posted 01-29-2004 06:49 PM            

Well, then go somewhere else, Letxa, because we covered this material in depth! Don't you read? The links were there. If you can't except the information already given, already linked and argumented, then don't start it up again! If you aren't able to accept the information supporting the demolition theory (and it is a theory) then just drop it because at this level it's nothing but arguing opinions and gets into name-calling.

We, as intelligent people see the evidence mounting and that doesn't mean that all theories of 9/11 are tied into the WTC demolition theory by any means! It means in this thread those of us who are posting are obviously quite convinced that the information about the walk of the duck, the talk of the duck, and the motive of the duck to walk and talk make a whole lot more sense than those who want to call a duck a cat!

To us it's a duck!

To you it's a cat!

You have not proven the duck is a cat and we have proven to our satisfaction that the duck is a duck.

Whoever said you haven't proven your theory is correct. You haven't. All you do is shout to us duck seers and hearers that it's a cat and we get nowhere!

Larson already established his cat theory and although we don't agree, we accept that he sees it as a cat with (however less in volume and content) his efforts at disproving the duck theory. Kudos Larson, I'm not convinced, but it's appreciated. Standing on Larson's coattails is not appropriate either. We know where he's been, but we don't know where you've been and only you can prove it. You looking for engineers? Well we posted them. You looking for scientists, we posted them!

You, Letxa, are a different story. You shout cat and that's about it. Why don't you stick to chemtrails?

bc

posted 01-29-2004 08:24 PM            

quote:

---

If you aren't able to accept the information supporting the demolition theory (and it is a theory) then just drop it because at this level it's nothing but arguing opinions and gets into name-calling.

---

What information supporting the demolition theory are we talking about here? Are we talking about the article Mech posted that started this thread? The one frrom the high-school dropout with a PhD from the Star*School Technological University of New Mexico and who is working on a commercial flying saucer?

I mean, that's the material I originally responded to--the material posted by Mech. Don't scold me because a bunch of other people decided to bring old issues back into things. I'm not the one that started talking about passports surviving fires, for example.

If you (collectively) don't want to talk about things you've already "resolved," don't bring them up. But don't bring them up and then scold ME for responding.

quote:

---

You have not proven the duck is a cat and we have proven to our satisfaction that the duck is a duck.

---

Actually, the roles are reversed. Virtually the entire world sees a cat, but you are convinced you see a duck. You must prove it to the rest of the world or be considered rather quacky. Sorry, couldn't resist.

quote:

---

Larson already established his cat theory and although we don't agree, we accept that he sees it as a cat with (however less in volume and content) his efforts at disproving the duck theory. Kudos Larson, I'm not convinced, but it's appreciated.

---

That's what worries me. That the cat can be in clear view of the world and clearly proven by Wolf, yet you still see a duck. This is also why I'm not going to go out of my way to redo what Wolf has already done. It's clear you will never see the cat, but I'm still going to raise questions when I see new stuff that doesn't make sense.

I'm still waiting for the original author of Mech's article to reply to me in my request for his confirmation of the story. The company the person supposedly worked at (Kirkwood out of Ohio) still hasn't responded to me either. I'll be out of town for the weekend but if I haven't heard back from the company I'll probably give them a call on Monday.

quote:

---

We know were he's been, but we don't know where you've been and only you can prove it.

---

One nut at a time. My conspiracy time is currently focused on my RadarMatrix investigation. It will be a thorough investigation.

quote:

---

You looking for engineers? Well we posted them. You looking for scientists, we posted them!

---

How many out of all the engineers and scientists in the world or in the country? I'm not surprised you can find a few. You can usually find a few people to say anything. But I'm waiting for the rest of the engineers to back up what these guys have said. Even as few as 20% would get my attention. Heck, maybe even 10%.

posted 01-29-2004 09:45 PM            

Here's your first dragging in of the unrelated topics and you were the first to get personally judgmental with, "you people" ----- an unwise way to communicate.
"If you people believe there was more than just airplanes at work, fine--make an effort to explain it." We did!

You then said rather broad brushstroking and off the subject:
"Conspiracists tend to find the worst case scenario for every possible aspect of an event. Their theory is then based on the assumption that all those worst-case scenarios actually happened."

Not necessarily worst case, just plausible case!

Then shatoga responded with:
"The Bushistas assume that all worst case scenarios happened to their exclusive benefit.
That an immaculate "terrorist's" passport survived whereas the aircraft engines did not...
and other fairy tales

that "terrorists" left weapons and documents behind in rental cars, instead of taking them with them for use."

And we all jumped on the bandwagon and it started rolling off into past investigations and old arguments.

And your question:

"Which previous 9/11 thread? I'd like to visit it and see the link and review that."

And then you called all conspiracists religionists!

I don't like being called a name or put in a category, personally. I'm just me and I did my work and came up with a conclusion and so be it. I listen to my analytical mind and I trust it. Mech's a vet, shatoga's a vet, and I was a teacher and we're not part of a nutcase kind of group! No way! Time will reveal the truth of various theories!

Just go back to look on previous pages for the WTC demolition thread. It's not hard to find. It's probably less then 4 pages back and it's very long and you said you had read it and agreed with Larson, remember?

