|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| Perhaps that was a bit disingenuous, got a little gleeful and listed the list when I should have listed only the first two, that was unnecessary, but a small mistake. |
Ok, now what you have to do is corroborate that your Swiss engineers actually hold the position that was ascribed to them. A primary source will do. In English or in "Swiss" [sic] will be fine.
German. It was a Swiss article. As soon as I posted it, I noticed that error. Whatever.
| blaseblasphemer wrote: |
I'm not a creationist, and interesting you would suggest that, because if I was, it would run counter to the point I made to huffdaddy. Creationism does not make sense, IMO, from a gut sense. It's a story that was made up to convince people. There is no proof. Now, the official story of 911 is like that. It's a story that was made up to persuade people to believe something and act out of fear, anger, etc. It's like people who take everything in the bible literally. If anything you're the creationist. Look at how you ridicule those who don't agree with you. Look at how you don't want the topic discussed (my measure. if you wanted it discussed, you would encourage debate.)
One more thing. you compare this to creationism, I'm assuming because you think all the "experts" you believe say it was a carpet fire and structural failure. But, there is a lot of evidence that says otherwise. If you don't want to acknowledge that, than I think you are being disingenous. Now, if you don't acknowledge there is at least some evidence that points to other possibilities, and that it has not being adequately explained, than you are a like a creationist. You want to stick to the official story, because to question it could be considered an act against the "church". |
Wrong. Let's look at the commonalities between creationism and 9/11ism.
Lack of credentialed experts. Most proponents of creationism and 9/11ism either have no qualifications in relevant disciplines, or their qualifications are highly dubious. Similarly, their views are rejected by over 99.9% of experts in the relevant fields. Why is this? Because of the atheist/PNAC conspiracy, of course.
Name an independent investigation of the buildings. NIST is not independent.
Reliance on anomaly sifting. Both creationism and 9/11ism attack the standard model by finding unrelated anamolies that do not fit the predominant theory. These are then used to suggest that this is evidence for the alternative version, and accounts for these anomalies are ignored.
You think that the strongest arguments are unrelated anomalies?
Lack of clear hypotheses. Neither worldview is willing to outline a testable model that can be examined under scientific rules of evidence. Claims are advanced through suggestion and innuendo. Also, the implicatons of claims are ignored (e.g. conspiracy infrastructure).
The implications are not ignored. They have been advanced, but I think it is patently ridiculous to give specific details of who was involved. That is above our pay grades.
Reliance on argument from personal incredulity. Whereas creationists claim that they know in their gut that the complexity of life must have been created, 9/11ists know in their gut that two 767s and steel columns from 110 story buildings along with uncontrolled fires can't make other buildings collapse. Scientific explanations to the contrary are ignored and often rejected without even being understood.
Like I said, experts can be found to argue anything. You believe your experts, I question them.
Always complaining that debate is not being encouraged while simultaneously being unable to provide the evidence that would allow for serious debate to take place (being able to withstand peer-review is the very low bar for this).
Reliance on quote-mining, misquotation and uncorroborated evidence.
But this is why I have a problem with your Pop Mechan piece. It strawman-mines, and that's why you won't address my problems with it. I think we can put that to bed. It is clearly a straw man piece, and is not worthy of being considered as a credible piece of journalism.
Differential standards for evidence
etc etc.
| blaseblasphemer wrote: |
one day:
still waiting for rebuttal of my questions from the mainstream press story in Popular Mechanics.
This is an example of unanswered questions in the official story.
Please, debutt away, debutters. |
'Debutt'. LOL.
I don't know the proper word for debutt. It's not debut. I'll find it later on wikipedia. 
