decent evidence to support the conspiracy theory (not including Alex Jones "WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTS" type things) other than the buildings falling weird/no fight jets scrambled/etc? I think these alternate theories would be more compelling if they proposed solid theories rather than anomaly hunting then jumping to extreme conclusions. As you can see saying "look the building fell weird!" over and over again isn't really that effective, but I would be interested to see what other supporting evidence there is out there - although I'm not really talking about more anomalies which may or may not be true, rather something more solid, which I would expect would come out if the events went down as you suspect.

Also are you implying that some people profited from this event therefore supports the case they were involved? Or just merely remarking that their were winners and losers from it, and we mostly just stood by as the winners unfairly took advantage of the situation?

Acomb is their any decent evidence to support the conspiracy theory

This is Copy Pasted from ae911truth.org where over 1,500 licensed professional architects with over 25,000 years of collective experience are calling for a review of the 9/11 commission.

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction

3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses

10. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

It's empirical evidence, something Hume made famous

Also are you implying that some people profited from this event therefore supports the case they were involved? Or just merely remarking that their were winners and losers from it, and we mostly just stood by as the winners unfairly took advantage of the situation?

It points towards that. And, yes.

Various other supporting facts to this case:

- Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, nor appear at the commission.
- The Commission started after the Iraq war, 411 days after the attacks. Compare this to under 10 days for Pearl Harbour, The Discovery Disaster, JFK assassination amongst others.
- The Commissioners have repeatedly stated they were blocked from trying to carry out their investigation. The leading commissioners Hamilton and Kean have written a book 'Without Precedent' on how utterly frustrated they were with the whole process and lack of cooperation. Some commissioners even quit saying it was a 'national scandal' (Max Cleland). Others still to this day say the 9-11 commission did not do its job (Bob Kerry).
- Donald Rumsfeld on the day of 9/11 was focused entirely on somehow connecting this to Iraq. "All things related and not".
- Able Danger
- The reaction of news casters on the day, "it's a demolition"
- Family members www.BuildingWhat.org who put up their own cash and credentials to publicly question 9/11 Why would they do this? Are they crazy? or have they simply looked at the evidence?
- No other buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. Never.

There are so many more logical and obvious reasons. They are all out there. Just google it and be critical. Again, these are not nice or pleasant things to think about, but the further you look into any of this information, the clearer it is that something is completely dodgy about the whole thing.

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." – Voltaire

"A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people but that the world wasn’t flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic. " Dresden James

"all truth goes through three stages, first it is ridiculed, second it is opposed, finally it is accepted as self-evident" - Arthur Schoepenhouer

"The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate."
– Dr. Wayne Dyer

"Non schola sed vita decimos" (Only the educated are free)
— Epictetus (AD 50-125)

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
— James Madison

"As a general rule, the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information."
— Benjamin Disraeli

"The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty."
— James Madison

“It is harder to conceal ignorance than to acquire knowledge.” Arnold H. Glasgow

Rather than attacking me as an individual or aiming for character assassination or shooting the messenger, I would prefer you to attack my points on their own merits.

Right I meant more so things supporting the theory of it being an elaborately planned false flag rather than spotting inconsistencies in certain events. I suspect I could write up an equally long "scientific and supported by experts" list of contentious points supporting the moon hoax or JFK assassination.

Things like this:

Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

Is more so what I was looking for. How did all these people have foreknowledge? I would say if this could be strongly proven it would be a much stronger argument that all the other points combined, as it is direct evidence to what the alternate theory is suggesting. Internal communications, people who were in on it speaking out about it (legitimately and concisely, not just out of context quotes), some huge red flags like pictures of large trucks moving into parking garages when they normally wouldn't be and those garages subsequently becoming shut off to the public, etc.

I think if these points exist it would make the case so much stronger. And like I said before if this was a large scale coordination by the US government I would think it's likely there would be small mistakes or leaks which would release parts of this information, especially if the group botched the public execution of this plan so terribly that you can clearly see through it without any evidence other than viewing the event. I think we can agree that if this was an inside job it was carried out very far from perfectly, so it would be very surprising if the backend stuff was flawless.

Also do you think "the people" (I'm not sure what to call them, the US govt?) couldn't have benefited from the situation if it was just the planes/terrorists who brought down the buildings? Even if this was a terrorist attack they had the same opportunity to make the same reaction/benefit as they did so I'm not sure where this advantage is coming from. Maybe having prior knowledge allowed them to position themselves better? But that just means they would have benefited more than without prior knowledge, obviously we can't tell which case it is. Point is I don't think we can say oh these guys won so it points towards them being in on it, when it seems to me they would have won (to a lesser extent, although how can we determine if this is the lesser extent or maximum extent?) if they weren't on it too.

Oh btw like I always mention I think the building anomalies should be investigated and a full commission done on this so we get a clearer picture of what happened. I'm not saying it definitely wasn't an inside job I'm just curious how you come to such a strong belief on what seems to me to be circumstantial and controversial evidence.