You honestly need to read all the given links and articles on the duck side. Otherwise you are arguing from ignorance, which was the whole reason for my duck metaphor! Or leave it alone!

bc

posted 01-30-2004 01:00 AM            

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000440.html

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001397.html

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001445.html

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001567.html

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001754.html

posted 01-30-2004 01:06 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
The one frrom the high-school dropout with a PhD from the Star*School Technological University of New Mexico and who is working on a commercial flying saucer?

---

Since Dr. LeBreton’s resume is the butt of some rather negative comments, I would like to shed some light here on his grand accomplishments and reclaim some well deserved credibility! Disclaimer: the fact that LeBreton has Yanni playing as his background music has nothing to do with this – heh, heh. (Yanni is some serious MIND-OPENING music – maybe some of us need to slow down and have a nice long listen!)

1976: Working with Classified Technology; I worked with the U.S. Army’s Materials & Development Command to initiate research into electronic Stealth Cloaking of Tanks, Helicopters, etcera.

1977: Designed a telescope amplifier for Los Alamos Laboratory utilizing the idea of a field-ion microscope coupled with a light antenna.

1979: Designed the first 16-bit Personal Home Desktop Computer based on the new Motorola MC-68,000 CPU.

1983: Became one of President Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” Science Ad- visors and worked on the design of Anti- Satellite/Missile Lasers with Lawrence Livermore Labs.

1985: Worked with Ann Gorsuch, Director of The Environmental Protection Agency toward developing technology to safely de-molecularize toxic and hazardous wastes.

1986: Formed “Magnetic Transitions Co.” as a Division of Psitronics Group; to build “Self-Sustaining Magnetic Motors” to power cars, helicopters, trucks, portable generators, etc. without fuel of any type.

1998: Received a Biographical Listing with Marquis “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering.”

2000: Received a Biographical Listing in the publication: “1,000 World Leaders of Influence” by American Biographical Publishers. Currently engaged in the design of the first commercial flying saucer in conjunction with Lockheed-Martin Aerospace Company.

I believe those accomplishments could not have been made by your regular Joe Blow. And that last project (in conjunction with Lockheed) IS a big deal! Instead of mocking him directly, maybe you should reach the Project Engineer at Lockheed, give them your name, and tell HIM that their project is nothing but a useless joke.

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:an internal combustion engine to run Perpetually with Permanent Magnets providing the energy, rather than fuel." (Wonder why we're still fueling our cars 28 years later).

---

Letxa! Are you that naďve you even have to ask? Do you actually think that free energy is even an idea in the sick minds that control energy consumption on this planet? This type of technology would affect the lining of their pockets! There we go again – greed!!!!!!

posted 01-30-2004 12:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Does it have to be a certain percentage of the nation's or world's engineers? Or can a handful of engineers who support the duck theory simply be right?

---

No, it doesn't have to be a certain percentage. But it should be at least a substantial number of them. When just a few people in the field are saying something and the vast majority of the field is saying something else, the layman (you and I) is best off betting with the majority until such time as the minority can convince the majority in their field that they are right.

Does it not raise any red flags to you that they cannot even convince their colleagues of their assertions?

quote:

---

Here's your first dragging in of the unrelated topics and you were the first to get personally judgmental with, "you people" ----- an unwise way to communicate.

---

Perhaps it was not diplomatic, but it was an accurate observation based on the article posted by Mech, based on past theories and comments seen on this board, and as witnessed by the subsequent thread and it was pointing out an underlying logical problem with the whole article. It assumes that these rich people are not only greedy, they're murderers. And this is a common thread among many (maybe even most) of the theories we see here.

quote:

---

"If you people believe there was more than just airplanes at work, fine--make an effort to explain it." We did!

---

Actually, you just slammed me for apparently not reading some other thread that you thought was of value. Even a link to that thread would have been appreciated. But I didn't even get a tip as to which of the many WTC threads I was supposed to read.

That's not explaining it... that's brushing me off.

quote:

---

You then said rather broad brushstroking and off the subject: "Conspiracists tend to find the worst case scenario for every possible aspect of an event. Their theory is then based on the assumption that all those worst-case scenarios actually happened." Not necessarily worst case, just plausible case!

---

Take a class in statistics. The "worst case" is statistically unlikely. That a long series of worst case scenarios would occur is statistically and logically unlikely, much less plausible.

quote:

---

Then shatoga responded with:
"The Bushistas assume that all worst case scenarios happened to their exclusive benefit. That an immaculate "terrorist's" passport survived whereas the aircraft engines did not... and other fairy tales

---

Speaking of which, this is the third time I'm asking you this and I still haven't got a response from you: Is it your position that in any given disaster, fire, or explosion, every piece of paper is always vaporized? I would very much like to see a yes or no answer to that simple question.

quote:

---

that "terrorists" left weapons and documents behind in rental cars, instead of taking them with them for use."

---

And no-one has explained to me why that is odd. Why would a terrorist take a weapon on board when that would increase his likelihood of being stopped at security? Why would a terrorist take documents with him when he knows he himself is going to be dead within a few hours? In that situation, I myself would travel light!

quote:

---

And we all jumped on the bandwagon and it started rolling off into past investigations and old arguments.

---

Which you thought significant enough to bring up, but not significant enough to debate with a new member to the board. You might as well close down the site and post a banner "Forum closed, everything previously discussed."

quote:

---

And then you called all conspiracists religionists!

---

No, I most specifically did not. I said: "It's a religion for some of you. It's not a religion for me--give me some real evidence and I could accept it. But for those that this is a religion, evidence isn't enough--because they believe it on faith."

