scary movie

[rigor mortis 0]

an interesting documentary. pretty long, but quite enthralling if you are into a good old fashioned conspiracy theory.

 

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/5888/Bush_Planned_9_11

[scouser 4]

Can't see it. Want to though.........

[Ocean11 0]

Some good music on that film too.

[Mudguts 0]

Some of whats presented on that vid is totally unsubstanciated and basically madeup but some other stuff really has me thinking if it could have been a Bush conspiracy. Provocative viewing

[DumbStick 13]

Certainly a good watch.

[Ocean11 0]

A quick Google search on '9/11 new pearl harbor' brings up a vast array of sites all questioning the official conspiracy theory ("It was a guy in a mud hut in Afghanistan wot duunit"). There are some serious scientists now saying that the official story couldn't possibly be.

 

How long will the charade go on, and what will happen when everybody knows it's a charade...?

[7-11 2]

I've just watched that actually - extremely interesting and quite convincing.

[Thunderpants 0]

thanks for the link, just watched the whole thing, very well made, felt slightly manipulated though.

I just have a problem with the idea that it was planned by W.

that would just be too evil

[rach 1]

I'm the same, thunderpants.

 

It was very interesting to watch that and very believable. How come, though, this is not all over the news (well maybe not Fox) and better known.... where is the demanding of info from the public etc?

[frannyo 2]

I really enjoyed (the wrong word perhaps?) that. It was well made. Is there an earlier version?

[Ocean11 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by rach:
where is the demanding of info from the public etc?

Well, the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are, for a start. There's some good info on there from concerned American scientists.

If they are right, and I think they must be, it raises a whole plethora of fascinating questions. One of which must be, who exactly is Bin Laden.

[Ocean11 0]

Another fascinating question would be, all the other governments in the world must know the official conspiracy theory is a big lie - so when are they going to admit they knew?

[rigor mortis 0]

i thought you were Bin Laden Ocean11

[bobby12 0]

It is, in any case, already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by domestic terrorists. Foreign terrorists could not have gotten access to the buildings to plant the explosives. They probably would not have had the courtesy to make sure that the buildings collapsed straight down, rather than falling over onto surrounding buildings. And they could not have orchestrated a cover-up, from the quick disposal of the steel to the FEMA Report to The 9/11 Commission Report to the NIST Report. All of these things could have been orchestrated only by forces within our own government.

 

The evidence for this conclusion has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream press, perhaps under the guise of obeying President Bush’s advice not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories.” We have seen, however, that it is the Bush administration’s conspiracy theory that is the outrageous one, because it is violently contradicted by numerous facts, including some basic laws of physics.

 

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

 

Imagine how many people it would have required to blow up the world trade centre. How can they live with themselves?

[soubriquet 0]

You're right bobby. It's a conspiracy between the American Christian Right, the Jews and the Arabs.

 

Aliens are just landing outside my house....

 

They are sending probes into my pleasure centres.

 

I'll be back tomorrow.

[damian 0]

The Pentagon strike was always a badly executed scam.

 

Rach (not picking on you directly) - your statement pretty makes no sense:

 

1. if it were too evil... it would never have happened. It did happen, therefore it is obviously not too evil.

2. People claim it is too evil for the US Government. Not at all. It is a drop in the ocean compared to the evil they perpetrate in Iraq.

 

Why is every theory contrary to the government's story labelled a conspiracy theory? That implies everything Government says is true. Not one person here believes that.

 

I was in America when the referenced $2million private advertising campaign was on TV. Actually, I was in NY. But not just anywhere in NY. I was on Wall Street, level 40 of a building on the street, standing in a tosser Managing Director's office. The TV was on and the advert started. Behind the TV was a window and out that window was a gap in the sky line from where the World Trade Centre stood. He watched in amazement and called in a bunch of guys. To be expected they all mocked and sneered. On this trip I was staying in a hotel across the road from Ground Zero, my window looked onto the site. Below is a picture taken at sunrise. Seeing the hole, even I as an anti-Bush foreigner, found it hard to fathom that it could be self inflicted. Being a proud American and seeing it happen to your home must make it amazingly impossible to believe anything but the Government lie. It will take a long long time before American citizens turn on the official story, which is quite understandable. A few days later the Red Socks beat the Yankees in the world series.

 

The problem with lies is you have to keep making new lies to sustain the original lie. It gets harder with time. Bush is a liar, so is Blair. No one can refute that.

 

The below pics were all taken on the same day.

 

Sunrise, looking directly across where the towers used to stand

 

Hole, two tower shadows

 

Citizens of NYC, Central Park

[Ocean11 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by soubriquet:
You're right bobby. It's a conspiracy between the American Christian Right, the Jews and the Arabs.

Aliens are just landing outside my house....

They are sending probes into my pleasure centres.

I'll be back tomorrow.

Are you trying to make a point about conspiracy theorizing ?

[sunrise 0]

Great article. I was interested in the JFK stuff too.