Read this, A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1,2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint, then repost the questions that you feel haven't been addressed. |
I will continue to consider the evidence. Will you consider it, or have you totally put this to bed in your mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| I will continue to consider the evidence. Will you consider it, or have you totally put this to bed in your mind? |
Did you read the paper I've now posted twice? From a demolitions and explosives standpoint there is no evidence for the controlled demolition hypothesis. If you refuse to acknowledge that fact, AND you are unable to see the similarities between yourself and a creationist, well... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| I will continue to consider the evidence. Will you consider it, or have you totally put this to bed in your mind? |
Did you read the paper I've now posted twice? From a demolitions and explosives standpoint there is no evidence for the controlled demolition hypothesis. If you refuse to acknowledge that fact, AND you are unable to see the similarities between yourself and a creationist, well... |
I'm reading it right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Very good link Gang ah jee. I find what he says credible, and independent.
I still wonder about the witnesses, like Rodrigez, saying they heard and felt explosions come from below, before the hit on the building from above.
The part where he addresses how the charges could have been planted, well, I think Forbes offers a framing of how that could have happened. The building had alot of empty floors, tennants were moved around, the building had a power down, and bomb-sniffing dogs were removed (according to the video. I haven't heard evidence to the contrary. If it were available, it seems the debunkers would provide it). If the planes hit the tower, and ignited the explosives, then it would cover up the explosives during the hit.
I still haven't heard the bathtub moving being addressed. And, I'll view the 911 mysteries video again about the shape-charge evidence that they talk about.
Still, I think this article is very convincing to me of this not being a demo job from the basement. It's likely. I still have questions, but it explains very well how the buildings could have fallen, and that they did fall from the top to the bottom, (unlike WTC7). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
huff daddy,
That Amsterdam flight just looks like a bomb hit it. I don't see why you would cite that crash, don't quite see the relevance to pancaking or collapse of the towers. |
Looks a lot like the WTCs to me.
| Quote: |
points to ponder:
1) How does material from the top of the building reach the ground at the rate of free-fall if it must not only crush the intact structure below, but also overcome the inertia ofthe stationary mass of each of the many floors that must be encountered on the waydown? In order for this to happen without slowing down, each of these structuralmasses would have to be INSTANTLY accelerated up to the rate of free-fall - atheoretical impossibility. |
It doesn't. See the material falling faster than the rest of the building (which is obscured by a cloud of dust). That means it is falling at less than free fall speed. While the claims that it is falling too fast have arisen, I haven't seen anyone publish a acceptable model of how fast it should have fallen.
| Quote: |
| 2) How is it possible for a gravitational collapse to create a blast wave capable ofshattering windows in buildings 400 ft away? |
Shock waves. Have you never heard of them?
| Quote: |
| 3) How is it possible for a gravitational collapse to eject sections of heavy steelperimeter columns to distances of over 500 ft (more than one and a half football fields. |
Ever try to crush a soda can and have it shoot out from under your foot and across the room? Same principle.
etc. etc.
Sorry, not everything is going to confirm to the model that you have constructed in your mind. A model developed after the fact and based upon faulty or incomplete information. Until someone comes in with a smoking gun, I'll base my model on the facts that we |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
15 pages and he's starting to get the idea.
GAJ, HD- you guys have the patience of Job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
I will continue to consider the evidence. Will you consider it, or have you totally put this to bed in your mind? |
Personally, I'm willing to consider the evidence. But unless it's widely accepted by the engineering community, I'd feel pretty silly saying that I'm right and they're wrong. I've yet to see anything published in a peer reviewed journal that points to a controlled demolition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| I still wonder about the witnesses, like Rodrigez, saying they heard and felt explosions come from below, before the hit on the building from above. |
Well, it has been pointed out that sound travels through steel many time faster than it travels through air, and of course, soundwaves carried through steel would appear to originate from various directions. It would have taken about one second for the airbourne sound of the attack to reach the WTC basement, while the steelbourne sound would have arrived almost instantaneously. Rodriguez claims to have heard explosions from below immediately before he heard the explosions from the plane strike, which really points to the likelihood that he was hearing the same sound twice, but through two different mediums.
there are more details about this here: http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
| blaseblasphemer wrote: |
| The part where he addresses how the charges could have been planted, well, I think Forbes offers a framing of how that could have happened. The building had alot of empty floors, tennants were moved around, the building had a power down, and bomb-sniffing dogs were removed (according to the video. I haven't heard evidence to the contrary. If it were available, it seems the debunkers would provide it). |
Well, Scott Forbes worked for Fidicuiary Trust on the 90th floor of the south tower. He has admitted that he knows nothing about power-downs on the 90 stories below his workplace, and nothing about power-downs in the north tower or WTC 7. And nobody backs up his story.