I didn't specify you. I didn't specify "all conspiracists." I didn't call anyone a name. I said "some of you" and I stand by that.

quote:

---

I don't like being called a name or put in a category, personally.

---

Check the thread. You were the one that used the word religionist. I never called anyone that.

quote:

---

I'm just me and I did my work and came up with a conclusion and so be it. I listen to my analytical mind and I trust it.

---

But do you have the engineering and explosives background that would give your analytical mind the knowledge and background necessary for it to reach an accurate conclusion? I believe I have an analytical mind, but I don't, for example, claim to be qualified to evaluate the accuracy of the Theory of Relativity. I depend on those that understand it to make sense of it.

quote:

---

Just go back to look on previous pages for the WTC demolition thread. It's not hard to find. It's probably less then 4 pages back and it's very long and you said you had read it and agreed with Larson, remember?

---

Is that the thread you were talking about?? Of course I read it. But each theory and statement was answered by Wolf with factual references to solid authorities in the field. If that's your proof, your proof is lacking.

quote:

---

You honestly need to read all the given links and articles on the duck side.

---

This is busy work. As I asked with Chemtrails, is there not SOME link that someone with a life can sit down and read and have the case clearly made for them? Or is this whole thing always going to degrade into people telling me to read a thousand links?

posted 01-30-2004 01:08 PM            

quote:

---

Since Dr. LeBreton’s resume is the butt of some rather negative comments, I would like to shed some light here on his grand accomplishments and reclaim some well deserved credibility! Disclaimer: the fact that LeBreton has Yanni playing as his background music has nothing to do with this – heh, heh. (Yanni is some serious MIND-OPENING music – maybe some of us need to slow down and have a nice long listen!)

---

I disable music on websites, didn't even realize Yanni was playing. I would prefer Enya myself.

quote:

---

1976: Working with Classified Technology; I worked with the U.S. Army’s Materials & Development Command to initiate research into electronic Stealth Cloaking of Tanks, Helicopters, etcera.

1977: Designed a telescope amplifier for Los Alamos Laboratory utilizing the idea of a field-ion microscope coupled with a light antenna.

---

The reason I didn't mention his "achievements" is because, given most of his resume and his current work, I can't say that I believe him.

Google search for: " "Robert L. Parish Sr." Los Alamos": No matches.

Google search for: "Los Alamos "field ion" "light antenna"": No matches (except his resume).

Los Alamos search for "Paul Lebreton" and "Robert Lebreton": No matches.

quote:

---

1979: Designed the first 16-bit Personal Home Desktop Computer based on the new Motorola MC-68,000 CPU.

---

Which raises the question why isn't he rich and why haven't we heard of him? He should be up there with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

quote:

---

1983: Became one of President Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” Science Ad- visors and worked on the design of Anti- Satellite/Missile Lasers with Lawrence Livermore Labs.

---

Scientists associated with the "Star Wars" program call it "SDI" (Strategic Defense Initiative), not Star Wars

Google search for "LeBreton Reagan": Nothing relevant except his resume.

Google search for "Robert LeBreton "Star Wars"": No matches.

quote:

---

1985: Worked with Ann Gorsuch, Director of The Environmental Protection Agency toward developing technology to safely de-molecularize toxic and hazardous wastes.

---

Google search for "LeBreton "Ann Gorsuch"": No matches.

quote:

---

1986: Formed “Magnetic Transitions Co.” as a Division of Psitronics Group; to build “Self-Sustaining Magnetic Motors” to power cars, helicopters, trucks, portable generators, etc. without fuel of any type.

---

The company does not seem to exist except on the same website that his resume exists on. I also haven't heard of any technological news coming out of that company since 1986.

I can form a company to cure cancer... doesn't mean much unless I actually have something to show for it within a few years. Or maybe a payroll or an R&D budget or some incremental results.

quote:

---

1998: Received a Biographical Listing with Marquis “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering.”

---

This is not much of a challenge. You can submit your own bio. They also spam invitations, as apparent here. I'm pretty sure I've received email from them in the past inviting me to submit my bio to them. I tossed it out with the rest of the spam.

quote:

---

2000: Received a Biographical Listing in the publication: “1,000 World Leaders of Influence” by American Biographical Publishers.

---

Same as above.

quote:

---

Currently engaged in the design of the first commercial flying saucer in conjunction with Lockheed-Martin Aerospace Company.

---

I am aware of no commercial flying saucer program at Lockheed-Martin, are you? And if it's a classified program then he darned well wouldn't be posting that on his public resume.

Not to mention, let's not forget "1976: Received the “Undiscovered Genius Award” given by Repco Company. Designed the first successful “Perpetual Motion” Device; and designed an internal combustion engine to run “Perpetually” with Permanent Magnets providing the energy, rather than fuel."

You can't have an internal combustion engine without fuel. If it doesn't have fuel it wouldn't be internal combustion! You'd think that an "undiscovered genius" would know that. And a perpetual motion device? You'd think the fact that he has disproven a basic law of physics would generate a little bit of interest beyond the Repco Company, wouldn't you?

quote:

---

And that last project (in conjunction with Lockheed) IS a big deal! Instead of mocking him directly, maybe you should reach the Project Engineer at Lockheed, give them your name, and tell HIM that their project is nothing but a useless joke.

