A Conspiracy Theorist discovers the truth

[HOZ]

Been a bad couple of weeks for the CT's. First BinLaden is shown talking with the hi-jackers about the "UPCOMING" attacks and now this.

A scientist using "SCIENCE" and "FACTS" to discover that...golly gee wiz....the official story was true.

The enduring conspiracy factor

In Hamilton, Frank Greening, a retired Ontario Hydro physical chemistry scientist, followed the conspiracy debate and developed a computer code to recreate the rate of collapse of the towers.

He expected his study would lend credence to the conspiracy theorists, but to his surprise, it showed that trauma at upper levels could indeed bring down the buildings in the manner and rate that occurred.

Then he gets BUSHED... errr OUTED?

After he posted his rebuttal on The Journal of 9/11 Studies website, he was accused of being a Bush toady.

"Frankly," he says, "some of the reaction freaked me out."

Remember people...when you can't attack the facts...attack the messenger.

[Vulcan]

I'm not a CT but I didn't see any science or facts in that article.

[arsenal]

Me too. Hope he releases his program.

[Daradon]

Hmmm yeah, no talk about his program or his formula. Where are said 'facts' and said 'science'?

Also interesting that this is published in The Star.

For the record, I don't believe it was a controlled demolition or anything like that. I do have many questions about the event, questions even that lead to wonder if the Stares knew about the attacks and even sponsored them.

(in some way or some fashion, some branch or shadowy group. Not saying this is my strongest belief, but there are so many questions that are still left because the government has acted so poorly and so secretive about the whole thing. If they admitted honest mistakes and didn't have such a weird track record afterwards, than maybe many wouldn't feel this way)

But this is a pretty weak argument against that. There is no proof, facts, or science in this article.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Remember people...when you can't attack the facts...attack the messenger.

Ah yes, the current Administration's motto and that of most Right Wing 'analysts'.

[HOZ]

Do I really have to explain? Really?

3 people miss the point. Wonder how many more?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Wow, real strong article there HOZ. Not a single shred of proof of anything. Not even an admission of the guy that he has changed his mind about anything, just that he wants to meet with the 9/11 Scholars face-to-face to debate/discuss matters. Yup, that certainly means he's "found Bush".

What really irks me about this article is the lack of depth to it. The clown who wrote it looks at the surface of the most popular theories and ties them together as one. That is typical of the ignorant who haven't read more than five minutes on the subject and hang on whatever the infotainment industry has to say. Many of the theories he mentioned have merit on their own, or have been proven as valid and true (like the bin Laden video), but when you string them together without the proper context framing each issue, they become this fantastic story that does become implausible. That is what is missing in all of this is context.

Oh, and yeah HOZ, that latest bin Laden video that was released was really damning! It showed him with some of the hi jackers? No! Say it isn't so!!! Could it be that video was made with snippets of footage taken from years prior to that? No, that was shot in one continuous sequence, right smart guy? That video was almost as damn ing as the one where Rumsfeld shakes hands with Hussein. I guess that means something special in your little world of intrigue! OH MY GOD!!! That IS proof the Bush administration was in on it!!! If Rumsfeld was seen shaking hands with Hussein, and Hussein has been linked directly to the war on terror, I guess that means Rumsfeld is a terrorist too!!! Call out the military, the Bush Administration has to declare war on the Bush Administration!!!

Between the "released video" and the announcement by the U.S. representatives that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, its been a very bad couple weeks for the Bushies. So lets see, the count against the link to Iraq now includes the UN, the CIA, the FBI, the 9/11 Commission, and now the house of representatives. Who's having the bad couple of weeks?

[Flashpoint]

Considering how badly Bush's administration has bungled everything it has touched (the Bizzaro-Midas effect), it would be nothing short of a miracle for them to have managed to bring down an airliner and not have anyone know about it.

Let alone 3.

And fire a cruise missle at his own military headquarters?

The man couldn't even stop reading "My Pet Goat" for christsakes. He groped the German Chancellor at a G8 meeting (note - NOT MEATING), and chews with his mouth open.

Yet people think he could orchistrate something of the magnitude of 9/11? He can't find his ass with both hands.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Considering how badly Bush's administration has bungled everything it has touched (the Bizzaro-Midas effect), it would be nothing short of a miracle for them to have managed to bring down an airliner and not have anyone know about it.

Let alone 3.

And fire a cruise missle at his own military headquarters?

The man couldn't even stop reading "My Pet Goat" for christsakes. He groped the German Chancellor at a G8 meeting (note - NOT MEATING), and chews with his mouth open.

Yet people think he could orchistrate something of the magnitude of 9/11? He can't find his ass with both hands.

