Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Jack White

Recommended Posts

If those here are forbidden TO QUESTION MOTIVES, we may as well pack up and move on.

I question the motive of LBJ and others in the JFK affair as well as Apollo misadventures.

I question the motives of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush in the 911 affair.

So you cannot question what people say, but instead have to question who says it?

Mr. Simkin's forums are based on the premise that the public has been misinformed about the motives of those who committed these crimes. If we cannot question the motives of those who DEFEND and perpetuate false "official stories",

then we are all wasting our time here.

John and / or Andy can respond to this as they choose.

Please recall that it was Burton who defamed ME with his every posting for a long time,

declaring that I was responsible for LITTLE WHITE LIES. Remember?

That a DEFENDER OF OFFICIAL STORIES has been put in charge here is in itself very curious.

Jack

If I recall correctly - and I as always remain open to correction - YOU accused me of activities which were proven by John and Andy never to have taken place. In short, you have continually accused me of things which were false. Are you accusing John and Andy of appointing a "agent provocateur"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Excellent lecture and video, showing that Official [borg] Version is knowing lies and unsupportable by physics, known engineering and other standards. It was just a lie to cover-up either LIHOP or MIHOP.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=48...53615&hl=en

article by same professional building engineer here

http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154

Ross has a degree in mechanical engineering be is not AFAIK a "professional building engineer". I used to be on a forum with him and consistently refused to answer queries as to his professional activities which lead me to believe he ws not employed as an engineer or if he was it was in an area totally unrelated to the structural engineering of buildings. Google searches at the time yeild no references to a mechanical engineer named Gordon Ross other than on "truther" sites. Dozens of structural engineers including the WTC lead structural engineer and his wife (also a structural engineer) from various countries have participated in 4 studies and various papers about the collapses and came conclusions directly opposed to his.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If those here are forbidden TO QUESTION MOTIVES, we may as well pack up and move on.

I question the motive of LBJ and others in the JFK affair as well as Apollo misadventures.

I question the motives of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush in the 911 affair.

Last time I checked "Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush" aren't members of the forum

Mr. Simkin's forums are based on the premise that the public has been misinformed about

the motives of those who committed these crimes.

BS Though of course John's views about the assassination are similar to yours he has only expressed disdain for Apollo Hoax theories and last time he opined about 9/11 said he didn't believe it was an 'inside job' though he thought LIHOP possible (or probable I don't remember).

If we cannot question the motives of those who DEFEND and perpetuate false "official stories",

then we are all wasting our time here.

You resort to attacking the messenger when you can't counter an opponents argument. If what people who disagree with you say is wrong you should be able to demonstrate that with evidence. Why they take the positions they do is normally irrelevant which is presumably why John made such a rule. If you disagree with it take it up with him.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those too lazy to click on the excellent blog Peter recommends, here it is!

........

SUNDAY, MAY 06, 2007

Excerpt: Debunking 9/11 Debunking - "Experts"

An excerpt from page 242 of "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" by David Ray Griffin, in which he discusses the article and book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" by Popular Mechanics:

Popular Mechanics next attempts to refute the 9/11 truth movement's claim that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 "were brought down intentionally - not by hijacked airplanes, but by... controlled demolition." It makes this attempt primarily by appealing to the NIST report.

...

Continuing the ploy of suggesting that all "experts" support the official account while only loony "conspiracy theorists" support the alternative theory, the PM authors, in introducing the controlled demolition claim, do not mention any of the physicists, engineers or philosophers of science who have made it. They instead mention a Danish writer who thinks that the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers was "part of a wide-ranging plot by the Freemasons to create a New World Order" and that "the Apollo moon landings were a hoax."

They then mention that the controlled demolition hypothesis is also endorsed by Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist at the Department of Labor... [and] continuing their effort to discredit their opposition, begin their next paragraph with these words: "Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views..." Although I am not quite sure how many skeptics these authors can hold in one hand, "a handful" suggests merely a few, perhaps a dozen. However, the website "Professors Question 9/11" has well over a hundred names, and they, moreover, constitute only a fraction of the active members of the 9/11 truth movement having academic credentials.

In any case, the important part of the statement is the next part, which says "not one of the leading [alternative] conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction or related fields."

An obvious problem with this statement is that the PM authors, in writing their article and now their book, have become "leading conspiracy theorists" for the other side but evidently do not have academic degrees in "engineering, construction or related fields." I would not, however, use that as an argument against their book. To be a credible, responsible defender of either the official or alternative theory about the WTC collapses, one need not have a degree in physics, engineering or any other technical field. What one needs is the ability to read with comprehension, to evaluate evidence, and to draw logical conclusions from that evidence. Our entire judicial system depends on the ability of laypeople - judges and jury members - to evaluate the testimony of competing experts.