---

What is the real name for the project? I'd be happy to give them a call and inquire. I seriously doubt it's called the "commercial flying saucer" project and it's surprising this guy would list the name of the project on his resume by such an unofficial, X-Files sounding name.

quote:

---

This type of technology would affect the lining of their pockets! There we go again – greed!!!!!!

---

Well, we already discussed "free energy" in another thread and I see no reason to go into it again here... other than to say an "internal combustion engine without fuel" is a contradiction in terms that such a smart man should know. I get the impression he doesn't really know.

quote:

---

I bet you’d find them kooky just like you said about LeBreton’s UFO project, but interesting thing is, his devices work!

---

Well when they work I'd like to see them. And I'm not suggesting that R&D into "Far out" technologies is bad. It's great!

But this LeBreton guy claims to be working on stuff that I'd expect to see some results within the last 2 decades. He claims associations which don't seem to be documented anywhere except his resume. He claims to have a PhD but doesn't cite where he got it or what field his PhD is in. He points to "Undiscovered Genius Awards" that most professionals would wipe off their resume after their first job or two and probably after getting their PhD. His resume has a level of professionalism I'd associated with a teenager, not a scientist who has been a presidential adviser.

In short, I just don't buy it. If he has done all the things he says, great, kudos to him and I stand corrected. But the fact of the matter is that there is not a single thing that seems to be verifiable on his resume. And he still hasn't responded to my simple question as to whether he can verify the story Mech posted. Not "yes", not a "no," not a "no comment." Nothing.

posted 01-30-2004 01:11 PM            

AGAIN, AGAIN, and AGAIN, just read and if you want to respond to what has been presented in the demolition thread, please feel free. I'm sure shatoga or swamp will jump in to repond to your comments, but again, without reading the same links that they would give you today (other than updated information which this thread was offering) everyone knows you're arguing from a position of less information. Gawd, am I having deja vu here?

Truly, the links don't take long to read.

AGAIN, if you don't have time -- don't bother. But don't start accusing people here who have read, who HAVE researched of not having credible sources and not having the intelligence to know a good source from a faulty source! You ARE offensive in your ignorance and your blatant attempt to discredit all of the sources we have read when indeed you haven't read squat!!!!

You obviously have an analytical mind, so apply it.

I trust mine, as I said, and no, I'm not an engineer of building collapse, physics, or the science of high heat and various materials, but I am capable of reading the writings of those who are! And so are you!

The supporting evidence, beyond the scientific articles (which ARE there) is a matter of logic and deductive reasoning. If one, however, cannot use comparative thinking skills and cannot take one side AND the other and follow the logical threads as countering lawyers do in a murder case, then one cannot do this kind of reading and expect their own personal bias not to interfere.

As I've said before -- the evidence weighs much more heavily on the demolition side considering witnesses (more than 2 dozen), motive, photos as witness, and expert testimony all of which are used in courts of law and in legal hearings as well as government investigative bodies.

Start a thread titled "Demolition Resurrected" and counter every link given on the demolition side. Post #1 article such and such -- your response. Post #2 article -- post your response, etc. etc. Take an article and rip it to shreds. Then you'll get some arguments. This is my recommendation, otherwise expect to be ignored.

This is how it is.

To be able to debate is to know both sides of an argument and know that a particular source is indeed bogus or it is indeed credible. Now, if you have indeed studied the links given, and don't want to give us your reasons why you feel they're not credible, then again, it's your opinion and your not explaining your opinion is grounds for others to not put in any effort to respond to you. A foundationless opinion means nothing as you know. You must be able to say -- this article is false because: blah blah blah. This point is false because: blah blah blah. That's precisely what we did on that thread.

Here's a link if you want it:
http://www.physics911.org/net

I don't remember what all is on that link and whether it's updated, but you could start with that. I do believe Larson looked at a few of the articles there and tried to argue them.

JBE defended the credibility of a person you discredited as a respectable source. I hope you respond to her.

You see, we are not faith-based conspiracy nuts as you would have it. You still should investigate and research yourself in order to know whether our sources are credible or not. Just reading a discussion and siding with the person who holds your own personal bias view -- is not academic argument by any stretch of the imagination! Just hold the paradigm of a court of law in your mind and find your evidence for both sides. Or take the opposite side, the demolition theory, and shoot it full of holes, but you must do it in an academic and supported way.

Deja Vu!

Otherwise -- let it go and concentrate on something else!

bc

posted 01-30-2004 01:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Your general way of communicating with your various words and phrases lead me to believe that #1 I'm a conspiracy theorist

---

Don't take that in a negative context, but you are, in fact, a conspiracy theorist. You do believe that 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy, do you not? That WTC was collapsed by demolition? If so, you are a conspiracy theorist. That's fine--I didn't mean it to be insulting.

quote:

---

#2 some of us, and this board is fairly small, are not using or able to find facts therefore we're in the realm of faith and belief rather than factual confirmation.

---

I didn't mean to claim that people here aren't capable of finding the facts. I do, however, see a lot of evidence of selective use of the facts, and using the least probable set of "facts" available.

quote:

---

I don't view myself as a "conspiracy theorist" nor do I research without finding logical factual explanations for a theory including engineering explanations that I can logically understand

---

The problem I see is this: There are many sites that cater to conspiracists that do make a "logically understandable" case for what they're claiming. But there are two problems: 1) They are wrong. They spell it out, make it simple, but are just plain wrong. Just because they make it simple for the laymen to understand doesn't mean they're right. 2) There are relatively few people in the established professions (explosives, civil engineers, etc.) that are going to make much of a time investment to go to the same extent as the conspiracy websites to make it all easy to understand.