 

I didn't watch the whole video, I'm pretty sure I've already seen it awhile back.

[JPchucky 0]

SR, this is an updated video that was out before.

 

Heres an article from PM debunking all of these "facts".

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

 

Ofcourse I don't really believe this either.

I def. believe that there was some foul play here.

[soubriquet 0]

When I see the words "science" and "truth" in the same sentence, and the word "not" is omitted, my bullshit detector goes to red. Truth is nothing to do with science, and everything to do with faith.

 

From one of your links, O11, under the "Peer reviewed papers" section. I picked this one because it was first.

 

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 

Jones dismisses the possibility that "the" fire could have melted steel "... Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.""

 

The he goes on to hypothesise that the only way to generate the neccesary heat is to use thermite. Bang, off goes the hare.

 

The author, and the "peer" (Lord Lucan?) who reviewed this tosh know absolutely nothing about steel. Mild steel melts at around 1370°C, not 1500, but don't let facts get in the way of a good theory. Before it melts, steel burns, an exothermic reaction. If the heat is trapped, once the fire starts, it will keep going till either the fuel or the oxygen runs out.

 

How hot does steel need to be in order to burn? Here's an experiment kiddies, and you can try this one at home. Take a bog standard UK coal fire, such as may be found in any house built before 1950, light a good fire, and let it burn till you have a good bed of coals. Then place the end of the poker in the coals and leave for five minutes. Withdraw the poker, and hey presto, it's burning. Spitting and crackling like a sparkler. (Be careful, don't let your parents catch you).

 

So, you can burn steel in an open coal fire, but not in 10,000 tonnes of collapsed plastic, wood, paint and fabric it seems.

 

So here is the recipe for a good conspiracy theory. Start with a lie (1500 vs 1370C). Construct a straw man (kerosene burns at 1000C so can't melt steel). Then move straight to the conclusion (thermite). Be careful not to consider any alternatives. A few equations can be useful to impress the gullible.

[Ocean11 0]

Hmmm. Well I don't know exactly what your credentials are when it comes to judging this sort of thing, but my 'faith' tends to lie with their rather than your say-so. I have seen films of other steel-frame buildings burning like veritable volcanoes, and they don't collapse.

 

Even if you had debunked a huge myth about one aspect of the incident, there are far too many others.

 

You will have a hard time sneering your way convincingly through 3 steel framed buildings collapsing on one day alone, and 4 jets disappearing completely with all on board on that same day.

[Ocean11 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by soubriquet:
When I see the words "science" and "truth" in the same sentence, and the word "not" is omitted, my bullshit detector goes to red. Truth is nothing to do with science, and everything to do with faith.

And that statement has my bullshit detector off the scale. It's rare to hear somebody deny that forensic science has any value whatsoever - especially one who claims to be a scientist.

[soubriquet 0]

The one "fact" quoted is easily verified, but it was not. How much faith am I supposed to have in something which is demonstrably wrong?

 

I'm not interested in argument for its own sake, but when I see garbage masquerading as science, I'm going to call it.

 

Lightweight steel framed buildings do bend and collapse when the contents burn. Next time an industrial warehouse near you goes up in flames, go and watch. The exciting part is usually when the steel girdered roof collapses into the fire with a big whoosh and a great burst of flame and sparks.

 

Each to his own.

[Ocean11 0]

Well that's a perfect example of a strawman masquerading as science. Those 3 buildings were not lightweight steel framed buildings - they were concrete and steel buildings designed to withstand multiple aircraft hits. And yet one collapsed without even being hit. Odd? No, miraculous.

[soubriquet 0]

That wasn't a straw man. I was merely pointing out that even simple fires in simple buildings, i.e. not supporting heavy weight, can get hot enough for the steel to soften and bend.

 

I missed this one.

"And that statement has my bullshit detector off the scale. It's rare to hear somebody deny that forensic science has any value whatsoever - especially one who claims to be a scientist."

 

Geology is a forensic science. Events happened in the past, when there was no-one to observe them, or deep undergound where we can't see them. We put the story together from the pieces of evidence which are available to us. Two different geologists, if they are competent, will most likely make a similar interpretation of the same evidence, but there will be differences. If they are competent, neither will regard his interpretation as the "truth", and they will accept that further work or advances in knowledge will lead to refinement or re-interpretation.

 

Kelvin, Lord of the cooling curve, applied the laws of Physics to the Earth and came up with a maximum age of (about) 30 million years. The geological community wanted it to be much older than that, but they couldn't argue against the laws of physics, so they wore it. When radioactivity was discovered, it proved to be the source of the heat which keeps the Earth's core molten. The geologists were right and Kelvin was wrong, but it does not diminish Kelvin's work or stature as a scientist.

 

Ocean, I know nothing about the events of 9/11 other than what was presented on the news. I don't neccesarily buy the official line, but nor do I believe everything I read on the internet. Can we leave it at that?