Of course, as that statement indicates, it is necessary for those who challenge the official conspiracy theory to be able to appeal to experts in fields relevant to the question of why the buildings collapsed, and one of those fields is physics.The 9/11 truth movement includes several people with advanced degrees in physics, one of whom, Steven Jones, is among the leading critics of the official theory. The movement also includes chemists, engineers, computer scientists, mathematicians, architects, pilots, former military officers, politicians, and people with expertise in political science and military intelligence, all of which are relevant to the question at hand. [see the Patriots Question 9/11 website]

The PM authors, however, try to convince their readers that all the experts are on their side. Having implied that there are no experts who support the controlled demolition theory, they then say that the collapses of the WTC buildings have been studied by "hundreds of experts from academic and private industry, as well as the government," after which they assert:

The conclusions reached by these experts have been consistent: A combination of physical damage from the airplane crashes - or, in the case of WTC 7, from falling debris - and prolonged exposure to the resulting fires ultimately destroyed the structural integrity of all three buildings.

But this statement is doubly misleading. On the one hand, virtually all of the "experts" who have reached - or at least publicly endorsed - the government's theory have been working on behalf of government agencies (such as FEMA and NIST) and/or for private industries that are dependent on government funding. On the other hand, the 9/11 truth movement can appeal to a growing number of experts, including Holland's Danny Jowenko, Switzerland's Hugo Bachmann and Jorg Schneider, and Finland's Heikki Kurttila, who reject the official theory. The debate between the two theories cannot, therefore, be settled by appeal to authority. It must be settled by appeal to the evidence.

------------

Now, a brief passage from page 14, in response to the oft-mentioned assertion that Griffin and anyone else who rejects the official theory about 9/11 is a "conspiracy nut," specifically referencing an essay written by Alexander Cockburn which appeared in The Nation entitled "The 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts":

-----------------------

Moreover, if my 9/11 books are nutty, as Cockburn suggests, then people who endorse them must also be nuts. The list of nuts would hence include economist Michel Chossudovsky, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, British Minister of Parliament Michael Meacher, former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing Catherine Austin Fitts, journalists Wayne Madsen and Barrie Zwicker, Institute for Policy Studies co-founder Marcus Raskin, former diplomat Peter Dale Scott, international law professors Richard Falk Burns Weston, social philosopher John McMurtry, theologians John B. Cobb, Harvey Cox, Carter Heyward, Catherine Keller, and Rosemary Reuther, ethicists Joseph C. Hough and Douglas Sturm, writer A.L. Kennedy, media critic and professor of culture Mark Crispin Miller, attorney Garry Spence, historians Richard Horsley and Howard Zinn, and the late Rev. William Sloane Coffin, who, after a stint in the CIA, became one of the country's leading preachers and civil rights, anti-war, and anti-nuclear activists.

Futhermore, if anyone who believes the alternative conspiracy theory, rather than the official conspiracy theory, is by definition a nut, then Cockburn would have to sling that label at Philip J. Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania; Colonel Robert Bowman, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam and earned a Ph.D. in aeronautics and nuclear engineering before becoming head of the "Star Wars" program during the Ford and Carter administrations; Andreas Von Bulow, formerly state secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defense, minister of research and technology, and member of parliament, where he served on the intelligence committee; Lt. Col. Steve Butler, formerly vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California; Guiletto Chiesa, an Italian member of the European parliament; Bill Christison, formerly a national intelligence officer in the CIA and director of its Office of Strategic and Political Analysis; A.K. Dewdney, emeritus professor of mathematics and computer science and long-time columnist for Scientific American; General Leonid Ivashov, formerly chief of staff of the Russian armed forces; Captain Eric H. May, formerly an intelligence officer in the US Army; Colonel George Nelson, formerly an airplane accident investigation expert in the US Air Force; Colonel Ronald D. Ray, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who became deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration; Morgan Reynolds, former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis and former chief economist at the Department of Labor; Robert David Steele, who had a 25-year career in intelligence, serving both as a CIA clandestine services case officer and as a US Marine Corps intelligence officer; Captain Russ Wittenberg, a former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions, after which he was a commercial airlines pilot for 35 years; Captain Gregory M. Zeigler, former intelligence officer in the US Army; all member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and S.P.I.N.E.: the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven; and most of the college and university professors listed under "Professors Question 9/11" on the Patriots Question 9/11 website.

Would Cockburn really want to suggest that these people are "nuts" with "no conception of evidence," no awareness of "military history," and no grasp of "common sense" and "the real world"? Cockburn's absurd charges are valuable, however, because they illustrate just how far the labeling of people as "conspiracy theorists" can lead otherwise sensible people away from the real world, in which many very intelligent and experienced people, who cannot by the wildest stretch be called "nuts," have concluded on the basis of evidence, that 9/11 was, at least in part, an inside job.

---------------

I'm still working my way through this book, but I'll try to post more excerpts as time permits. I do need some sleep, and for now, I'm calling it a night.

