Where were you? [modified]
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Personally I would strongly advise staying well out of it.
Convenient... :rolleyes: Bush and company have PROVEN their incompetence too often and on too many levels for any sane individual to take this theory seriously. The Bush administration was entirely new (after Clinton left ) and had only been in office a few months. Combine that with the fact that our government is huge and diverse. There is no possible way for a conspiracy of this magnitude (under ANY administration) to even get past the first meeting without massive leaks. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't REALLY believe any of this crap and are simply trolling for entertainment. If not... you need to get some counseling before its too late.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
The Bush administration was entirely new (after Clinton left )
FYI just check out David Gergen. There's a nice video of him being caught by Alex Jones that's knocking around. Cult member and advisor to no less than 4 presidents, both D & R. If you really believe the statement that I quoted then I am certainly not the only one who needs help.:laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
But, are they more than 1% likely
Yes, simply because cutting thick steel columns is difficult and thermite is one of the few ways to do it. It was done, so if not thermite then how? Jet fuel doesn't cut it ( pun intended ). If you're a scientist then check Dr. Stephen Jones' analysis. His metalurgy conclusion is that evidence for thermate is conclusive. I'm certainly not qualified to argue.
Christian Graus wrote:
the need of some people to find conspiracy has as it's most fatal flaw, the fact that I've yet to hear a motive that is plausible for the US government to attack it's own members, on it's own soil.
If being able to ram through the Patriot act without it being read, carry out the already planned war on Iraq, get the Unocal pipeline through Afghanistan and cream off billions in war profiteering through Haliburton and the Carlyle group, not to mention gaurenteeing W's re-election as a War President is not enough motivation then I don't know what is. Perhaps being able to trash to the Constitution, legalize torture and imprison people wihtout trial. If you or I were both evil and insane maybe we'd value being able to do such things with impunity. TBC...
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
I didn't think they were cut. Everything I've read indicates the falling of the towers was completely believable. The world is full of experts capable of creating arguments for things they already believe. I have no doubt the war on Iraq was planned, and that they were looking for a way to pursue it. I don't believe they decided to generate that way, themselves.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
I've seen the History Channel show mentioned and the follow up, taking it apart, exposing the conflicts of interest and contradictions amongst the 'debunkers'. The staw men put up by the programme makers which were not in fact the arguments of the people they said they were and numerous other flaws. The very poverty of journalistic integrity in the debunking effort from the History Channel, PBS Nova (blatently incorrect CGI models), Popular Mechanics (Ignorance of basic physics) and the BBC should in itself be cause for concern to those who want to believe the official conspiracy theory. Between them the 'mistakes' of these programmes alone are enough to shred the official theory for anyone but the most blinkered. In the case of the BBC, when the guy you give the most air time to and clearly take most seriously turns out to be qualified only by being the ex-prodcuer of the X-Files, your credibility is toast before you start.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I've seen the History Channel show mentioned and the follow up, taking it apart, exposing the conflicts of interest and contradictions amongst the 'debunkers'. The staw men put up by the programme makers which were not in fact the arguments of the people they said they were and numerous other flaws. The very poverty of journalistic integrity in the debunking effort from the History Channel, PBS Nova (blatently incorrect CGI models), Popular Mechanics (Ignorance of basic physics) and the BBC should in itself be cause for concern to those who want to believe the official conspiracy theory. Between them the 'mistakes' of these programmes alone are enough to shred the official theory for anyone but the most blinkered. In the case of the BBC, when the guy you give the most air time to and clearly take most seriously turns out to be qualified only by being the ex-prodcuer of the X-Files, your credibility is toast before you start.
The fundamental problem with all of the "conspiracy" theories on this and other subjects is that the perpetrators of these myths have absolutely no respect for any science, eyewitness accounts, evidence or corroboration thereof. They often cite, but fail to follow up on, their "sources". When they present an "expert", that "expert" is typically not well respected or not an "expert" at all. They fail to seek multiple opinions to corroberate their "experts". As the History Channel pointed out, when one set of conspiracy theories is amply demonstrated to be false, the theory is simply changed. The goal is predetermined in the minds of the conspiracy theorists, and the means are frequently modified, without evidence, to support those ends. Those that they cannot discredit (which are most) are claimed to be "in on it" ("conflicts of interests", as you put it). Quite frankly, I respect the opinions of those who have earned their doctorates in various engineering disciplines much more so than some 23-year-old, pretentious graphic designer. When it comes to your opinions...Put up or shut up. Stop rambling on like a schizophrenic and provide real, tangible evidence (something you apparently don't require) to support your point.