Edit: Sorry didn't see your edit with the quotes etc,

Rather than attacking me as an individual or aiming for character assassination or shooting the messenger, I would prefer you to attack my points on their own merits.

Was this directed at me or the guy who said you had brain cancer? Sorry if I come off condescending or something, I'm really trying to look into this further as an unbiasedly as possible. I've done some googling around and it's a little hard to trawl through the all of it to work out what's legitimate or not so was just hoping you could throw me a few starting points (not including the demolition science stuff, I feel we've been over that well enough), no need to put out a full defence on my account.

Double Edit If it wasn't clear I was seriously asking those questions, not trying to get a response so I could counter it (except for the part about people profiting therefore suggesting they're orchestrating it). It seems these debates here go in circles around whether it being a control demolition or not, then jumping to who did it without anything solid connecting them to it (although sure, if it was clear it was a control demolition than US govt would be prime suspect). So I was just exploring the avenue of direct ties with the people you're suggesting, which would surpass a lot of this endless back and forth.

I'm a little drunk, so...

This is Copy Pasted from ae911truth.org where over 1,500 licensed professional architects with over 25,000 years of collective experience are calling for a review of the 9/11 commission.

Ok whatever. Lawyers always get people to testify for them, no matter what the case is--they always have an expert witness.

- Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, nor appear at the commission.

pretty common for presidents

- Able Danger

WTF?

- The reaction of news casters on the day, "it's a demolition"

I went for a bagel in the morning of 9/11 in SF, not knowing what happened. I heard the shop owner say something about a horrible catastrophe. I got back up to my flat in time to hear news casters say it might be a small plane that hit the first tower. I saw the second plane hit the second tower live on TV. No one said shit about demolitions.

- No other buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. Never.

BS

You're basically stating that a sitting US president intentionally downed one of the most significant landmarks in NY, possibly in the entire country, so he can have political and financial gain. Just think about that for a bit.

(I didn't bother to respond to the bullet points that didn't make any sense.)

I'm not American, I've never even been in the country, so I don't really know what goes on there.

However, when a government declares they know who did it before they have even began to investigate it, then there is a problem. When that same government then refuses to detain who they said did it, when all they have to do is present the evidence that who they said had done it actually did it, there is a bigger problem. (just Google guardian article on Taliban offer to give up Bin Laden providing the US government gives evidence at a trail. (you know, the way that justice is supposed to work). They declined)

Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY is the BBC saying WTC7 has collapsed yet it was standing, the NYPD and FDNY saying "keep your eye on that building it's coming down soon... That building is about to blow up". "As we evacuated the building there were explosions inside the building".

So this aside, what do you think about the previous post? Do you not click the links? Have you even looked at any of the stuff I have linked to or are you just looking to pick holes in my side of the discussion without taking a look at any of the facts or evidence I presented?

What would have to actually happen for you to think that there was some kind of devious behaviour?

There has never been a building that has collapsed due to fire. Never. Not once. So aside from assuming that the laws of physics excused themselves for one day in September 2001, the only other explanation is that other forces were at work.

Was this directed at me or the guy who said you had brain cancer? Sorry if I come off condescending or something, I'm really trying to look into this further as an unbiasedly as possible. I've done some googling around and it's a little hard to trawl through the all of it to work out what's legitimate or not so was just hoping you could throw me a few starting points (not including the demolition science stuff, I feel we've been over that well enough), no need to put out a full defence on my account.

Hey OK, there's your bomber, beardsly McTurbinhead, I will end you. Seriously, shut up.

I mean, honestly, this is what I remember from the media after the WTC collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTmokW0G1pI

Thousands of things happened on the sites and day of 9/11, hundreds of thousands happened in the construction of any large site. All of these have been viewed from several thousand points of view and this means there are millions of possible chances for unusual/strange things to occur. If you spend some time searching through your poker db through the last couple of million events you will find some very usual events. This does not mean that Hem/PT/poker sites are rigged and up to something dodgy it is just that we as humans don't have a good sense of what is random. It is possible that Hem/PT/sites are rigged but spotting strange events after the event is not a proof. The events at 9/11 can be viewed in this way, it seems to me that some people like to believe in conspiracies and that some like to generate them, it is possible that there is a major conspiracy but to my mind it is far more likely that people want to believe/generate one. It is possible to cast doubt over just about anything where millions of things happened and some people always will.
An interesting thing happening over the last couple of weeks is that a science paper was written about wind farms affecting the climate. It states windfarms affect the locale not the world climate but a news(?)paper took this and published an article saying ".. windfarms INCREASE climate change...". The newspaper is a terrible one, Daily Mail uk, but it is read by many and soon you will now hear many people state that windfarms are generating global warming, the newspaper has backers and an agenda and are, in my view, using the ease to confuse the 'common' knowledge to further their own agenda. In a month or two it will be common to hear news anchors or other pundits casually state that windfarms can cause global warming.
There are many people that for some reason or other want to believe or generate that the US government caused parts of 9/11, it seems clear to me that this state of affairs would spring up and so I don't put much faith in the www evidence posted. The conspiracy may be true but I doubt it very very much.

