Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
#161 
by aspire1670 » May 12, 2010 7:21 pm
#162 by Morien » May 12, 2010 7:23 pm
Morien wrote:
Those who have read my links provided will see what the witnesses I cite have to say about debris...and we have already discussed ad nauseum the floating quarter ton engine...
Again, a few eye witnesses against technical evidence.
[/quote]Morien wrote:
All of which has been refuted..if you'd care to read the links I have provided...I'll not get caught in the trap of repeating my evidence because you fail to comprehend...that is your issue, nobody elses...
Not refuted with evidence. Just dismissed.
[/quote]Morien wrote:
Not that you'd care to read or post it, but the refutations contained in the link I produced earlier are plentiful, and not restricted to the words of one witness you have selectively and disingenuously cited....fail...
This is the refutation contained in the link you provided to refute the Popular Mechanics article. Fail.
Morien wrote:
Waaait a minute...NOT! Popular Mechanics provided questionnable evidence for the reasons I cited, but you selectively (in your idiotic cut'n'paste) have omitted
My "idiotic" cut and paste is a word for word quote from your link about Flight 93. This is what you cited.
Morien wrote:Jumbo's evidence is bullshit...I find more credibility in the eye-witness accounts that I provided.
Yes, Jumbo's evidence is bullshit because you damned well say so, right? Eye witnesses against technical evidence. Guess what would be deemed of greater value in a court of law, not to mention a scientific investigation.
[/quote]Morien wrote:
Except that this 'confetti' was found up to eight miles away...Impossible, as evidence provided above by Galaxian proves...
Not impossible, as evidence provided by me and Jumbo proves. Galaxian hasn't provided any evidence any more than you have provided evidence.
Morien wrote:
There is no 'comspiracy theory' author as you so redundantly claim, as you redundantly claim in a childish effort to line up all your ducks and categorise...The authors of the piece jsut don't believe the bollocks set before them, like many of us, without offering any countering theory...
That's what I said. A conspiracy theorist JAQing off.
Morien wrote:Which article..? Quotation marks are in order...Youir statements ahve been proven untrustworthy and unverifiable...
Again, word for word from your link. If you don't trust your own link, maybe you shouldn't post it.
That seems to be the quality of evidence we have come to expect from you.
Morien wrote:
Yes. Plenty of evidence has been offered in the posts I made (above). Your selective appraisal of them means ni=othing, as your interpretation has already been proven error prone and selective.
I copied your link word for word. I think I've gone above and beyond in attempting to prove your argument for you. I did not succeed in that, as the link you provided didn't contain what you said it contained.
For those interested, here is a good debunking of many of the myths surrounding flight 93. Among other things, a lot of eye witness testimonies, which, according to Morien, should be taken as more important than technical evidence.
#163 by Morien » May 12, 2010 7:27 pm
aspire1670 wrote:Morien wrote:
Snipped all the hand waving, amusing though it was to behold because it tells us nothing about the question in hand which is 'was the WTC brought down by controlled explosions.' Now, any evidence that supports your hypothesis that the WTC was brought down by controlled explosions? Hint, no one has provided any as yet so you have a real chance to shine. Go for it champ.
#164 by uke2se » May 12, 2010 7:39 pm
Morien wrote:
You are evidently incapable of refuting the eyewitness reports, and have no fucking clue what a load of codswallop is offered in lieu of cogent technical evidence..Which is why you haven't offered any, yourself...
Morien wrote:
See above re: technical evidence...most of which you haven't offered or explained...Don't ask for help, either...
Morien wrote:
No refuted.
Morien wrote:
No..it isn't..EPIC fail....
Morien wrote:
If it were, it would supply reasons for the lack of veracity in the Popular Mechanics article....again fail...
Morien wrote:
No...read the fucking thread! Jumbos evidence was proven to be a sad sack of shit by Galazxian....again..such evidence occupies your intellectaul blind spot...which gets bigger by the minute...
Morien wrote:
Yes..impossible..and you have provided fuck all evidence to counter, that which was provided by Jumbo was trashed by Galaxian...get a grip for fuck sake...
Morien wrote:
Back to your playground kiddie-speak, are we...?
Morien wrote:
Yaaawwn...more bollocks totally lacking context...
Morien wrote:
Seems to be...you have consistently proven that you are a judge of fuck all (but you are good at kiddie speak and when you use your catch -all 'truther' crutch').