So what you get is an oversupply of "easy to understand" (and wrong) pages supporting the conspiracy viewpoint, and a lack of "easy to understand" (but right) pages supporting the viewpoint of the vast majority of the field. So when you investigate it you will see more of the former and less of the latter. That doesn't mean the easy-to-understand pages are right, though.

quote:

---

I did the work and it didn't take that much time. You are balking at work, once again, and this, as it was before, is our frustration with you.

---

Well, I'm glad you did the work and it didn't take much time. I've done the work, too, ever since the "How does the airplane fit in the Pentagon hole?" thing came out over 2 years ago. I've spent time on this. I have done the work. I've spent more time reading conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 than I have spoent reading material that supports the "official version" of events. And yet I haven't seen anything to convince me it's more than imagination on the part of conspiracy theorists.

posted 01-30-2004 02:36 PM            

Feel a need to respond to the "high school dropout" comments.

A neighborhood kid, (I dated his sister before enlisting into the Military)
had dropped out of school.

I got him a job, at a salvage yard/ towing/ auto shop, a Marine friend had bought.
(still trying to score points with the sister)

He throve on the climate of being able to dissasemble and figure out how mechanical things worked.

while studying for his GED (with my inadequate assistance)
He got copies of all patents for carburators and soon after, quitting the job and being hired by Chrysler, he got a patent for a 70mpg carburetor.
(used to call me up and ask "how do I make this? or what materials can be used for a...")

Holley bought his patent, and,
a few years later.
The Holley "Pro-jection" system (IMHO/using some of his ideas) came on the market.

The 'drop-out' kid was a millionaire.

His problems with the regimented classroom structure, still reminds me of Thomas A Edison.
(whose teacher said he was too stupid to learn)

Many college degrees reflect only the money given by parents to the institution.
George W Bush for one glaring example.

posted 01-30-2004 02:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Does it have to be a certain percentage of the nation's or world's engineers? Or can a handful of engineers who support the duck theory simply be right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it doesn't have to be a certain percentage. But it should be at least a substantial number of them. When just a few people in the field are saying something and the vast majority of the field is saying something else, the layman (you and I) is best off betting with the majority until such time as the minority can convince the majority in their field that they are right.

Does it not raise any red flags to you that they cannot even convince their colleagues of their assertions?

---

>It is generally agreed that Einstein was an intelligent man. He authored one of the strangest theories in modern physics. His theory, general relativity, describes gravity as curvature in a space and time hybrid called space-time instead of the forces that many are used to from freshman physics. That would be four dimensional and that is the source of people making references to the "fourth dimension." At any rate, when Relativity was published in 1915, a large number of people, physicists and others, knew that it had to be wrong. The New York Times letters to the editor around that time has many letters from people explaining why Einstein must be incorrect. Explanations for why his theory should be disregarded ranged from accusations of ignorance and carelessness to simple anti-Semitism, rarely did they make reference to the science or math in the theory. A book appeared about that time with the title "100 Authors against Einstein." Einstein retorted that if he was wrong, it would only take one.<

>Does it not raise any red flags to you that they cannot even convince their colleagues of their assertions?<
So many Nazi scientists were wrong, and Einstein was right.
>A book appeared about that time with the title "100 Authors against Einstein." Einstein retorted that if he was wrong, it would only take one.<<

Does it not raise any red flags to you that your side makes the same arguments as Hitler?

posted 01-30-2004 03:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
This is busy work. As I asked with Chemtrails, is there not SOME link that someone with a life can sit down and read and have the case clearly made for them? Or is this whole thing always going to degrade into people telling me to read a thousand links?

I [b]would read the thousand links if there was any expectation that doing so would provide me with any new information. [/B]

---

I sat and looked across the deck at the shoreline and wondered what kind of life you mean.

I visit and read every link given on all sides before responding.
Still have, enough time to fish, chat with buddies, play with the boats, look at the heavens and read a couple of books every day.

Secure that, if you only want to hear voices that support your preconceived beliefs,
you are at the wrong forum.

Perhaps Free Republic would suit you much better.

there, even 'conservatives' who ask questions, get banned, and their posts edited or deleted.

too much freedom of speech at Chemtrail Centrail for your taste?

Go to FR, or Rush's website, or RNC.org and find people who all agree with whatever they are told to agree with.

No apologies!
People here think for themselves!

You are free to try that also.

Take your time.
Visit all links..
examine all evidence...
form your own opinions.

posted 01-30-2004 03:29 PM            

Welcome to the forum!

Chemtrails are evident to all who look up.

our questions are more along the lines of:
"Why" and "what for"?

Post in any topic and join in any debate.

I already know my own opinion.

I welcome reading yours

and hopefully learning from your comments or learning from my attempt to find facts with which to argue.

posted 01-30-2004 04:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
The 'drop-out' kid was a millionaire.

---

Yes. I think that is how it worked out for Bill Gates, too. But it is the exception, not the rule. And it's also not clear on his resume where his PhD came from--which is very suspicious. In fact, it doesn't appear that his resume claims he has a PhD, but his personal website does. Who knows.

quote:

---

At any rate, when Relativity was published in 1915, a large number of people, physicists and others, knew that it had to be wrong.