There's some more information about it here: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html
As for the bomb-sniffing dogs, it doesn't seem like there is much to that story. The WTC had been on heightened security alert due to an increase in phone threats, and was simply returning to normal security levels, which still include bomb-sniffing dogs, albeit only one per tower.
More information here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_sniffing_dogs.html
And regarding the idea that the explosives could have been planted on empty floors by moving offices around, etc, it doesn't seem very likely. Contrary to conspiracy theorists' claims, occupancy at the WTC in 2001 was at 97% - a historic high, and for all intents and purposes a full house. Silverstein wins 99-year WTC net-lease - Real Estate Weekly, May 2, 2001
(And it's also probably worth pointing out that Silverstein doesn't seem to have profited from the disaster, and had actually under-insured the property - http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html )
| blaseblasphemer wrote: |
| If the planes hit the tower, and ignited the explosives, then it would cover up the explosives during the hit. |
I suggest that you read the last article again. As far as the explosives and demolition industry is concerned, what you describe is physically impossible. Your only option at this point is to call them liars. If you wish to do so, then you must also be able to produce evidence of how explosives could be rigged to be hit by a 767, be ignited by the resulting fire, then explode an hour later. Such science is currently unknown to man, so expect fame and fortune.
| blaseblasphemer wrote: |
| I still haven't heard the bathtub moving being addressed. |
Well, you haven't really made any claims about it - like I said, 9/11ist advance claims by suggestion and innuendo. Can you show that the impact and collapse (which unleashed massive amounts of potential energy) was not sufficient to create the effects? Can you show how explosives would be sufficient? No? Then it's not evidence for anything. Also, note that some 9/11ists use the lack of damage to the bathtub as evidence of an attack by space-based energy weapons (you provided the link to that one, remember?). If you have a specific claim, make it. Otherwise, leave it.
| blaseblasphemer wrote: |
| And, I'll view the 911 mysteries video again about the shape-charge evidence that they talk about. |
There's no evidence for shape-charges - that was pure speculation on the part of the 9/11 Mysteries idiots. But the 'evidence' you're talking about is the cut steel in this, right?
Firstly, think about it. If it was something anomalous, don't you think those firefighters would have said something about it? Or are they in on the conspiracy too? Personally, I find that idea of accusing New York firefighters of complicity in the deaths of over 300 of their friends and colleagues to be pretty damn offensive. Instead, careful investigation reveals that the steel was cut during the clean-up operation.
A close-up
For more information: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
If you have any further questions, let me know, and I'll see what I can find. I would like to point out though, that I have wasted about 90 minutes of my life watching 9/11 Mysteries and I think it only fair that you take 90 minutes of your time to carefully read through http://debunking9/11.com and http://www.911myths.com
Here are a few pages to start you off:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__other_.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
And finally, you asked if I have put my mind to bed on this. On controlled demolition, I have - like Brent Blanchard pointed out, it's not just asking tough questions, it's the knowing when those questions have been answered, and accepting those answers so you can move your attention on to more useful lines of enquiry. Personally, I think that attention is better spent focussing on issues relating to the plausible conspiracy theory I posted earlier, and on the conspiracy to link 9/11 to Saddam in order to justify the Iraq war. The former is a minimally plausible possible crime, the latter is a known actual crime that is not getting the attention it should. If all the 9/11ists were to turn their attention to the real issues, then justice might not be as far away as it seems.