Morien wrote:
Again..I provided several links..you have provided scant few, yet seem to content to use your crutches, and pour scorn over anything else offered to counter, without the ability to constructively do so...
Ummm...and if you recall correctly, the Popular mechanics propoganda was dismissed;
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
Morien wrote:
Your bullshit summary..FWIW...
Morien wrote:
You see, you just cannot surmise an argument with any degree of reliability, can you?...WHERE did I state that eye-witness accounts are more inmportant than technical evidence? I would call you a liar, but I don't have to..the evidence is there for all to see
#165 by aspire1670 » May 12, 2010 7:42 pm
#166 by wunksta » May 12, 2010 7:48 pm
#167 by aspire1670 » May 12, 2010 7:52 pm
Morien wrote:aspire1670 wrote:Morien wrote:
Snipped all the hand waving, amusing though it was to behold because it tells us nothing about the question in hand which is 'was the WTC brought down by controlled explosions.' Now, any evidence that supports your hypothesis that the WTC was brought down by controlled explosions? Hint, no one has provided any as yet so you have a real chance to shine. Go for it champ.
A fucking lame attempt at changing the subject..HEY catch up!..we are discussing something else regarding 911, right now.
And I have not stated anything regarding the Twin Towers and controlled explosions so your saying that I have concocted 'a hypothesis' is just more misappropriated delusional bullshit...
#168 by Morien » May 12, 2010 8:14 pm
uke2se wrote:Morien wrote:
You are evidently incapable of refuting the eyewitness reports, and have no fucking clue what a load of codswallop is offered in lieu of cogent technical evidence..Which is why you haven't offered any, yourself...
The eyewitness reports are refuted by the technical evidence which several of us have provided to you in this thread.
Morien wrote:
See above re: technical evidence...most of which you haven't offered or explained...Don't ask for help, either...
Technical evidence has been offered by me and others in this thread. You denying it doesn't change that fact.
Morien wrote:
No refuted.
Not with evidence. Anecdotal evidence doesn't trump technical evidence, just FYI.
[/quote]Morien wrote:
No..it isn't..EPIC fail....
Yes it is. Are you now denying that what I copy pasted came from your link?
[/quote]Morien wrote:
If it were, it would supply reasons for the lack of veracity in the Popular Mechanics article....again fail...
It doesn't supply those reasons because those reasons aren't there. It's really really simple for you to prove me wrong. All you have to do is to quote the relevant part. I have asked you to do so four times so far in this thread. Thus far, you have refused.
[/quote]Morien wrote:
No...read the fucking thread! Jumbos evidence was proven to be a sad sack of shit by Galaxian....again..such evidence occupies your intellectaul blind spot...which gets bigger by the minute...
No, it wasn't. Galaxian hasn't provided any evidence. Like you, he has provided truther speculation and anecdotal evidence, none of which trumps the technical evidence. Again, it is really easy for you to prove me wrong. Just repost the evidence.
[/quote]Morien wrote:
Yes..impossible..and you have provided fuck all evidence to counter, that which was provided by Jumbo was trashed by Galaxian...get a grip for fuck sake...
Galaxian has provided no evidence that refutes the fact that it is possible for light material to be carried by winds for 8 miles and beyond. In fact, I can prove that fact right now:
This is Saharan sand being blown by winds to the Canary Islands, which are more than eight miles from the coast of Africa. Thus I have proven that light material can be carried by winds for more than eight miles. Do you require further evidence that light material can be carried by winds for more than eight miles?
Oh for fuck sake...DUST! Puhleez..why do you subject me and other readers to this derisable bullshit in lieu of REAL comparative evidence... [/quote]Morien wrote:
Back to your playground kiddie-speak, are we...?
While I feel like I am talking to a child in this thread, this isn't kiddie-speak. It's an accurate assessment for your behaviour.
You sir, are in no position to judge anything it seems...[/quote]"Morien";p="195923"]
Yaaawwn...more bollocks totally lacking context...
Word for word copied from your link. Not really looking good for your "evidence" when even you dismiss it.
Morien wrote:
Seems to be...you have consistently proven that you are a judge of fuck all (but you are good at kiddie speak and when you use your catch -all 'truther' crutch').
[/quote]Morien wrote:
Again..I provided several links..you have provided scant few, yet seem to content to use your crutches, and pour scorn over anything else offered to counter, without the ability to constructively do so...
