9/11 conspiracy theorists energized

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You do realize that the elevators in the WTC were staggered to provide efficient service. The only elevator that ran the entire height of the building was the freight elevator, and it was on the other side of the building from where the plane struck the first tower, so this theory is impossible as the fuel would have burned long before it had a chance to run across the building, leak through the fire doors, run ~500 feet to the lobby and explode. This is the equivalent of the JFK magic bullet. But hey, some people believe that bull**** story too.

Yes they were staggered. They were also made by Otis. All these theories seem to use the premise that this or that is impossible. Show me why it is impossible. Prove to me that the freight elevator wasn't breached and the fire doors were intact and the building wasn't damaged enogh to cause the elevators from the other sky lobbies to fall and that the shafts could of in no way concentrated the explosion sending burning jet fuel through them. Or, you could keep linking to websites that all use each other as sources.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

It always amazes me how consipracy theorists always go back to the mantra that us poor engineers hear all too often. Nothing like a good old fashoined "That won't work" to prove that all those guys with the fancy degrees don't know what they're talking about.

Sure the elevators are stagered, but they're all in a central core, and I'm pretty sure that there weren't airtight seals between all the shafts.

What about service conduits? In the empire state building I saw an open shaft that ran the full lenght of the building (I've even got a nice picuture looking down it) for things like power, telephone and other utilities, but I suppose it would be impossible for one of these to act as a conduit for fuel and fire to get to the bottome of the building because "That wouldn't work".

And as for the "The top of the building was tilting, but it fell straight down so it must have been an implosion" don't even get me stared on the flaws in that arguement. Basic grade 10 physics tells you that implosion or not, that building was gonna come straight down, and that if the top was tilting engough to topple over then there wasn't anything that could have stopped it from doing so, the "it should have toppled" arguement doesn't prove anything, because it's like trying to prove something by using the premise that the sky is red.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Lanny, am I getting old? I just don't have the fire to go round and round on these things any more.

You just aren't passionate about it. If it was impacting your life you would care about it. The events that took place on 9/11 have greatly impacted the United States. It is not the same country it was. It is not a land of freedom. What took place on 9/11 allowed the greatest power grab in U.S. History, and probably second only to what the Nazis did before WWII. The only way these things will get turned around is if the truth is exposed.

I think the biggest problem in this and many issues in the media saturated (internets, blogs, etc) world we now live in is the blur between fact and conjecture.

Do yourself a favor, and read a book. If you don't like the media you're reading, and find it to be full of ****, get another source that appeals to your sensibilities. I personally don't like reading the web any more. Unless I am trying to find a quick cross reference of information I would prefer to read books on the subject matter, especially ones that take a critical look at events and follow the paper trail. I'm not talking Ann Coulter-esque fantasy garbage, which quite a few of the CT sites and theories themselves are, I am talking about stuff that is indeed cross referenced and sourced through multiple channels.

You guys can believe what ever you want. I don't believe it was an inside job, and my best reason for that is pure and plain logic. There are too many jouralists working for credible agencies looking to make a name for themselves to leave this topic alone if it was as cut and dried as the conspiracy theorists make it out to be. All of these guys choose to leave it? How many people are we talking 10,000? 20,000? more?

Doesn't add up.

And who are these journalists that are working for credible agencies? I can't name a journalist who has any balls any more. Not after what happened to Rather. The agency itself still has to okay the content to print it and to air it. With the fear that is prevalent in this country you are not going to see anyone take the risk. No one rocks the boat anymore, as its not patriotic.

BTW... there are some very good books on the subject, that take a critical approach to the evidence. As I said earlier, read one. Put down your Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity and pick up a book that uses some critical thought for a change.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

BTW... there are some very good books on the subject, that take a critical approach to the evidence. As I said earlier, read one. Put down your Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity and pick up a book that uses some critical thought for a change.

I don't think you see this in your own comments but you ripped Coulter, O'Reilly and Hannity in that reply.

I like O'Reilly but we've been through that before, I find Coulter too far out there and Hannity is boring, but that's beyond the point.

If you want to be as cerebral about this stuff as you claim to be you should be tossing out people you consider to be fringe on the other side as well.