-
Even if such drivel were to be true, at lest I refrain from meaningless personal attacks when I have no other argument.:laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Terribly sorry you feel offended. With the many thousands who have lost their lives on that fateful day and since in Afghanistan, Madrid, London and other places due to terrorism, I suspect that friends and families alike probably feel offended by these conspiracy theories.
Last modified: 38mins after originally posted --
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Why is a military drone "more likely"?
More likely to have pulled off the required turn, a manouver no ordinary 757 pilot, let alone a barely trained amateur, woould have been able to execute. Also more likely to be single engined. One hole, one engine. A 757 has two engines many feet apart, two holes on impact would be expected.
Red Stateler wrote:
explain the 757 parts strewn about the Pentagon's lawn after the crash
A link to a photo of these parts would be useful if one existed. I've seen hundreds of photos of the essentially unmarked lawn with a few bits of unidentifiable aluminium debris scattered about and not a few of parts that experienced ex-Boeing engineers have sworn are not present on a 757. The jury is definitely still out.
Red Stateler wrote:
Automated air defenses?
You're not aware of the restricted aircraft zone around the Pentagon? That only military aircraft with permission can fly thorugh it or that even the poor old Serbs had automated air defences back when US aircraft had to bomb from 15000 feet plus to avoid them. At least that was the excuse the Pentagon gave at the time. Do you think the Pentagon is undefended?
Red Stateler wrote:
2 F-16's were just several minutes away from doing the doing the dirty deed...They didn't make it in time.
I know that's what was released but the time line was wrong (Probably to protect the pilots involved). The F-16's did have time to get there before the order was given.
Red Stateler wrote:
As a supposed "Christian", what makes you exempt from declaring false witness against your neighbor?
Nothing!
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
More likely to have pulled off the required turn, a manouver no ordinary 757 pilot, let alone a barely trained amateur, woould have been able to execute. Also more likely to be single engined. One hole, one engine. A 757 has two engines many feet apart, two holes on impact would be expected.
The pilots and structural engineers interviewed disagree with you. What are your qualifications? If you have none, can you cite somebody who is qualified?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
A link to a photo of these parts would be useful if one existed. I've seen hundreds of photos of the essentially unmarked lawn with a few bits of unidentifiable aluminium debris scattered about and not a few of parts that experienced ex-Boeing engineers have sworn are not present on a 757. The jury is definitely still out.
If you saw the History Channel special, then you would have seen parts with the American Airlines logo strewn across the lawn with the Pentagon directly behind it. Those who cleaned up the mess that they interviewed also stated that there was debris. In the end, however, a liquified mass of aluminum doesn't leave much behind.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You're not aware of the restricted aircraft zone around the Pentagon? That only military aircraft with permission can fly thorugh it or that even the poor old Serbs had automated air defences back when US aircraft had to bomb from 15000 feet plus to avoid them. At least that was the excuse the Pentagon gave at the time. Do you think the Pentagon is undefended?
The Pentagon was certainly not defended with anti-aircraft missles that would target civilian aircraft overhead. Nor did they have any permission at that time to shoot down any such aircraft even if they did. It was a time of peace. Aircraft regularly enter restricted areas by mistake. They are generally contacted and told to divert their course. This particular airplane wasn't responding to those requests. I wonder why...
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I know that's what was released but the time line was wrong (Probably to protect the pilots involved). The F-16's did have time to get there before the order was given.