You provided exactly one (1) link in your dismissal of the Popular Mechanics article. Here is your post:Ummm...and if you recall correctly, the Popular mechanics propoganda was dismissed;
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
Link
[/quote]Morien wrote:
Your bullshit summary..FWIW...
It's quite accurate. If you want, you can provide your own summary if you feel as though I missed anything.
[/quote]Morien wrote:
You see, you just cannot surmise an argument with any degree of reliability, can you?...WHERE did I state that eye-witness accounts are more inmportant than technical evidence? I would call you a liar, but I don't have to..the evidence is there for all to see
You have not said so outright, but you attempt to refute our technical evidence with eyewitness testimonies. You have done so several times in this thread. Do you wish me to list the instances?
- thanks for the laugh)#169 by Jumbo » May 12, 2010 8:20 pm
Please Jumbo, retire before you make even more mistakes. Now we have bouncing planes, up to 3km!!!
Jumbo, a crash into farming loam is anything but elastic. Infact it is pretty close to a totally plastic event.
What is it with you guys? Are you paid? Hey, how good is the pay? OR are you just soooo enamored with trying to make sense & order out of this bloody chaotic world, that you must, you simply MUST deny the facts?
#170 by uke2se » May 12, 2010 8:33 pm
Morien wrote:
Bullshit they have! as stated before you have provided fuck all evidence, and that which was offered was trashed, unopposed by Galaxian...You are living in tyour own dream world, it seems...
Morien wrote:
Yers..what bullshit evidence you have offered has been trashed outright and shown for the rubbish that it is...Get used to it..your fucked up house of cards has tumbled...
Morien wrote:
It beats the lack of evidence offered by you...FYI....And that which was offered by you is usually accompanied by your grandstanding crutch ...'truther'....That is all you have to offer...BWAHAHA! What a load of pathetic shit....
Morien wrote:
I question/deny every pathetic grandstanding rebuttal offered..especially by you...
Morien wrote:
It does supply the reasons..you just cannot/do not want to read them...Don't ask..I'll charge you...
Morien wrote:
Figures..a technical explanation is obviously of little use to those who cannot understand it......Either that, or you are being wilfully and mendaciously ignorant and selective of the offerings thus far supplied on this thread.
Morien wrote:
Morien wrote:
Accurate?? Coming from you...
Morien wrote:
Contextually inanities...again...
Morien wrote:
Yers..and one trashing the authors of the article..which you conveniently (again) omit...
Morien wrote:
No grandstanding form me...I let my evidence stand as it is..I have no need to appeal to the gallery hollering like a fool at Speakers Corner, and pathetically seeking vacant approval...unlike some....
Morien wrote:
Don't bother...it doesn't mean anything..anubody with sense wiill consider the source...
Morien wrote:
You have supplied endless amusement, Uk..now please..step aside and allow someone who is more capable....I'm fed up with slapping down your inane excuses for arguments...
Morien wrote:
You are not worth my time..DISMISSED!
#171 by Jumbo » May 12, 2010 8:35 pm
Yes..impossible..and you have provided fuck all evidence to counter, that which was provided by Jumbo was trashed by Galaxian...get a grip for fuck sake...
#172 by hotshoe » May 12, 2010 8:43 pm
Jumbo wrote:Yes..impossible..and you have provided fuck all evidence to counter, that which was provided by Jumbo was trashed by Galaxian...get a grip for fuck sake...
If by trashed you mean totally misunderstood what i was saying then yes he did.
He did not manage to demonstrate the descent was vertical. My point that an angled descent can appear vertical from a certain viewpoint stands.
I also correctly calculated the magintude of energy involved in the collision. To illustrate this is showed the distance an engine would be thrown were this elastic and made the point that if only a fraction of the energy were transferred then a 666 yard movement is feasible.
I also pointed out that the mechanism for distributing the lighter material may be different from that which moved the enigne.
None of which has actually been refuted.
One other thing to note about the earlier small objects vs distance argument made by Galaxian is that it essentially assumes that the light objects are not only the same shapes as the heavy ones (Almost certainly not the case) but that they have similar densities. The latter is also likely not true given the materials in such things as seat covers and in flight reading material is considerably different to that contained within the engine.
#173 by uke2se » May 12, 2010 8:44 pm
hotshoe wrote:Jumbo wrote:Yes..impossible..and you have provided fuck all evidence to counter, that which was provided by Jumbo was trashed by Galaxian...get a grip for fuck sake...
If by trashed you mean totally misunderstood what i was saying then yes he did.