Peace-

Labels: 9/11, david ray griffin, debunking

POSTED BY SEAN WHEELER AT 5:38 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debunkers have long made two points about the allegation that the OBL confession tape used a ‘fat’ impostor.

1) Out of the entire 35 minute tape people making this claim select a few in which he looks fat but ignore the vast majority of other frames when the man in the tape looks very much like OBL.

2) No one has challenged the identity of the other men in the tapes who are known OBL associates

http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html

Interestingly though about a year ago a truther came to the same conclusions and made a convincing case that the tape does indeed show OBL.

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html

Hat Tip Sc**w Loose Change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Provocateurs On This Forum [intentional Disruptors],

Trying to increase heat, with no 'light' or enlightenment

old thread locked by moderators: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...vocateurs+forum

new evidence: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12763 and http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12774 [too many others in past to list....]

Perhaps Peter can explain his objection to this thread. Despicably Jones and Bemas accused the FDNY of complicity in 9/11. Jones lied about, Bemas said he didn’t mean it then reaffirmed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Rumsfeld offers that the American people lack "the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats." What's to be done? According to Rumsfeld, "The correction for that, I suppose, is [another] attack."'

He's still an a-hole but that's not the context he made his comment in.

DELONG: Politically, what are the challenges because you're not going to have a lot of sympathetic ears up there.

RUMSFELD: That's what I was just going to say. This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it's a shame we don't have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats...the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you'd think we'd be able to understand it, but as a society, the longer you get away from 9/11, the less...the less...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/13/r...n_n_101537.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty obvious that they are talking about complacency with regard to security. People are getting lazy, notcarrying out checks like they used to, not being as alert. If another terrorist incident happened in the US, people would be reminded of the need to be vigilant. Things like this are discussed all the time:

Now that the threat level is being lowered again and no attacks have occurred, some experts worry that the public — and even state and local officials — will grow complacent. The terrorists responsible for Sept. 11, for example, plotted the attacks for years.

"Complacency is really one of our big threats because we're action-oriented people," said Jerry Humble, director of homeland security in Tennessee. "But with some of the terrorist organizations, patience is their virtue. So we're not out of the woods with respect to terrorism."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ror-alert_x.htm

So how did we end up here, yet again? Why are we still asking how a calamity like the deaths at Virginia Tech could happen?

The most obvious reason, and one that’s been widely discussed in the days since the shootings, is complacency. Well, we can wring our hands all we want, but to some extent complacency is unavoidable: it’s what sneaks in after all the blame has been handed out, the news media have disappeared, the critics have taken their shots and the political knees have stopped jerking.

There’s also a psychological reason for letting our guard down: we all want to return to day-to-day business and focus on things that are most likely to affect us. Deeper down, there is a natural instinct in all of us to block out the idea that anything so unthinkable could happen to us. To stay alert means to acknowledge that horror is just around the corner, and that runs against human nature.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/opinion/20whitcomb.html

There is nothing 'sinister' or suspicious about his comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt

Cheney's statement is open to interpretation, of course, but he is particularly inept in his clarity of meaning --- somewhat akin to calling for a hanging in order to justify capital punishment.

One does get the impression that he would be relieved if another terrorist event occurred:

"Phew, I told you so."

One might even argue that his concern with the diminishing alertness in the security level, based on nothing particularly significant happening in five years, domestically speaking, is an exhibition of paranoia that requires medical treatment and which therefore renders him unsuited to continue to hold his high office of de facto leader of the western world.

Not-with-sanding the fact that he should never have got that office in the first place.

edit = whoops. Allow me to change the name Cheney to Rummy. I guess it was a case of "participation mystique".

Edited by David Guyatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which moderator is removing posts from this thread with no explanation?

And why?

Me. Stop the bickering, especially if it has no relevance to the thread.

Your truncated reply is evidence of the biases you bring to your role of moderator.

First of all, you failed to answer one of my questions. Why did you feel it necessary to remove the posts with no notice and no explanation? (Or no warning as you gave to another member)

What is your justification for that?

Since when is bickering as you call it grounds for post removal? If you used that criteria, you should be removing many other posts as well, including some of your own

where you repetitively hector other members.

Your willingness to chastise me, with no mention of the other person involved that did the name-calling further illustrates your bias.

And in spite of your claim, which is impossible for members to verify, my post definitely had relevance to the thread. Or are you unfamiliar with this Forum rule?

(v) Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings. This includes spellings, capital letters, etc. This is important as the forum is read by young students and therefore we should not be setting them a bad example. I would suggest you write initially in a word processing program that automatically checks spellings, etc. The finished work can then be copied and posted into the forum.

Your decision to delete those posts in the manner you did is unjustified by Forum precedent or Forum rules. It's a case of your biases and your ego getting the better of your judgment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...