If all your thoughts on these topics are anti-Bush, anti-right, anti-Republic Party you can't ever get to a truth as you describe it because the axe to grind keeps you from ever getting there.

I lean right, but I can detect stink on both sides of the aisle.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Yes they were staggered. They were also made by Otis. All these theories seem to use the premise that this or that is impossible. Show me why it is impossible. Prove to me that the freight elevator wasn't breached and the fire doors were intact and the building wasn't damaged enogh to cause the elevators from the other sky lobbies to fall and that the shafts could of in no way concentrated the explosion sending burning jet fuel through them. Or, you could keep linking to websites that all use each other as sources.

Okay, two reasons. First, the firemen in the building said it wasn't. There is sworn testimony from firemen and EMS crews who state the elevators were not breached. Second, that's the way the systems are engineered. You have a problem on one floor the systems are designed to prevent the problem from spreading. You know what fire proof doors are supposed to do? Prevent the spread of fire. But no, in your little dream world a highly flamable liquid, that is vaporized the minute the wings are shattered crashing into the facade of the WTC, is some how going to run across the floor, find its way through the fire doors in quantities enough to start catestrophic explosions elsewhere in the building. It's impossible!!!

Here's an experiment for you. Take a balloon filled with a highly flamable liquid like kerosene. Throw it at a flaming screen door. Now see how much liquid ends up hitting the ground. I'll give you a clue, next to none.

Now how do we know that the liquid fuel did not make this magic trip across the floor like you suggest? Because the floors were not comepletly incinerated. How do we know this, because survivors were seen hanging out of the holes in the facade after the fire had basically burned itself out (that would be the reason for all that black smoke, the fire was starving for fuel and oxygen). If the fuel had spread across the floor, and burned at the heat and duration the Commission report suggests, the people on those floors would have been barbequed. The fact that they were alive and waving for help proves without a doubt that the fires were not as intense as suggested, and that the fuel did not flow across the building.

Now, can you prove that what you "theorize" (and it is nothing but a theory as well) is correct? Can you disprove anything that I have outlined? The testimony, the science, the blue prints and the pictures don't lie. Your turn.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Bingo

There are too many jouralists working for credible agencies looking to make a name for themselves to leave this topic alone if it was as cut and dried as the conspiracy theorists make it out to be. All of these guys choose to leave it? How many people are we talking 10,000? 20,000? more?

I don't think that's how it works Bingo. Mainstream press is made to tow a certain line. Huge pressure from corporations (who own the news) and government to parrot the official news and not stir up trouble. Reporters who ask too many questions and raise too many issues get blackballed. If you wanna make a name for yourself you report the story they want.

As an example we can look no further than a segment in the The Corporation where a couple news journalists in the US discover that posilac (a drug made by Monsanto to increase milk production in cows) turns out to be dangerous. Their story was first quashed because Monsanto is a huge advertiser on the owner company of the affiliate they were working for and then brought back with any controversial claims removed. Neither Canada nor Britain allowed the drug past our food and drug administration agencies.

Both "Why We Fight" and "Manufacturing Consent" a couple documentaries I've watched recently touch on the issue of freedom of the press and biased reporting in the US Gov't favour.

I'm not saying I support these conspiracy theories. What I am saying is that saying, "Well some reporters would have uncovered it if it actually happened" is not necessarily true.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't think you see this in your own comments but you ripped Coulter, O'Reilly and Hannity in that reply.

I like O'Reilly but we've been through that before, I find Coulter too far out there and Hannity is boring, but that's beyond the point.

If you want to be as cerebral about this stuff as you claim to be you should be tossing out people you consider to be fringe on the other side as well.

If all your thoughts on these topics are anti-Bush, anti-right, anti-Republic Party you can't ever get to a truth as you describe it because the axe to grind keeps you from ever getting there.

I lean right, but I can detect stink on both sides of the aisle.

Come on Bingo, I was needling you because I know exactly what's on your nightstand. I know you read O'Reilly, Coulter and Hannity and privately dress like all of them (I really like you in that hot little red number Coulter wears). They are pundits and nohing more. They are just as bad as Moore, Frankin and Clavell. They are all bull**** artists and we know it.