He did not manage to demonstrate the descent was vertical. My point that an angled descent can appear vertical from a certain viewpoint stands.
I also correctly calculated the magintude of energy involved in the collision. To illustrate this is showed the distance an engine would be thrown were this elastic and made the point that if only a fraction of the energy were transferred then a 666 yard movement is feasible.
I also pointed out that the mechanism for distributing the lighter material may be different from that which moved the enigne.
None of which has actually been refuted.
One other thing to note about the earlier small objects vs distance argument made by Galaxian is that it essentially assumes that the light objects are not only the same shapes as the heavy ones (Almost certainly not the case) but that they have similar densities. The latter is also likely not true given the materials in such things as seat covers and in flight reading material is considerably different to that contained within the engine.
True. None of Galaxian's foolish points stand up to reality. In reality, the debris which traveled quite far was of light density (as you say, cloth and paper) and was shaped such that it could be wafted by the prevailing breeze.
Have these so-called skeptics never seen a piece of paper blowing in the wind ? Never ?
#174 by econ41 » May 12, 2010 9:12 pm
#175 by uke2se » May 12, 2010 9:19 pm
econ41 wrote:
I have watched this side track which has apparently replaced "microspheres" and "nano-thermxte" as the current preferred side track.
My commendations to uke2se and other members who continue to put energy into point by point responses to side track issues.
But isn't doing that playing morien's game?
So I ask as always in these situations "why are we discussing this sub topic? And "What is its relevance?"
AFAICS Morien has made three claims:
1 An engine will not end up some hundreds of metres from the main impact site in an aircraft crash;
2 A related inferred claim that an aircraft engine will not be carried on a 15mph breeze; AND
3 A claim that Rumsfeld said something that may have been factually untrue.
To which the brief answers are:
1 It obviously did irrespective of whether the plane crashed or was shot down;
2 Who was the clown claiming it was "blown by the breeze"; AND
3 Yes it appears that he did say those words.
BUT so what? What is Morien trying to claim? I see no claim to respond to and no point in rebutting the ever widening circles of "I did!" "No you didn't!" "Yes, I did!" "No you effing well......." etc
The plane crashed in that bit of open country. So what?
#176 by Razor » May 12, 2010 10:22 pm
Morien wrote:Razor wrote:I'm one of those people who, before encountering this thread, had no real awareness of the nature of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I knew they existed of course, but had never looked into them in any way. This thread stimulated my interest, so I took the advice of all "sides" and spend some time looking at the various claims and the evidence for or against them, and also considering the "official" explaination.
I thought it might be interesting (to some) to share my conclusions; the conclusions of someone with no pre-conceived ideas about the issue.
The only reasonable conclusion I can come to is: there is no issue. Each and every CT appears to have little or no evidential basis and relies on rumour, assertion and innuendo. Even those areas where, on the surface, there may seem to be some doubt (e.g. the dust contents) only appear that way because they are taken independent of their context. I honestly don't see where the debate is and I marvel at the fact this is still even being discussed 9 years later. Sure, there may be some gaps, but each and evey one, as far as I can see, is irrelevant to the wider (and crucial) conclusions.
I realise of course that America has its share of anti-government paranoia, but I'm amazed this seems to have spread around the globe so easily.
This 'anti-government paranoia' as you so delicately label it, is shared by filly 1/2 of mankind, by estimates;
If public opinion, worldwide, is anything to go by then pretty much every other person is "A crazy person who believes the US government committed 9/11".On average, 46 percent say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four say they do not know.
http://tinyurl.com/24p8sveClose to half (48%) agrees the U.S. government and 9/11 Commission are not covering up anything, yet nearly as many (42%) believe the government and 9/11 Commission are covering up. One in ten (10%) is unsure.
http://tinyurl.com/yts3d7
Appeal to numbers is largely irrelevant. Does the fact that the majority of the world believe in monotheistic religions make those religions any more valid? Of course not. My point was simply to illustrate that history shows a proportion of Americans have tendency towards paranoiad anti-government viewpoints. I remian surprised that the rest of the world seems to have taken this stance with such gusto.Quite frankly, rather than continue this pointless circular debate (the CT'ers positions are seemingly unfalsifiable to them, so attempts at persuasion seem fruitless), I would think a far more interesting discussion would be on the psychology of such people and why such myths are so popular and passionately held. A new thread perhaps?