---

I knew this would come up. But let's not even try to compare 9/11 conspiracies with the scientific skepticism of a fundamental change in physics. The only thing they have in common is there was skepticism. The similarities end there.

Although, you might be on to something. For a lot of the conspiracy theories to work we would need an Einstein-type change in physics.

quote:

---

Does it not raise any red flags to you that your side makes the same arguments as Hitler?

---

"My side?" I'm not pro-Bush. I hate the Patriot Act. I wasn't convinced the Iraq war was necessary at the time we engaged, and am still not convinced today. I would just assume not vote for Bush if there was a viable alternative (either Republican or Democrat). And it's worth noting that this is the first time in my life I'd be willing to even consider voting for a Democrat. So casting me in a pro-Bush camp is silly.

"My side" is simply based on facts and the requirement that for me to believe something there has to be logical, clear, and verifiable evidence to support it. That has been lacking in the hundreds of links I've read related to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

quote:

---

Secure that, if you only want to hear voices that support your preconceived beliefs, you are at the wrong forum.

---

Exactly! I don't want to hear only the voices that support my beliefs. That's a waste of time. Visiting this site is mental exercise. What is worrisome is that you guys hang around here and get worked up when someone like me questions your preconceived beliefs and suggest that I'm in the wrong forum--I get the impression that all you want to hear is that which supports your preconceived beliefs. Is that even healthy?

The only way one can learn and grow is by questioning their beliefs and the value I get out of participating here is having people question my beliefs, trying to make me look at something from another point of view. Out of this I will either be convinced that they are right or my own beliefs will be further confirmed due to their explanations being unconvincing.

That's why I'm here. To question my beliefs and learn from others.

posted 01-30-2004 05:52 PM            

Start a thread titled "Demolition Resurrected" and counter every link given on the demolition side. Post #1 article such and such -- your response. Post #2 article -- post your response, etc. etc. Take an article and rip it to shreds. Then you'll get some arguments. This is my recommendation, otherwise expect to be ignored.

OR

Post a supportive article and intro. of the pancake theory from jet fuel and defend it!

Letxa!

This is the only way to argue and debate the topic of the demolition theory pro or con!

Don't get offended -- get busy!

Or leave it alone!

bc

posted 01-31-2004 04:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At any rate, when Relativity was published in 1915, a large number of people, physicists and others, knew that it had to be wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I knew this would come up. But let's not even try to compare 9/11 conspiracies with the scientific skepticism of a fundamental change in physics. The only thing they have in common is there was skepticism. The similarities end there.

Although, you might be on to something. For a lot of the conspiracy theories to work we would need an Einstein-type change in physics.

---

First.
I posted the Einstein reference in response to comments about how colleagues should agree with any expert for his/her opinions to be valid.

Second.
to believe the bush scenario about 911 requiers that metallurgy be revised,
that we consider our military incompetent.
that we consider a passport more resistant to fire and explosions than jet engines which were specifically designed to function in high heat environments.
That Criminals/terrorists leave incriminating evidence and weapons behind.

those who support
the Bush conspiracy theory:

that a few Arabs with a few millions managed to defeat the US government
and the US military is unable to protect our own nation;
that metals behaved on 911 like never before or since;
that tampering with evidence is acceptable;

Must also believe that Bush conspiracy theory:
"It was (according to them) a conspiracy by Al Queda"

Must accept that conspiracy theory with absolutely no evidence.

No videotapes of the "terrorists' boarding the airplanes.
no explanation for the military standown on 911 that left our nation's skies undefended for almost a critical two hours.
No examples of any high rise in world history ever collapsing into it's own footprint.
(except in controlled demolitions that is)

No willingness to let the 911 investigation proceed unfettered.

If bush and his cronies are truely innocent of any wrongdoing...
why do they oppose an Indepent investigation into 911?

an innocent should welcome an investigation.

a Democrat who hates bush like Starr hates Clinton.

after all,
Starr was unable to indict the Clintons for any crime
despite six years
and 60 million dollars of investigating.

Bush should welcome such exoneration.

Like the rightwingers said in the 1990's:
" total disclosure, 100% cooperation, if you have nothing to hide..."

Read all posts and visit all links.

The only 'non-conspiracy' theory about the towers' collapse is demolition.

(As video and witness evidence clearly shows)

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
quote: let's not even try to compare 9/11 conspiracies with the scientific skepticism of a fundamental change in physics. The only thing they have in common is there was skepticism.

---

Apply a bit of that scepticism to the Bush conspiracy theory which has as yet absolutely no convincing proof presented to support those claims about a Arab conspiracy.

Only unsupported claims based on supposed evidence, that even America's allies are not permitted to see.

posted 02-01-2004 11:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KNOW-THIS:
Oh yeah, and then someone discovered that the world wasn't really flat, on the contrary to popular belief.

---

Contrary to existing scientific belief, which was mostly influenced by religion at that point. You are comparing skepticism to revolutionary ideas in scientific fields with skepticism to conspiracy theories. There is nothing scientifically revolutionary to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Based scientific skepticism to new scientific theories has no relevance nor gives any credibility to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

quote:

---

lexta, you yourself told me that the majority isn't always correct remember?

---

That is true. It's also why I favor elected officials doing what's right rather than what's popular.

quote:

---

When you insisted that us Americans were merely acting as alarmists in regard to the border issue. What makes you think this issue is any different?