You make lots of statements without backing them up. At the time, NORAD was set up to intercept FOREIGN aircraft. Only a few fighter jets were combat ready
-
I didn't think they were cut. Everything I've read indicates the falling of the towers was completely believable. The world is full of experts capable of creating arguments for things they already believe. I have no doubt the war on Iraq was planned, and that they were looking for a way to pursue it. I don't believe they decided to generate that way, themselves.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
You're welcome to your opinion of course. Personally I think the photographs from the 'pile' are sufficient proof that the columns were cut. Especially when combined with the fact that there was no other way to bring down the core of the buildings. If the collapses had proceeded as the likes of Popular Mechanics insist then hundreds of feet of core columns welded together with a network of smaller steel peices would have been left standing in the center of each tower even when the floors and outer wall had completely collapsed. Even if these core columns had broken or been cut at the base they would have remained continuous and fallen side ways. No such 300-600 foot leaning or horizontal structure survived, ergo the columns were cut.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I've seen the History Channel show mentioned and the follow up, taking it apart, exposing the conflicts of interest and contradictions amongst the 'debunkers'. The staw men put up by the programme makers which were not in fact the arguments of the people they said they were and numerous other flaws. The very poverty of journalistic integrity in the debunking effort from the History Channel, PBS Nova (blatently incorrect CGI models), Popular Mechanics (Ignorance of basic physics) and the BBC should in itself be cause for concern to those who want to believe the official conspiracy theory. Between them the 'mistakes' of these programmes alone are enough to shred the official theory for anyone but the most blinkered. In the case of the BBC, when the guy you give the most air time to and clearly take most seriously turns out to be qualified only by being the ex-prodcuer of the X-Files, your credibility is toast before you start.
The fundamental problem with all of the "conspiracy" theories on this and other subjects is that the perpetrators of these myths have absolutely no respect for any science, eyewitness accounts, evidence or corroboration thereof. They often cite, but fail to follow up on, their "sources". When they present an "expert", that "expert" is typically not well respected or not an "expert" at all. They fail to seek multiple opinions to corroberate their "experts". As the History Channel pointed out, when one set of conspiracy theories is amply demonstrated to be false, the theory is simply changed. The goal is predetermined in the minds of the conspiracy theorists, and the means are frequently modified, without evidence, to support those ends. Those that they cannot discredit (which are most) are claimed to be "in on it" ("conflicts of interests", as you put it). Quite frankly, I respect the opinions of those who have earned their doctorates in various engineering disciplines much more so than some 23-year-old, pretentious graphic designer. When it comes to your opinions...Put up or shut up. Stop rambling on like a schizophrenic and provide real, tangible evidence (something you apparently don't require) to support your point.
Perhaps you're looking for Dr. Stephen Jones or Professor David Ray Griffin or one of these people[^]. Take you're time and debunk them all one by one if you like. It will be fascinating to watch.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
More likely to have pulled off the required turn, a manouver no ordinary 757 pilot, let alone a barely trained amateur, woould have been able to execute. Also more likely to be single engined. One hole, one engine. A 757 has two engines many feet apart, two holes on impact would be expected.
The pilots and structural engineers interviewed disagree with you. What are your qualifications? If you have none, can you cite somebody who is qualified?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
A link to a photo of these parts would be useful if one existed. I've seen hundreds of photos of the essentially unmarked lawn with a few bits of unidentifiable aluminium debris scattered about and not a few of parts that experienced ex-Boeing engineers have sworn are not present on a 757. The jury is definitely still out.
If you saw the History Channel special, then you would have seen parts with the American Airlines logo strewn across the lawn with the Pentagon directly behind it. Those who cleaned up the mess that they interviewed also stated that there was debris. In the end, however, a liquified mass of aluminum doesn't leave much behind.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You're not aware of the restricted aircraft zone around the Pentagon? That only military aircraft with permission can fly thorugh it or that even the poor old Serbs had automated air defences back when US aircraft had to bomb from 15000 feet plus to avoid them. At least that was the excuse the Pentagon gave at the time. Do you think the Pentagon is undefended?
The Pentagon was certainly not defended with anti-aircraft missles that would target civilian aircraft overhead. Nor did they have any permission at that time to shoot down any such aircraft even if they did. It was a time of peace. Aircraft regularly enter restricted areas by mistake. They are generally contacted and told to divert their course. This particular airplane wasn't responding to those requests. I wonder why...
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I know that's what was released but the time line was wrong (Probably to protect the pilots involved). The F-16's did have time to get there before the order was given.