edit: Oh, and repost your Popular Mechanics questions if you like. Note though, that accusing them of constructing a strawman isn't a valid argument. They have limited space, and there are as many 9/11 claims as there are 9/11ists. Just because they looked at some claims that you don't personally make doesn't make it a strawmen. And nobody is claiming that PM is the be-all-an-end-all of debunking, just that it stands as an example of the media investigating the conspiracy theories and finding them to be rubbish. If you can find any inaccuracies in the article, address those, but the strawman attack is not a valid criticism - ironically, it is almost a strawman in itself (PM wasn't claiming to debunk all conspiracy theories, and yet 9/11ists are criticising it for not having done so.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I find the most insulting about BlaseBlase and the other armchair theorists (Some Waygugin, IGTG, Spinoza):
They don't stop to consider that the relatives and friends of all those who died at the WTC or at the Pentagon or in one of the planes haven't poured over all the findings?
Do you think the coworkers of NYFD and NYPD haven't gone over all the evidence and theories trying find out why their friends and colleagues died?
Would they really remain silent if they had uncovered a cover-up, a conspiracy?
And to have the same old slop dragged out at regular intervals by a bunch ignorant retards who have the arrogance to assume that they've been able to uncover what all the experts have missed- I bet that really grates on them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
What I find the most insulting about BlaseBlase and the other armchair theorists (Some Waygugin, IGTG, Spinoza):
They don't stop to consider that the relatives and friends of all those who died at the WTC or at the Pentagon or in one of the planes haven't poured over all the findings?
Do you think the coworkers of NYFD and NYPD haven't gone over all the evidence and theories trying find out why their friends and colleagues died?
Would they really remain silent if they had uncovered a cover-up, a conspiracy?
And to have the same old slop dragged out at regular intervals by a bunch ignorant retards who have the arrogance to assume that they've been able to uncover what all the experts have missed- I bet that really grates on them. |
Yup, 9/11ists say some incredibly stupid and offensive things.
Youtube Video: 9/11 Deniers Speak - Part 1
Youtube Video: 9/11 Deniers Speak - Part 2
Youtube Video: 9/11 Deniers Speak - Part 3
Youtube Video: 9/11 Deniers Speak - Part 4
Youtube Video: 9/11 Deniers Speak - Part 5
Anyway, blaseblasphemer, what questions are currently weighing on your mind? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great links, thanks for posting that.
Making something like this was long overdue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Soju Hoju
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Location: Bus 26, 200 yards past Lotteria on the left
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: The new world order...........welcome to capitalism |
|
|
The events of 9/11 were without doubt carried out by the FBI/CIA or both via the control of the Bush administration. If you look at the facts it's plain for anyone to see, here's what happens: create a problem (9/11) use that as a vehicle to create hatred and instill fear (all foreign/middle eastern looking persons are terrorists)............offer a solution (invasion of a country whom you armed with weapons previously because you were paranoid about the Iranian Ayotollah) and then continue to murder it's people to secure your oil supplies.....but thats okay because your only killing more terrorists.
Alex Jones is the guy to look for and his beliefs are well founded and remain as yet, still unanswered. But for the sceptics out there try a few of these:
Why was the most aggressive radar detection system in the world (NORAD) on manouveres that particular day and why was no-one present in the control towers? It is impossible for a concrete and steel structure to fall at ' freefall ' speed. Only a controllled demolition has that capability. The twin towers dropped in 6.4 seconds. None of the pilots could fly cessners let alone jet airplanes. Bush's brother was responsible for security at the WTC's, so gaining access to them was easy. What happened to WTC 7? As Larry Goldstein (the owner and beneficiary of two billion dollars of insurance claims) said after two small fires were found, ' They made the decision to pull it ' a demolition term used to describe an explosive procedure. Loud explosions were heard on videotape before the towers collapse indicating explosive charges were used. Why did the mayor of New York insist that all the debris was immediately transported (without inspection) to another country? Why were there fires still burning when the temperatures created to do this can only be created with explosions?