Now, have I used any of them to support my case at all? No. I have used only scientists, academics and freelance investigative journalists who don't have the corporate filter to work through. I've done the research. I've read the testimony of those that were there and what they had to say about being at ground zero. The "official" story doesn't jive with those that were on the ground that day. The two are nothing alike apart from them taking place in New York and the WTC being hit by planes. After that, its night and day. All I ask you to do is to do the research. You saying you won't is exactly what those who made this happen want. They want you to buy a story that is full of holes and blatant lies so you'll go on with your life and they can go one making a mockery of our way of life. The only reason these people have power is because we give it to them. Never forget that. Do yourself a favor, and read a book on the subject. PM me and I'll happily give you a reading list and a safe place to start.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I don't think that's how it works Bingo. Mainstream press is made to tow a certain line. Huge pressure from corporations (who own the news) and government to parrot the official news and not stir up trouble. Reporters who ask too many questions and raise too many issues get blackballed. If you wanna make a name for yourself you report the story they want.

As an example we can look no further than a segment in the The Corporation where a couple news journalists in the US discover that posilac (a drug made by Monsanto to increase milk production in cows) turns out to be dangerous. Their story was first quashed because Monsanto is a huge advertiser on the owner company of the affiliate they were working for and then brought back with any controversial claims removed. Neither Canada nor Britain allowed the drug past our food and drug administration agencies.

Both "Why We Fight" and "Manufacturing Consent" a couple documentaries I've watched recently touch on the issue of freedom of the press and biased reporting in the US Gov't favour.

I'm not saying I support these conspiracy theories. What I am saying is that saying, "Well some reporters would have uncovered it if it actually happened" is not necessarily true.

Wow FDW, those are three great documentaries you bring up in that post. You surprise me.

[ken0042]

OK Lanny. I was starting to believe what you were saying, until you went and lost all credibility by using "hot little number" and "Coulter" in the same sentance.

[Barnes]

I hate Bush and I hate American foreign policy. I am a very logical person and I am very well read on a number of subjects. To assume that I, Shantz, or Bingo are not is unfair. I am skeptical of this so called theory because I haven't read or seen any conclusive evidence in my opinion that would sway me.

[White Doors]

Here's an experiment for you. Take a balloon filled with a highly flamable liquid like kerosene. Throw it at a flaming screen door. Now see how much liquid ends up hitting the ground. I'll give you a clue, next to none.

AHHHHH hahahahaha!!!!

But popular mechanics are a bunch of dumb ****s I suppose! That's Lanny's version of a scientific experiment! HAHAHAHA!!!!

oh man, that's good stuff.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I don't think that's how it works Bingo. Mainstream press is made to tow a certain line. Huge pressure from corporations (who own the news) and government to parrot the official news and not stir up trouble. Reporters who ask too many questions and raise too many issues get blackballed. If you wanna make a name for yourself you report the story they want.

As an example we can look no further than a segment in the The Corporation where a couple news journalists in the US discover that posilac (a drug made by Monsanto to increase milk production in cows) turns out to be dangerous. Their story was first quashed because Monsanto is a huge advertiser on the owner company of the affiliate they were working for and then brought back with any controversial claims removed. Neither Canada nor Britain allowed the drug past our food and drug administration agencies.

Both "Why We Fight" and "Manufacturing Consent" a couple documentaries I've watched recently touch on the issue of freedom of the press and biased reporting in the US Gov't favour.

I'm not saying I support these conspiracy theories. What I am saying is that saying, "Well some reporters would have uncovered it if it actually happened" is not necessarily true.

So how exactly did you hear about this Monsanto thing? Not a journalist was it?? Maybe it was just another one?
Seems to me like 20/20, W5 etc, they exist SOLELY to shake things up as it were...

my goodness..

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Drive by

BLAM http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html

Written well before Loose change bull****. Now everyone can go back to listening to actual scientists and not mis-quoted witnesses and "experts" in no particular related field.

Hmmm... the Hearst Corporation.... hmm... ever seen Citizen Kane?

My best suggestion is look at the pure evidence yourself and make an informed decision. Don't let someone else steer you one way or the other.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Hmmm... the Hearst Corporation.... hmm... ever seen Citizen Kane?

My best suggestion is look at the pure evidence yourself and make an informed decision. Don't let someone else steer you one way or the other.

How ironic.