You make lots of statements without backing them up. At the time, NORAD was set up to intercept FOREIGN aircraft. Only a few fighter jets were combat ready
Red Stateler wrote:
The pilots and structural engineers interviewed disagree with you.
Show me one pilot claiming he could make that turn in a 757. I've seen several who said they couldn't but none yet who said they could.
Red Stateler wrote:
you would have seen parts with the American Airlines logo
No I saw unburned crumpled small parts with red and blue paint claimed to come from an AA logo.
Red Stateler wrote:
The Pentagon was certainly not defended with anti-aircraft missles that would target civilian aircraft overhead. Nor did they have any permission at that time to shoot down any such aircraft even if they did.
You're obviously unaware of Norman Minetta's testimony to the 9/11 commission or you realise you just made my point for me.
Red Stateler wrote:
You make lots of statements without backing them up.
At least I'm not making them in ignorance. Aircraft were available on the day, for example at Andrew's AB which were not used and were in a better location than those that were. Many, many aircraft were not avaible, not because it was a time of peace but because they'd been sent to Northern Canada on an exercise. Half a dozen other exercises were occuring on the same day including ones involving fake hijackings and faking of radar blips, giving the highest concentration of air exercises on a single day that anyone can remember. I have read analysis that estimates that 9/11/2001 was the best single day to attack the US by air at any time in the past 30 - 40 years. You can dispute the analysis, claim it was a 1/10000 luck strike by Tim Osman or agree that it was an inside job but dig a little deeper than PBS and Hollywood nonsense before you make up your mind.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Which of you came up with that?
You're confusing schizophrenia with multiple personalities disorder. Schizophrenia is "the deterioration of the human personality" and is often associated with jumbled and nonsensical speech.
I have a friend who is schizophrenic, but under normal, chronic medication he doesn't suffer delusions of conspiracy, and he can maintain a highly intellectual conversion. I think you should pick a better slight.
I do not believe they are right who say that the defects of famous men should be ignored. I think it is better that we should know them. Then, though we are conscious of having faults as glaring as theirs, we can believe that that is no hindrance to our achieving also something of their virtues. - W. Somerset Maugham My New Blog
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The pilots and structural engineers interviewed disagree with you.
Show me one pilot claiming he could make that turn in a 757. I've seen several who said they couldn't but none yet who said they could.
Red Stateler wrote:
you would have seen parts with the American Airlines logo
No I saw unburned crumpled small parts with red and blue paint claimed to come from an AA logo.
Red Stateler wrote:
The Pentagon was certainly not defended with anti-aircraft missles that would target civilian aircraft overhead. Nor did they have any permission at that time to shoot down any such aircraft even if they did.
You're obviously unaware of Norman Minetta's testimony to the 9/11 commission or you realise you just made my point for me.
Red Stateler wrote:
You make lots of statements without backing them up.
At least I'm not making them in ignorance. Aircraft were available on the day, for example at Andrew's AB which were not used and were in a better location than those that were. Many, many aircraft were not avaible, not because it was a time of peace but because they'd been sent to Northern Canada on an exercise. Half a dozen other exercises were occuring on the same day including ones involving fake hijackings and faking of radar blips, giving the highest concentration of air exercises on a single day that anyone can remember. I have read analysis that estimates that 9/11/2001 was the best single day to attack the US by air at any time in the past 30 - 40 years. You can dispute the analysis, claim it was a 1/10000 luck strike by Tim Osman or agree that it was an inside job but dig a little deeper than PBS and Hollywood nonsense before you make up your mind.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Show me one pilot claiming he could make that turn in a 757. I've seen several who said they couldn't but none yet who said they could.
That was addressed in the History Channel documentary...Which you said you saw.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
No I saw unburned crumpled small parts with red and blue paint claimed to come from an AA logo.
That doesn't matter as, even if there were video, you would just claim it was doctored. No amount of evidence will convince you.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You're obviously unaware of Norman Minetta's testimony to the 9/11 commission or you realise you just made my point for me.