---

First, I think our border should be secure and I don't think it is wrong for Americans to be alarmed that it is so unsecure. I've said it many times and apparently no-one is listening--I agree we need better border security and those that wish to live in the U.S. should immigrate legally.

posted 02-01-2004 12:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
First. I posted the Einstein reference in response to comments about how colleagues should agree with any expert for his/her opinions to be valid.

---

I never said that. I said a significant number of colleagues should agree with an "expert" before the general public has a reason to believe the "expert." Einstein may have been right, but he was not generally accepted until his colleagues recognized that he was right. Now he's famous and his theory is accepted.

Likewise, when the conspiracy "experts" convince a significant number of their colleagues that the WTCs fell due to demolition then, sure, I'll reconsider. But just because Einstein was right and his colleagues (initially) rejected his theory doesn't mean every rejected theory will eventually be accepted.

That colleagues are skeptical of the engineering claims of conspiracy theorists should cause us all to be skeptical. After all, we're not talking about new scientific theories here. We're talking about well-known properies of materials and the vast majority of the experts in the corresponding fields accept the official version. So we should be very skeptical of those that suggest all their colleagues are wrong.

quote:

---

to believe the bush scenario about 911 requiers that metallurgy be revised

---

No, actually, it most clearly doesn't. As Wolf's past posts have clearly explained and documented. In fact, for the official 9/11 scenario to NOT work requires metallurgy be revised.

quote:

---

that we consider our military incompetent.

---

Unprepared and caught off-guard for the 9/11 scenario is more accurate. According to Major General Larry Arnold, "NORAD defended against intrusion in our air space from outside, not inside."

quote:

---

that we consider a passport more resistant to fire and explosions than jet engines which were specifically designed to function in high heat environments.

---

Of course that's silly. Something a few square inches in size is more likely to survive intact than something weighing thousands of pounds and made up of hundreds of parts hang right below the fuel tanks (wings).

And I'll ask you and BoomerChick (for the fourth time): Is it your position that in any given disaster, fire, or explosion that every piece of paper will always be vaporized?

quote:

---

That Criminals/terrorists leave incriminating evidence and weapons behind.

---

Why not? Would it make more sense to try to carry them through airport security?

quote:

---

that a few Arabs with a few millions managed to defeat the US government

---

Why not? Why does everyone seem to think this was so hard to do? If you can hijack a plane you can do what they did on 9/11. It's not that hard if you are willing to die.

quote:

---

and the US military is unable to protect our own nation

---

It has done a very good job protecting us fro external threats. 9/11 changed the ballgame and blurs the line between national defense and law enforcement.

quote:

---

that metals behaved on 911 like never before or since

---

See above and read Wolf's messages on the topic. This is simply wrong.

quote:

---

that tampering with evidence is acceptable

---

Except for the conspiracy theorists, we all saw what happened on 9/11.

quote:

---

"It was (according to them) a conspiracy by Al Queda"

---

It is a reasonable conclusion based on available facts.

quote:

---

Must accept that conspiracy theory with absolutely no evidence.

---

Except Al Qaeda's past activities (Cole boming, embassy bombings), their stated goals, statements from Bin Laden.

quote:

---

No videotapes of the "terrorists' boarding the airplanes.

---

So what? Prior to 9/11 did they videotape everyone that boarded every plane? I sure never noticed cameras pointed on every gate. What are you allegding here? That the planes crashed themselves with no terrorist help?

quote:

---

no explanation for the military standown on 911 that left our nation's skies undefended for almost a critical two hours.

---

There was no stand-down. The military reacted faster on 9/11 than they did to the Stewart incident a few years earlier. 2 hours? From the time the first plane hit the WTC to the time the plane hit the Pentagon about 1 hour transpired.

quote:

---

No examples of any high rise in world history ever collapsing into it's own footprint. (except in controlled demolitions that is)

---

Can you show me any links of any high-rises falling significantly outside their footprint? As stated here, "To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 ton structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."

quote:

---

No willingness to let the 911 investigation proceed unfettered. If bush and his cronies are truely innocent of any wrongdoing... why do they oppose an Indepent investigation into 911?

---

If you are innocent of killing your neighbor, would you prefer to tell the police, "No, I didn't do it" and they move on? Or would you prefer a dragged-out investigation that consumes resources and continues to be a nuisance to you for years?

Just because they're not exactly fond of being investigated doesn't mean they're guilty.

quote:

---

an innocent should welcome an investigation.

---

So if someone accuses you of a crime you would welcome a multi-year investigation that consumes your time on a daily basis?

quote:

---

a Democrat who hates bush like Starr hates Clinton.

---

What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

quote:

---

after all, Starr was unable to indict the Clintons for any crime despite six years
and 60 million dollars of investigating. Bush should welcome such exoneration.

---

Or, perhaps, be annoyed by the waste of time and the waste of money. Just as Clinton was probably annoyed by both.

quote:

---

The only 'non-conspiracy' theory about the towers' collapse is demolition.

---

Demolition is itself a conspiracy theory and there isn't any reason to believe it ocurred.

posted 02-01-2004 07:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
There is nothing scientifically revolutionary to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

---

No others' hav ea conspiracy theory about 911.
Everyone except the bush administration is taking all evidence into account and trying to construct paausible theories to account for the evidence.

Only the Bush administration
has the " 'Al Queda' conspiracy theory" that contradicts all available evidence;

And instead postulates that Arabs funded by a few millions, defeated the USA with it's trillion dollar agencies whose job was to defend specifically against an undeclared attack on America.