I'm pretty sure the 'conspiracy-theorists' focus a lot more on Bush's supporting staff than the man himself. There's pretty much consensus agreement on the fact that Bush is an idiot, but guys like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Negroponte, Wolfowitz are no idiots. I'm not saying I believe anything one way or the other, but I don't think the 'crazies' believe Bush personally is an evil genius, moreso the company he keeps (his Dad's buddies).

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Considering how badly Bush's administration has bungled everything it has touched (the Bizzaro-Midas effect), it would be nothing short of a miracle for them to have managed to bring down an airliner and not have anyone know about it.

Let alone 3.

And fire a cruise missle at his own military headquarters?

The man couldn't even stop reading "My Pet Goat" for christsakes. He groped the German Chancellor at a G8 meeting (note - NOT MEATING), and chews with his mouth open.

Yet people think he could orchistrate something of the magnitude of 9/11? He can't find his ass with both hands.

The CEO of Ford is an idiot. Does that make every person who works for him an idiot?

The majority of the intelligence and planning for a caper such of this magnitude would have taken years to pull together. Bush would have still been ****ing up Texas as governor. Its the other suspects that were bouncing around Washington, participating in extreme right wing thinktanks, and getting cozy with the military industrial complex. Bush just happened to be a dude dumb enough to get into bed with these guys. Bush couldn't even find oil in Texas, so there is no way he is a mastermind of anything.

Here are some interesting observations on the Bush admin. Anyone that has been an "outsider" to the PNAC, or unwilling to embrace the neo-conservative agenda, has been sent packing. They have been used to sell certain aspects of their agenda, and then quietly shoved out the door. Colin Powell sold the war in Iraq and was immediately pushed out the door. John Ashcroft sold the USA Patriot Act and then was shoved out the door. As soon as you lose your usefulness, you become a scapegoat. Seems to me they have a playbook and are just executing the components they have wanted to for years.

One last little tidbit. The Bush admin has been all hot and bothered about bin Laden and trying to build a link between him and Hussein to justify "the war on terror". We have found out that from multiple sources that there is now way that Hussein and bin Laden were in cahoots to plan 9/11 as they hated each other. Even when the Bush admin attempted to manufacture evidence they came up short. So it appears the two great masterminds of 9/11 had no relationship at all, so there is no link. But what about the other way? It is well documented that the Bush family, and Dumbya, have a long relationship with the bin Ladens. If the Bush admin is willing to go to such lengths to manufacture a relationship to justify a war, maybe they would invade a country (Afghanistan) to distract from a relationship? Maybe the relationship that should be more closely examined is the Bush/bin Laden relationship? Just spitballing.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Wow, real strong article there HOZ. Not a single shred of proof of anything. Not even an admission of the guy that he has changed his mind about anything, just that he wants to meet with the 9/11 Scholars face-to-face to debate/discuss matters. Yup, that certainly means he's "found Bush".

What really irks me about this article is the lack of depth to it. The clown who wrote it looks at the surface of the most popular theories and ties them together as one. That is typical of the ignorant who haven't read more than five minutes on the subject and hang on whatever the infotainment industry has to say. Many of the theories he mentioned have merit on their own, or have been proven as valid and true (like the bin Laden video), but when you string them together without the proper context framing each issue, they become this fantastic story that does become implausible. That is what is missing in all of this is context.

Oh, and yeah HOZ, that latest bin Laden video that was released was really damning! It showed him with some of the hi jackers? No! Say it isn't so!!! Could it be that video was made with snippets of footage taken from years prior to that? No, that was shot in one continuous sequence, right smart guy? That video was almost as damn ing as the one where Rumsfeld shakes hands with Hussein. I guess that means something special in your little world of intrigue! OH MY GOD!!! That IS proof the Bush administration was in on it!!! If Rumsfeld was seen shaking hands with Hussein, and Hussein has been linked directly to the war on terror, I guess that means Rumsfeld is a terrorist too!!! Call out the military, the Bush Administration has to declare war on the Bush Administration!!!

Between the "released video" and the announcement by the U.S. representatives that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, its been a very bad couple weeks for the Bushies. So lets see, the count against the link to Iraq now includes the UN, the CIA, the FBI, the 9/11 Commission, and now the house of representatives. Who's having the bad couple of weeks?

Lanny, again....comprehension is just not your strong point. So I will explain.

The article was about how someone who was once like you and believed incredible stories like "The missile from the hairy gnome that killed Kennedy."

Instead of just sitting around and swapping CT stories over beers this enterprising fellow decided to prove once and for all that he and the CT's were right. So he set up an experiment and low and behold...he found that his experiment showed that the official story was right.

When he tried to show this to others he was personally attacked. Not his evidence (whatever it may be) but him personally. Hence my last statement.

That is what the article was about.

Understand?

[Five-hole]

Aren't the engineering drafts and layouts etc. from the WTC classified material presently? I find it hard to believe this experiment is anything more than constructing a tower out of balsa wood, throwing a molotov cocktail at it, and going, "look! It fell over!"