Yes I am and this was also addressed in the history Channel documentary...Which you said you saw. Basically it was an ambiguous statement in which Cheney told him the order "still stands", but it was never clarified which order.Since he was the Secretary of Transportation, one can assume that the order had something to do with transportation.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
At least I'm not making them in ignorance. Aircraft were available on the day, for example at Andrew's AB which were not used and were in a better location than those that were. Many, many aircraft were not avaible, not because it was a time of peace but because they'd been sent to Northern Canada on an exercise. Half a dozen other exercises were occuring on the same day including ones involving fake hijackings and faking of radar blips, giving the highest concentration of air exercises on a single day that anyone can remember. I have read analysis that estimates that 9/11/2001 was the best single day to attack the US by air at any time in the past 30 - 40 years. You can dispute the analysis, claim it was a 1/10000 luck strike by Tim Osman or agree that it was an inside job but dig a little deeper than PBS and Hollywood nonsense before you make up your mind.
Actually...Yes. Your claims are quite ignorant. As I said, our military focused entirely on foreign threats before 9/11 (hence the creation of Homeland Security). Consequently, very few (roughly a dozen) fighter aircraft were equipped nationwide to scrambled at a moments notice...And they only had moments. Frankly, all of your claims have apparently no basis in fact, but plenty of basis in fantasy. As I said before...Put up or shu
-
LMFAO that is definatly a typo.. Hitting my head against the table. Obviously my spelling is not that great lol... Must fix before anyone else notices.... Thanks :-O
*grin* glad to be of service.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find one, and you can certainly find fundamentalists who consider religion and politics to be one and the same. But the notion that there is some kind of political agenda among the rank and file church goers in the US is just rediculous. If and when you do get the average church going christian to comment to a political opinion it is typically more liberal in nature than conservative.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
notion that there is some kind of political agenda among the rank and file church goers in the US is just rediculous.
Dammit Stan, when WILL you learn to spell ridiculous ? :P Yeah, I agree, I never meant to imply a broad agenda between all church goers, quite the opposite. My implication was that some churches probably are, and some are not.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
...These may be the motivations of the useful idiots but the motivations of the core of compotent people who keep their heads down are more difficult to fathom. These are the people who got most of the US fighter aircraft moved to Northern Canada just at the right time. Organised fake highjacking exercises for the right day, supplied the names of the 19 arab patsies to the media when they weren't on any of the flight manifests, brain wiped Zacharius Moesawi to ensure he confessed but didn't say anything awkward. Buried the FBI warnings, buried the urgent warnings from the French and made sure ceratin people were definitly going to be in the WTC and others weren't on the day. These are the people who actually govern the USA and very few of their names are known. The compotent quiet, apolitical officials who actually run the offices of POTUS, VPOTUS, SOD etc. Many of them are decent people just doing their job but unfortunately no enough. There is what ammounts to a religious cult which counts many hundreds of these people as well as politicians business people and academics amongst it members. It is what is known as a 'loyalty cult' and part of what that means is that its members protect the cult above all other loyalties, including their families and their country. If you really want answers, this is where you need to look. I can't give you difinitve answers, my research is onging but if you want to carry this weight too then start with this site[^]. Personally I would strongly advise staying well out of it.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Wow. This is just plain scary, and not in the manner you intended.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Perhaps you're looking for Dr. Stephen Jones or Professor David Ray Griffin or one of these people[^]. Take you're time and debunk them all one by one if you like. It will be fascinating to watch.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Dr. Stephen Jones
And what about the many, many, many other phycisists who disagree with his claim? Their opinions have no merit in your mind. But to discredit him, I present you with this quote (taken from Wikipedia) from him: "[It was] an 'inside job', puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House to justify the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries, inflate military spending, and expand Israel." Sure! no politically motivated bias there! But let's assume that this one physicist (not a structural engineer, mind you) is right and all others are wrong and that it was a controlled demolition? He certainly doesn't know that it was "puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House to justify the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries, inflate military spending, and expand Israel". The fact that he makes political statements such as that one certainly casts doubt on his impartiality of this subject and highlight his willingness to make claims beyond the realm of demonstrable fact. And this David Ray Griffin[^] character is a philosophy professor. How is philosophy relevant to any of your claims?