Funny how people go around telling everyone PM is wrong because they're owned by a corporation.

Well no kidding.

And then you try to tell people to look elsewhere for their information, because, like Lanny, you think PM is dead wrong and has been torn to shreds by the people that know "everything" about 9/11.

Oh right, the Hearst Corporation...

[Azure]

One request Lanny; I doubt that any of us here have the willpower or the interest to start a long debate about 9/11, and considering how emotional the subject can get, I doubt most would start.

I know you find it highly interesting, so why not go to the site I will provide a link for, and post your arguements and let the people there argue with you?

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

Yes it is a forum, and as you will notice, those people will carry the threads over 50 pages on each different subject having something to do with 9/11.

And yes Lanny, take it as a direct challenge.....

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Come on Bingo, I was needling you because I know exactly what's on your nightstand. I know you read O'Reilly, Coulter and Hannity and privately dress like all of them (I really like you in that hot little red number Coulter wears). They are pundits and nohing more. They are just as bad as Moore, Frankin and Clavell. They are all bull**** artists and we know it.

See ...

a perfect example of what you think you know and what actually is the truth ... not always the same.

I've read two O'Reilly books and have never denied the fact that I like his straight forward style. Judging by US ratings for the guy I'm guessing I'm not alone. Don't agree with more than say 60% of what he says but I appreciate the directness.

However ... I have never read Hannity or Coulter so maybe just maybe what you know isn't actually a fact but more of an untested theory.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

See ...

a perfect example of what you think you know and what actually is the truth ... not always the same.

I've read two O'Reilly books and have never denied the fact that I like his straight forward style. Judging by US ratings for the guy I'm guessing I'm not alone. Don't agree with more than say 60% of what he says but I appreciate the directness.

However ... I have never read Hannity or Coulter so maybe just maybe what you know isn't actually a fact but more of an untested theory.

Just as long as you don't deny you like to dress like Ann Coulter.

Jesus Bingo, pull your panties out of your ass, I'm just poking fun at you. You know I know you read/like O'Reilly, and you know I know your feelings on Coulter and Hannity. You lean right, but you still have a brain in your head. So excuse me if I poke a little fun at you. I know it doesn't matter what I, or anyone else says on this subject, your mind is made up.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

One request Lanny; I doubt that any of us here have the willpower or the interest to start a long debate about 9/11, and considering how emotional the subject can get, I doubt most would start.

In Azure speak, that means "I don't have the information to discuss this subject and I'm completely lost, so if I can't participate it isn't worth discussing".

I know you find it highly interesting, so why not go to the site I will provide a link for, and post your arguements and let the people there argue with you?

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

Yes it is a forum, and as you will notice, those people will carry the threads over 50 pages on each different subject having something to do with 9/11.

Wow, how long did it take you to find that site? In other developments, Japan bombs Pearl Harbor!!!

And yes Lanny, take it as a direct challenge.....

Been there, done that. I've participated on many forums on the subject matter. So how about you go cry in a corner now? Consider that a direct challenge, dickhead.

How ironic.

Funny how people go around telling everyone PM is wrong because they're owned by a corporation.

Well no kidding.

And then you try to tell people to look elsewhere for their information, because, like Lanny, you think PM is dead wrong and has been torn to shreds by the people that know "everything" about 9/11.

Oh right, the Hearst Corporation...

Care to comment on the writer? Care to comment about his relationship with the head of DHS and how he made reference to sources who did not provide any information? Care to comment on the yellow journalism practices? Oh wait, I know, you don't know anything about that so we should take the thread to another board.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

In Azure speak, that means "I don't have the information to discuss this subject and I'm completely lost, so if I can't participate it isn't worth discussing".

In Lanny speak....I like to spam boards with my worthless points about a subject 90% of the people disagree with me on, and everytime someone posts a link or article to something that may disagree with me or my opinion, I call it BS, or the news the government controlled mainstream media drums up. I am afraid to go to a forum that is dedicated to discussing CTs, because, well you know I've been there done that.....which seems wierd to me because you can't seem to get over something where you've been there done that.

Anyone that believes they have a valid theory about 9/11 that is different from the mainstream idea, would certainly go to all ends in order to have it disproven.

Can you provide me links to forums where you've "been there done that" or is that your excuse for being afraid to take your ideas to another board?