Now:

Do you wish to argue the Bush Administration is: incompetents unqualified and unable to defend America?

or:
The Bush Administration is: intelligent people complicit in a military standown?

No other intelligent option is possible!

Either incompetent or complicit!

(in amerika's "Riechstag Fire")

posted 02-01-2004 10:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shatoga:
The "Bush conspiracy theory" requires science to set aside centuries of metallurgy and believe that metals (on 911) collapsed at much lower temperatures than ever before or since.

---

Well, the Council on Tall Buildings disagrees with you. The CUTB (see website). "The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat studies and reports on all aspects of the planning, design, and construction of tall buildings. Also of a major concern is the role and impact of tall buildings on the urban environment. Our membership -- uniquely interdisciplinary -- includes some of the world's top authorities in their specific profession."

Also, Architecutre Week reports that "In the range of 900 to 1100 degrees Fahrenheit (500 to 600 degrees Centigrade), structural steel loses about half its tensile strength, and so begins to deform and buckle under loads. At 1400 degrees Fahrenheit (800 Centigrade), only about 10-20% of the strength of steel remains." In that same article, "According to Ted Krauthammer, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Penn State University, it has been estimated that the jet fuel fire in the towers ranged from 1000 to 3000 degrees Fahrenheit (550 to 1,670 degrees Centigrade)." So that would suggest that the steel would have lost at leat half its strength.

In This article, Herman Krier, professor in mechanical and industrial engineering, says "that a flame burning jet fuel and air generates an approximate temperature of 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit."

According to Jerry Russell, Ph.D., calculating the "burn temperature of Jet-A is difficult since it depends on many outside variables but the adiabatic combustion temperature is a little over 2000 C."

Plus, if what you say was true, why would engineers in New York City now be considering concrete instead of steel for office building constructions? Did someone tell them that they needed to switch from steel to concrete to add credibility to the Bush conspiracy?

No-one is suggesting they outright melted, but that they lost sufficient integrity that they lost too much of their strength to remain viable. So exactly what laws of physics do we have to change for the official version to be true?

And even if you are right that the heat was insufficient to cause problems with the steel, there are reports that perhaps it was column-failure rather than heat that caused the collapse.

So even if you don't accept the steel-heat point of view, there are certainly other possibilities short of demolition. So why would you conclude that it was demolition? I believe you are predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories rather than to believe other rational explanations.

quote:

---

No others' hav ea conspiracy theory about 911. Everyone except the bush administration is taking all evidence into account and trying to construct paausible theories to account for the evidence.

---

See above. You are talking about conspiracy theories. The vast majority of experts in corresponding fields still believe that the heat was sufficient to cause sufficient weakening of steel components that lead to eventual failure. And even if you subscribe to the belief that the fire was not severe enough, there are other opinions that you should consider short of demolition which leads to a conclusion of a much larger (and harder to conceal) conspiracy.

quote:

---

Only the Bush administration
has the " 'Al Queda' conspiracy theory" that contradicts all available evidence;

---

The demise of the WTC as a result of the airplane impacts and subsequent fire are supported by fact. Now, if you want to debate the motives of the hijackers or the possible connection of Bush to the hijackers, fine. But existing evidence and the vast majority of experts in related fields support the conclusion that the towers collapsed as a result of the impacts and the resulting fires, not demolition.

quote:

---

And instead postulates that Arabs funded by a few millions, defeated the USA with it's trillion dollar agencies whose job was to defend specifically against an undeclared attack on America.

---

First, not even the defense department has a trillion-dollar budget, much less any other department.

Second, contrary to popular belief, 9/11 could have been accomplished with very little money or training. I'm a pilot and I can assure you that you don't even need to be a pilot to take control of a plane already in flight and crash it into a building. Literally a child could do it. And these people, with any amount of flight training, would have more than enough knowledge.

And if some people get together in their garage and decide to hijack a plane and fly it into a building, why is it you think our "trillion-dollar agencies" would even know about it?

quote:

---

Do you wish to argue the Bush Administration is: incompetents unqualified and unable to defend America?

---

I'm not going to argue about the Bush Administration since the vast majority of the people at the CIA, FBI, and Defense Department are not appointed by the administration. They are career employees with years--even decades--of experience that were there long before Bush arrived.

I personally am not surprised that something like 9/11 could happen. Quite frankly, what's there to stop me or anyone else in the world getting together in a garage, planning this, and hijacking an airplane? If there was good information beforehand then that would have been an excellent break for intelligence agencies--but don't fool yourself into believing there'll always be actionable intelligence to stop these things. All the money in the world isn't going to help the CIA or FBI pick up on a plan that is hatched in a basement and executed without discussing it via electronic means.

quote:

---

or: The Bush Administration is: intelligent people complicit in a military standown?

---

I see no evidence of this, although the idea that the Bush administration is intelligent would be debated by many people.

quote:

---

No other intelligent option is possible!

---

Yes, the other option is that Arab hijackers hijacked 4 planes (as they have been known to do in the Middle East for years) and instead of forcing them to land at an airport of their choosing (as they had done in the past) they simply took control of the planes and committed suicide (as they have been known to do in the Middle East for years) by crashing them into buildings (which was novel) which caused sufficient damage to cause them to structural integrity (as supported by virtually all enginners and experts) and collapse (as seen on TV).