I mean, honestly, this is what I remember from the media after the WTC collapse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTmokW0G1pI

Yes, it is disgusting that Palestinians were happy at the death of US civillians.

It is also disgusting what Israel is doing to Palestine and US support of Israel is definately a catalyst of hatred for the US in the middle east.

I was talking about these few clips http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfxkcBmZfK0&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNNhnoV-EOo&feature=relmfu from the day

Yes, it is disgusting that Palestinians were happy at the death of US civillians.

It is also disgusting what Israel is doing to Palestine and US support of Israel is definately a catalyst of hatred for the US in the middle east.

I was talking about these few clips http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfxkcBmZfK0&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNNhnoV-EOo&feature=relmfu from the day

Most of this sounds like reporters speculating about the cause. I mean, no one really knew all the facts the day of, but everyone seemed to have a theory. I wouldn't feel comfortable taking someone's on the day theory out to a definitive cause.

True. However, one person speculating is entirely different from dozens of people all saying "we saw and heard bombs exploding". Eye witness testimony is used as primary evidence in court cases in fact.

It's empirical evidence, something Hume made famous

do you undestand the problem of induction?

it only states that past evidence cannot prove a theory to be true. that all theories can only be falsified, not proven. it's a philosophical insight into the impossibility of knowing the future perfectly from past evidence.

Hume did not say that gathering evidence will uncover the truth. he says the complete opposite, that all the evidence in the world cannot lead to truth.

you can't throw more evidence at theory 2 to "prove" it's better. that's what Hume would say.

and just because you perceive causation does not prove there is causation.

http://openmap.bbn.com/~kanderso/Michotte/michotte.html

you've inferred cause, a story, a theory from evidence. it doesn't contradict physics. but this does not prove the theory. it does not even prove there was causation.

your mind is tricking you.

Various other supporting facts to this case:

- Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, nor appear at the commission.
- The Commission started after the Iraq war, 411 days after the attacks. Compare this to under 10 days for Pearl Harbour, The Discovery Disaster, JFK assassination amongst others.
- The Commissioners have repeatedly stated they were blocked from trying to carry out their investigation. The leading commissioners Hamilton and Kean have written a book 'Without Precedent' on how utterly frustrated they were with the whole process and lack of cooperation. Some commissioners even quit saying it was a 'national scandal' (Max Cleland). Others still to this day say the 9-11 commission did not do its job (Bob Kerry).
- Donald Rumsfeld on the day of 9/11 was focused entirely on somehow connecting this to Iraq. "All things related and not".
- Able Danger

this is circumstantial. not hard evidence.

- The reaction of news casters on the day, "it's a demolition"

perceiving cause is not proof.

- Family members www.BuildingWhat.org who put up their own cash and credentials to publicly question 9/11 Why would they do this? Are they crazy? or have they simply looked at the evidence?

perceiveing cause is not proof.

- No other buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. Never.

the initial 9/11 report was wrong, i agree with you. it wasn't just small fires. there was extensive structural damage because a large chunk of the building was "scooped out" at the bottom according to firefighters at the scene.

Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY is the BBC saying WTC7 has collapsed yet it was standing,

all i see is a big, billowing smoke cloud behind the newscaster. looks like something got destroyed back there. or are those the "small fires?"

and are you saying the BBC was in on the conspiracy as well?

the NYPD and FDNY saying "keep your eye on that building it's coming down soon... That building is about to blow up". "As we evacuated the building there were explosions inside the building".

the firefighters said there was structural damage and they thought it was going to come down, so they pulled out. and there were gas tanks in WTC7. exploding gas tanks can explain sounds of explosion.

True. However, one person speculating is entirely different from dozens of people all saying "we saw and heard bombs exploding". Eye witness testimony is used as primary evidence in court cases in fact.

eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable as well. people remember seeing and hearing things that are figments of their imagination all the time in court.

Rather than attacking me as an individual or aiming for character assassination or shooting the messenger, I would prefer you to attack my points on their own merits.

i've only attacked your bad use of logic. you quoted a non sequitur statement to "prove" the alternative theory. i find that troubling.

do you understand what a non sequitur logical fallacy means? do you understand that people who use logical fallacies to convince other people are misusing logic?

do you undestand that citing Hume's problem of induction while not applying it correctly is misusing logic?

i need to know if you understand this. you cannot prove a point without addressing basic failures in logic. the longer you ignore this, the more credibility you lose. and nobody cares for arguments by people without credibility. 1500 architects and engineers would agree with that last statement.