Not a circular debate, far from it. What has been revealed is an utter lack of substance to the official explanation, as confirmed by the doubts expressed by every other person out there...not the 'mad minority' as some on these boards would inanely imply by rote when short of substance to counter....
#177 by Razor » May 12, 2010 10:33 pm
uke2se wrote:Razor wrote:I'm one of those people who, before encountering this thread, had no real awareness of the nature of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I knew they existed of course, but had never looked into them in any way. This thread stimulated my interest, so I took the advice of all "sides" and spend some time looking at the various claims and the evidence for or against them, and also considering the "official" explaination.
I thought it might be interesting (to some) to share my conclusions; the conclusions of someone with no pre-conceived ideas about the issue.
The only reasonable conclusion I can come to is: there is no issue. Each and every CT appears to have little or no evidential basis and relies on rumour, assertion and innuendo. Even those areas where, on the surface, there may seem to be some doubt (e.g. the dust contents) only appear that way because they are taken independent of their context. I honestly don't see where the debate is and I marvel at the fact this is still even being discussed 9 years later. Sure, there may be some gaps, but each and evey one, as far as I can see, is irrelevant to the wider (and crucial) conclusions.
I realise of course that America has its share of anti-government paranoia, but I'm amazed this seems to have spread around the globe so easily.
Conspiracy theories are fascinating to many people. It's a way for us to get some excitement into our every day lives. The fact that a few (very few) conspiracy theories have turned out to be true only fuels the fires.
I don't doubt there's some truth is that. I can't help thinking however that its deeper than that. Perhaps a desire to avoid (the often more frightening and chaotic) reality?The problem with many of the conspiracy theories today, like trutherism, AGW denial and holocaust denial is that they affect real people. We're not talking about conspiracy theories regarding fluoridation of water. We're talking about stuff that hurts people directly.
Trutherism and holocaust denial hurts people because there is real loss of life involved. Victims of these tragedies want to move on, but some people - for their own selfish reasons - want nothing more than to keep these wounds open for as long as possible. They do so with little to support them in form of evidence, relying rather on cultish methods. These CTers need to be fought at every turn, because they hurt real people.
When it comes to AGW denialists, they hurt even more, but the pain is in the future rather than the past.
Yes, I entirely agree that baseless CT's can have genuine real-life negative consequences. A sense of respsonsibility seems to be often ironically claimed as a motive for holding such baseless views. In reality, anyone with any true responsibility would not chuck around baseless claims on such sensitive and important subjects I feel.Razor wrote:
Quite frankly, rather than continue this pointless circular debate (the CT'ers positions are seemingly unfalsifiable to them, so attempts at persuasion seem fruitless), I would think a far more interesting discussion would be on the psychology of such people and why such myths are so popular and passionately held. A new thread perhaps?
Feel free to do so. I think there's a forum section about psychology. Be careful not to mention the names of any forum members though, as you would be in breach of the FUA if you did.
#178 by hotshoe » May 12, 2010 10:51 pm
econ41 wrote:
BUT so what? What is Morien trying to claim? I see no claim to respond to and no point in rebutting the ever widening circles of "I did!" "No you didn't!" "Yes, I did!" "No you effing well......." etc
The plane crashed in that bit of open country. So what?
#179 by econ41 » May 12, 2010 11:30 pm
hotshoe wrote:econ41 wrote:
BUT so what? What is Morien trying to claim? I see no claim to respond to and no point in rebutting the ever widening circles of "I did!" "No you didn't!" "Yes, I did!" "No you effing well......." etc
The plane crashed in that bit of open country. So what?
The funny thing is, this bit of the conspiracy theory is put forth by the same nutters who claim that Air Defense was stood down on 9/11 (presumably to allow the conspiracy to succeed in hitting the twin towers).
Well, which is it, dumbos ?
Jets NOT scrambled to shoot down airliners when you think they "should" have been (over NYC) or jets scrambled to shoot down airliners when you think they "should not" have been (over PA) ?
I'm amazed these people can think straight long enough to type a sentence. Any sentence.
#180 by econ41 » May 12, 2010 11:45 pm
Razor wrote:...Again, I fail to see how the appeal to numbers is relevant. And I'm afraid I simply cannot see how any such "lack of substance" has been revealed at all. As far as I can see, the "official" version is highly evidenced. It is the CT's that seem to contain a lack of substance. I'm open to pursuasion on this, but unless there is more than I have already read and seen, I struggle to imagine that the evidence or reason exists to pursuade anu genuinely open-minded neutral.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 7 guests