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Dr. Stephen Jones
And what about the many, many, many other phycisists who disagree with his claim? Their opinions have no merit in your mind. But to discredit him, I present you with this quote (taken from Wikipedia) from him: "[It was] an 'inside job', puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House to justify the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries, inflate military spending, and expand Israel." Sure! no politically motivated bias there! But let's assume that this one physicist (not a structural engineer, mind you) is right and all others are wrong and that it was a controlled demolition? He certainly doesn't know that it was "puppeteered by the neoconservatives in the White House to justify the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries, inflate military spending, and expand Israel". The fact that he makes political statements such as that one certainly casts doubt on his impartiality of this subject and highlight his willingness to make claims beyond the realm of demonstrable fact. And this David Ray Griffin[^] character is a philosophy professor. How is philosophy relevant to any of your claims?
Red Stateler wrote:
And what about the many, many, many other phycisists who disagree with his claim?
How many of them have done the relevant metalurgy tests on WTC steel for Thermite residue? As far as I know 0, so they may disgree but it hardly matters. Obviously anyone who disagrees with you politically is incapable of being a good scientist now? I don't even like the guy, think his religeon stinks and think he has done some very bad things in the past but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the Thermite residue. If you think his science is wrong saying he's a Democrat isn't going to cut much ice with the journals, at least it shouldn't.
Red Stateler wrote:
this David Ray Griffin[^] character is a philosophy professor
Check out his books and you will see the relevance. If you don't want to risk a few dollars you can get at least on of his lectures on YouTube.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
And what about the many, many, many other phycisists who disagree with his claim?
How many of them have done the relevant metalurgy tests on WTC steel for Thermite residue? As far as I know 0, so they may disgree but it hardly matters. Obviously anyone who disagrees with you politically is incapable of being a good scientist now? I don't even like the guy, think his religeon stinks and think he has done some very bad things in the past but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the Thermite residue. If you think his science is wrong saying he's a Democrat isn't going to cut much ice with the journals, at least it shouldn't.
Red Stateler wrote:
this David Ray Griffin[^] character is a philosophy professor
Check out his books and you will see the relevance. If you don't want to risk a few dollars you can get at least on of his lectures on YouTube.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
How many of them have done the relevant metalurgy tests on WTC steel for Thermite residue? As far as I know 0, so they may disgree but it hardly matters.
That is ridiculous. The absence of a particular test (after all, why would anybody bother when no evidence points to it) does not indicate an occurrence. But ask Patrick Sears, who's mechanical engineering professor performed tests on the metal, what he thinks.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Obviously anyone who disagrees with you politically is incapable of being a good scientist now? I don't even like the guy, think his religeon stinks and think he has done some very bad things in the past but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the Thermite residue. If you think his science is wrong saying he's a Democrat isn't going to cut much ice with the journals, at least it shouldn't.
He isn't just a Democrat...He holds very clear and biased political positions against an administration that he is making claims against. I can't speak to his quality of his science, but the fact that he has ulterior motivations is clear.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Check out his books and you will see the relevance. If you don't want to risk a few dollars you can get at least on of his lectures on YouTube.
You're making claims supposedly based on science and engineering. This guy is not a scientist or engineer. Put up or shut up.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
How many of them have done the relevant metalurgy tests on WTC steel for Thermite residue? As far as I know 0, so they may disgree but it hardly matters.
That is ridiculous. The absence of a particular test (after all, why would anybody bother when no evidence points to it) does not indicate an occurrence. But ask Patrick Sears, who's mechanical engineering professor performed tests on the metal, what he thinks.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Obviously anyone who disagrees with you politically is incapable of being a good scientist now? I don't even like the guy, think his religeon stinks and think he has done some very bad things in the past but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the Thermite residue. If you think his science is wrong saying he's a Democrat isn't going to cut much ice with the journals, at least it shouldn't.
He isn't just a Democrat...He holds very clear and biased political positions against an administration that he is making claims against. I can't speak to his quality of his science, but the fact that he has ulterior motivations is clear.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Check out his books and you will see the relevance. If you don't want to risk a few dollars you can get at least on of his lectures on YouTube.
You're making claims supposedly based on science and engineering. This guy is not a scientist or engineer. Put up or shut up.
Red Stateler wrote:
He isn't just a Democrat...He holds very clear and biased political positions against an administration that he is making claims against. I can't speak to his quality of his science, but the fact that he has ulterior motivations is clear.