Just because somebody, somewhere did an "experiment" doesn't mean that experiment proved anything. There are actual, honest, scientific experiments that end up being scrapped due to a manifold of possible flaws.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Lanny, again....comprehension is just not your strong point. So I will explain.

The article was about how someone who was once like you and believed incredible stories like "The missile from the hairy gnome that killed Kennedy."

Instead of just sitting around and swapping CT stories over beers this enterprising fellow decided to prove once and for all that he and the CT's were right. So he set up an experiment and low and behold...he found that his experiment showed that the official story was right.

When he tried to show this to others he was personally attacked. Not his evidence (whatever it may be) but him personally. Hence my last statement.

That is what the article was about.

Understand?

No offence, HOZ, but this post gets at your point 100% better than the first post. Its 100% clearer.

As well, if you post this, you know its going to be a debate about so-called conspiracies or not; and in this includes the article you referenced.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Lanny, again....comprehension is just not your strong point. So I will explain.

No, it appears your ability to write sucks ass as hard as your taste in hockey teams does. It seesm that everyone else who read the post, and the article, came up with the same thing I did.

The article was about how someone who was once like you and believed incredible stories like "The missile from the hairy gnome that killed Kennedy."

Instead of just sitting around and swapping CT stories over beers this enterprising fellow decided to prove once and for all that he and the CT's were right. So he set up an experiment and low and behold...he found that his experiment showed that the official story was right.

When he tried to show this to others he was personally attacked. Not his evidence (whatever it may be) but him personally. Hence my last statement.

That is what the article was about.

Understand?

I understand what you are saying, but the article appears to be full of crap. Did it outline any of the details of this guy's experiments? Nope. Did is give the reason why the 9/11 Scholars were igoring this guy? Nope. Frankly, the article sounds like sour grapes. The 9/11 Scholars are all about peer review. They live by it in their professional lives, so it is VERY unlikely that they are just going to dismiss this guy's findings like you suggest. I get the feeling that he submitted his work to the 9/11 Scolars for review, they looked at his findings and pointed out some inconsistent data, and this guy took it personally. Sounds like this guy ran to the press to grind his axe rather than take the criticism from the peer review. If this guy's data is so spot on, why is he not publishing it in the article and why is he not having it independently reviewed? Seems like a load of bull**** to me.

The article is weak from the word go. The writer did a **** poor job at trying to get any point across other than all conspiracy theories are nutty (failing to recognize that the government's story is a conspiracy theory itself). There should have been more details in the story, and there wasn't. Bad reporting, no story, and a stupid link from a stupid person. All-in-all, you're having a very bad 24 hours.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

No, it appears your ability to write sucks ass as hard as your taste in hockey teams does. It seesm that everyone else who read the post, and the article, came up with the same thing I did.



I understand what you are saying, but the article appears to be full of crap. Did it outline any of the details of this guy's experiments? Nope. Did is give the reason why the 9/11 Scholars were igoring this guy? Nope. Frankly, the article sounds like sour grapes. The 9/11 Scholars are all about peer review. They live by it in their professional lives, so it is VERY unlikely that they are just going to dismiss this guy's findings like you suggest. I get the feeling that he submitted his work to the 9/11 Scolars for review, they looked at his findings and pointed out some inconsistent data, and this guy took it personally. Sounds like this guy ran to the press to grind his axe rather than take the criticism from the peer review. If this guy's data is so spot on, why is he not publishing it in the article and why is he not having it independently reviewed? Seems like a load of bull**** to me.

The article is weak from the word go. The writer did a **** poor job at trying to get any point across other than all conspiracy theories are nutty (failing to recognize that the government's story is a conspiracy theory itself). There should have been more details in the story, and there wasn't. Bad reporting, no story, and a stupid link from a stupid person. All-in-all, you're having a very bad 24 hours.

Another typical juvy-Lanny post. Blah, blah swear, insult, blah, blah, insult, blah, blah, swear......zzzzzzz

9/11 scholars? Any relationship to cultists?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[White Doors]

Can you get a degree in 9-11 on the internet?
I think I may have seen a pop-up about that - Lanny, are you behind this?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Another typical juvy-Lanny post. Blah, blah swear, insult, blah, blah, insult, blah, blah, swear......zzzzzzz

In response to another mindless piece of crap post by you. Do you bother to read any of the garbage you post and actually consider the content, or do you just find headlines that you think fit your point of view and toss them out there? This article is a joke.

And another brilliant reply by you too. Did you defend the content of your posts from the questions I posed? Nope. Just a lot of arm waving. Typical of you.

9/11 scholars? Any relationship to cultists?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh man, that's HILARIOUS!!!!! Wow, do you write your own stuff? Is it in magenta crayola?