To call these things a ' conspiracy theory ' is a misuse of words....no-one would believe that anyone would kill 3000 of their own countrymen to create a war.............well your wrong.....the truth will become known eventually and Rice, Cheney, Wolfovits and the rest of the despicable lowlife, murdering scum will have to answer....beware Americans...the new world order is here....and watch out world....they'll be after you next.................you have been warned.
I don't hate all Americans but I hate your government...it's responsible for a lot f the worlds problems and I hope G.W Bush and his vile, disgusting tyrannical retinue get their just deserts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: The new world order...........welcome to capitalism |
|
|
| The Soju Hoju wrote: |
The events of 9/11 were without doubt carried out by the FBI/CIA or both via the control of the Bush administration. If you look at the facts it's plain for anyone to see, here's what happens: create a problem (9/11) use that as a vehicle to create hatred and instill fear (all foreign/middle eastern looking persons are terrorists)............offer a solution (invasion of a country whom you armed with weapons previously because you were paranoid about the Iranian Ayotollah) and then continue to murder it's people to secure your oil supplies.....but thats okay because your only killing more terrorists.
Alex Jones is the guy to look for and his beliefs are well founded and remain as yet, still unanswered. But for the sceptics out there try a few of these: |
Actually, Alex Jones is a liar and a fraud, and you're a fool to be parroting his claims like a brainwashed cult victim. Let's take a look.
| Quote: |
| Why was the most aggressive radar detection system in the world (NORAD) on manouveres that particular day and why was no-one present in the control towers? |
Evidence of this?
| Quote: |
| It is impossible for a concrete and steel structure to fall at ' freefall ' speed. Only a controllled demolition has that capability. The twin towers dropped in 6.4 seconds. |
Wrong, wrong, wrong. http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
| Quote: |
| None of the pilots could fly cessners let alone jet airplanes. |
Wrong. http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html
| Quote: |
| Bush's brother was responsible for security at the WTC's, so gaining access to them was easy. |
Wrong. http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html
| Quote: |
| What happened to WTC 7? |
It sustained massive damage structural damage from the collapse of the north tower and from seven hours of uncontrolled fires. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
| Quote: |
| As Larry Goldstein |
Wrong. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
| Quote: |
| (the owner and beneficiary of two billion dollars of insurance claims) |
Wrong. http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html
| Quote: |
| said after two small fires were found, |
Wrong. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
| Quote: |
| ' They made the decision to pull it ' |
Right! At the time he was describing a conversation with Chief of FDNY. So who are 'they'? They FDNY? The FDNY demolished WTC 7? Something strange here...
| Quote: |
| 'pull' a demolition term used to describe an explosive procedure. |
Wrong. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
| Quote: |
| Loud explosions were heard on videotape before the towers collapse |
Right!
| Quote: |
| indicating explosive charges were used. |
Wrong. http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
| Quote: |
| Why did the mayor of New York insist that all the debris was immediately transported (without inspection) to another country? |
Wrong. http://www.911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html
| Quote: |
| Why were there fires still burning when the temperatures created to do this can only be created with explosions? |
Wrong. Explosives convert their potential energy into a shockwave, ie they don't get hot, they explode. The answer to your question is 'the fires caused by a couple of plane crashes.' http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I wouldn't care, but in your ignorance you are falsely accusing a large group of people of mass murder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At this point in the thread we can safely safely skip responding to Soju SOB's points and go straight on to the pointing, laughing and ridicule.
Soju, you've got your beanie on too tight...
Or, is this a case of a new troll in town?
GAJ, I think we're getting our chains yanked here... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've just received a somewhat incoherent PM from The Soju Hoju accusing me of being a Korean redneck republican homosexual. True as that may be, I think it better that we stick to addressing the evidence. As we've seen, the evidence is against practically every claim that the Soju Hoju made in his post, and he has no recourse but to resort to ad hominem in secret! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