If Mrs Clinton were in the White House (God preserve us) I would be able, no doubt, to say the same thing about you. What effect would that have on your metalurgy results? David Ray Griffin is neither a scientist nor an engineer and I never claimed otherwise. You attacked Dr Jones for his politics and ignored his scientific credentials. If you want someone with political/analytical and philosophical credentials the read what Proffessor Griffin has to say. I have put up.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
He isn't just a Democrat...He holds very clear and biased political positions against an administration that he is making claims against. I can't speak to his quality of his science, but the fact that he has ulterior motivations is clear.
If Mrs Clinton were in the White House (God preserve us) I would be able, no doubt, to say the same thing about you. What effect would that have on your metalurgy results? David Ray Griffin is neither a scientist nor an engineer and I never claimed otherwise. You attacked Dr Jones for his politics and ignored his scientific credentials. If you want someone with political/analytical and philosophical credentials the read what Proffessor Griffin has to say. I have put up.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
If Mrs Clinton were in the White House (God preserve us) I would be able, no doubt, to say the same thing about you. What effect would that have on your metalurgy results?
Yes, if the Clintons were in the White House and I publicly accused them personally of causing 9/11 despite a lack of evidence and then went on to say that science supports a demolition (contradicting every other scientist and engineer), then my scientific opinion should certainly be called into question.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
David Ray Griffin is neither a scientist nor an engineer and I never claimed otherwise. You attacked Dr Jones for his politics and ignored his scientific credentials. If you want someone with political/analytical and philosophical credentials the read what Proffessor Griffin has to say. I have put up.
I specifically told you that I respect the opinions of those "earned their doctorates in various engineering disciplines" over that of a 20-something graphic designer and asked for tangible evidence and you have provided none. Why on earth would I care what some philosophy professor thinks about this? You have yet to put up, so I'm close to asking you to simply shut up.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
notion that there is some kind of political agenda among the rank and file church goers in the US is just rediculous.
Dammit Stan, when WILL you learn to spell ridiculous ? :P Yeah, I agree, I never meant to imply a broad agenda between all church goers, quite the opposite. My implication was that some churches probably are, and some are not.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
Dammit Stan, when WILL you learn to spell ridiculous ?
I refuse to acknowledge that my spelling is incorrect. :~
Christian Graus wrote:
Yeah, I agree, I never meant to imply a broad agenda between all church goers, quite the opposite. My implication was that some churches probably are, and some are not.
But I think the world wide impression that American politics is somehow a reflection of a minority of religious zealots is dangerous and needs to be refuted. The US is, and was intended to be, a religious society, but that religious sentiment is not dedicated to one party vs another. Most of the liberals I know are far more likely to base their political beliefs on their religion than are most conservatives, who, ironically, largely appeal to the secular documents our government was founded upon.
Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hyprocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
If Mrs Clinton were in the White House (God preserve us) I would be able, no doubt, to say the same thing about you. What effect would that have on your metalurgy results?
Yes, if the Clintons were in the White House and I publicly accused them personally of causing 9/11 despite a lack of evidence and then went on to say that science supports a demolition (contradicting every other scientist and engineer), then my scientific opinion should certainly be called into question.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
David Ray Griffin is neither a scientist nor an engineer and I never claimed otherwise. You attacked Dr Jones for his politics and ignored his scientific credentials. If you want someone with political/analytical and philosophical credentials the read what Proffessor Griffin has to say. I have put up.
I specifically told you that I respect the opinions of those "earned their doctorates in various engineering disciplines" over that of a 20-something graphic designer and asked for tangible evidence and you have provided none. Why on earth would I care what some philosophy professor thinks about this? You have yet to put up, so I'm close to asking you to simply shut up.
Red Stateler wrote:
I specifically told you that I respect the opinions of those "earned their doctorates in various engineering disciplines"
I never said you were consistent.
Red Stateler wrote:
Why on earth would I care what some philosophy professor thinks about this?
You might if you knew what he said. When you have something to disagree with him on or counter evidence on the metalugy then by all means tell me to shut up. On the other hand if you accept the metalurgy then you accept controlled demolition, which requires a different conspiracy from the one you believe in.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.