In other words Lanny, you're afraid to go discuss your opinion with people that are more knowledgable in that field, because you like to fearmonger all of us into believing your viewpoint.

Gee whiz.

And yes, I fully admit I have absolutely no knowledge on this subject, so I look to other people to provide insight. I guess there is something wrong with challenging you to argue with people that know what they're talking about. But hey, if it makes you feel better knowing your opinion is 100% correct and untouched, go right ahead.

They just become worthless to me.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

In Lanny speak....I like to spam boards with my worthless points about a subject 90% of the people disagree with me on, and everytime someone posts a link or article to something that may disagree with me or my opinion, I call it BS, or the news the government controlled mainstream media drums up. I am afraid to go to a forum that is dedicated to discussing CTs, because, well you know I've been there done that.....which seems wierd to me because you can't seem to get over something where you've been there done that.

Wow, what a whiny bitch. Listen pal, if you don't like the thread, **** off and go read another one. There seem to be plenty of threads that you have a particular opinion on that conflicts with 90% of the board and no one attempts to censure you because they don't like your opinion. I guess I'll have to start throwing that one in your face on a regular basis.

What's really funny is that it was YOU that caused me to post what I did in my first post in this thread. I knew it was only a matter of time before you jumped in and cried about the thread and made some inane attack on the poster, not the information. I said I would debate the issues, one-on-one, and not put up with the dogpile mentaility. Low and behold, you didn't disappoint. Way to play your predictable part!

Anyone that believes they have a valid theory about 9/11 that is different from the mainstream idea, would certainly go to all ends in order to have it disproven.

And as I said, I defend what I what I believe. My motivation is to get people to examine the events and make up their own mind. The fact of the matter is that too many people are just too damn lazy to do the research and find out what happened or the likelihood of the "official" story being true. They swallow what ever story they are told. Ironically, if this were a thread on the main board discussing the Oilers we'd be telling them they have been drinking the kool-aid and not looking at things with a critical eye. Same things applies. Not many people make the effort to examine the story told, they prefer to drink the kool-aid.

Can you provide me links to forums where you've "been there done that" or is that your excuse for being afraid to take your ideas to another board?

I don't know why I should have to, as it is irrelevant to the subject matter being discussed. The fact of the matter is that this subject matter is so beyond you, and you are so poorly educated on what really happened, that you have to resort to an attack on me to detract from your own short-comings on the subject. You're just like White Doors. Just another nattering ignorant ******* who is in over their head on any subject they attempt to discuss and have to try and defend their lack of knowledge by being glib or trying to discredit the person they are debating. Your own ignorance and refual to attempt to educate yourself is what holds you back.

I don't post at TAR board, not because I am afraid, but because I don't like the guy's approach to things, and the people he attracts. There is no one more closed minded IMO that professional skeptic, Randi. I used to read his stuff, and his site, regularly, but I just lost interest after a while (too many wars). You know, the same reason I don't post on HF anymore. The people there just don't interest me as its dogpile after dogpile. Oh, and can Photon find any more links to boards that you would like to know why I don't post there?

[/quote]In other words Lanny, you're afraid to go discuss your opinion with people that are more knowledgable in that field, because you like to fearmonger all of us into believing your viewpoint.

Gee whiz. [/quote]

Fearmonger? Wow, nice arm waving. Why don't you just go stand on the roof of your house and scream out that you have no knowledge and are afraid to even attempt to garner new knowledge as it would challenge the tiny little box of a world you live in?

And yes, I do post on some other boards on this subject matter, but I prefer this one. I know the people here and their frame of reference. That makes the communication a little easier. The discussion on other boards is not as much fun as I don't have the familiar relationship I have here. This is my main board and this is the one I like to check all day. Crucify me for that.

And yes, I fully admit I have absolutely no knowledge on this subject, so I look to other people to provide insight. I guess there is something wrong with challenging you to argue with people that know what they're talking about. But hey, if it makes you feel better knowing your opinion is 100% correct and untouched, go right ahead.

They just become worthless to me.

Well nice to see you finally admit that you're a no-mind idiot. Now if you can go post this exact same information in every other thread you post in the board will be a much better place.

<--- A smilie face makes everything all good! Right jackass?