Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Ron Ecker]

Got any conclusive evidence that OBL is dead?

It seems to me that if OBL was still alive, he would speak out against his doppelgangers who appear in audio tapes or on video tape whenever George W. Bush needs a political boost. Before the 2004 election, for example, "Bin Laden" appears on tape to tell Americans to vote Democratic. What surer way to piss off Americans and send more of them to the polls to vote for Bush?

People think OBL is a genius, look what he did on 9/11, but they apparently think he's a moron when it comes to politics or basic human psychology.

A living OBL would have come out long before now to announce, "I am not a fool like Western intelligence wants you to think I am with its bogus tapes, made to boost America's idiot president."

I say he's dead and has been that way since possibly before 9/11.

[Michael Hogan]

Rule (v) says “Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings.”

Rule (v) states in full:

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.

If it seems a member is intentionally being inaccurate other members should be able to call them on it as long as they don’t violate any other rules in the process.

When I used to cite the many obvious examples of your failure to proofread your own posts, you responded with unrelated attacks, weak excuses, and general whining.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Michael Hogan

[Evan Burton]

Gentlemen: Please! I know we are all passionate about our viewpoints and conclusions, but we are sailing perilously close to the edge of unacceptable insults.

Sid - if a person decides to spend time debating a subject, it is not up to you to decide what their motives are. Unless you have conclusive evidence about any motivations, please, address the points raised without opining why they do it.

Len - Please avoid use of the term 'hoodwinking' when in reference to another forum member, and please don't accuse anyone of apologising for terrorism or Hitler without clear proof of such.

I am well aware that both of you can skillfully argue your viewpoints without resorting to cheap shots or reacting to provocation. Use those skills to convince those who simply read this board (rather than post) of your position.

[Sid Walker]

Gentlemen: Please! I know we are all passionate about our viewpoints and conclusions, but we are sailing perilously close to the edge of unacceptable insults.

Sid - if a person decides to spend time debating a subject, it is not up to you to decide what their motives are. Unless you have conclusive evidence about any motivations, please, address the points raised without opining why they do it.

Len - Please avoid use of the term 'hoodwinking' when in reference to another forum member, and please don't accuse anyone of apologising for terrorism or Hitler without clear proof of such.

I am well aware that both of you can skillfully argue your viewpoints without resorting to cheap shots or reacting to provocation. Use those skills to convince those who simply read this board (rather than post) of your position.

Very nicely said, Evan. Exactly the kind of decency one hopes to find in the Australian armed forces.

I will pull my horns in and eshew further speculation about Len's motives. Maybe Len doesn't know what motivates him? (speaking for myself, I often find my own motivations a puzzle)

However, while I appreciate the moderators' need to reign in such speculation, lest the forum degenrates into a bare-knuckle brawl full of accusation and counter-accusation, I cannot help but think that it goes with the terrain - whether articulated or not.

If one takes the extraordinary view - as I and many others do - that 9-11 was a staged event, with perpetrators quite different from the official patsies, then it is not much of additional stretch to imagine that by hook or by crook, such powerful and well-resourced perpetrators would be able to arrange for extensive disinformation in the follow-up years.

In the case of the JFK assassination, it is well accepted by those who don't accept the Warren Commission version of events that an extensive disinformation camapign followed the assassination, and continues to this day.

IMO, at the very least, the topic of paid disinformation agents should be open to discussion in general (if not specific) terms.

I have not been on a politically-oriented forum of any significance without suspecting their presence. Perhaps I was wrong? A lot of people have been wrong about the Lochness Monster, as far as we know; but no-one claimed we shouldn't take a look in the lake or have a chat about it.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Evan Burton]

Sid,

Thank you!

I agree that sometimes a bare-knuckle fight is quite apt amongst these forums... but (apparently reversing myself) I think you can go full throttle on the points raised rather than taking the easy (but oh so satisfying) retort of the person making the comments.

When we are well aware of each others stance regarding various matters, I think it is worthwhile to consider a debate between opposing political candidates: we know we are not going to convince the opponent to vote for us; our job is to convince everyone else we are worthy of their vote rather than our opponent.

Then again, considering some of the speeches that have been made under Parliamentary Privilege, perhaps that is not the best example....

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Len, and Kevin. Thanks for your thoughts on the interpretation of Forum rules, I shall bear them in mind in any future adjudications. Now does anyone have anything to say about Fetzers book? Before the thread developes into personalised bickerings, which is exactly what I was attempting to prevent in the first place. Regards, Steve.

Edited to add. I should perhaps make it plain that I am not being sarcastic in thanking Len, and Kevin. If members feel that I make a "wrong call" please bring it to my attention. I may not always agree but, I shall give your views my full consideration.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Stephen Turner

[Len Colby]

I do not accept I have avoided any of your questions - just the obvious logical traps you set from time to time.

I do not intend to banter with you. The substance of many threads had been tainted by the kind of deliberate silliness you introduce. I suspect this is a deliberate tactic. Not playing Len.

For me, at any rate, this is a serious topic - not something to use to stir up xenophobia, hatred and wars - then laugh about.

Whether you accept it or not you have avoided answering a simple straight forward question that is neither silly nor has nothing to do with xenophobia. Yes it is a deliberate tactic, I'm trying to get you to answer my question which you avoid giving a straight answer to. Since you suggested that Cosgrove's failure to make any comments about the heat was evidence that the NIST theory didn't make sense you should be willing to defend that theory or admit error. As I asked you above:

"As I’ve pointed out twice already according to NIST the fires strong enough to weaken the thin floor trusses were 24 floors below Cosgrove on the opposite side of the building. Do you really think if that were true he should have felt the heat enough to complain about it to the 911 operator?"

In a certain sense you're right about the question being a "logical trap" because if you answer 'yes' you will claim to believe in something absurd and if you answer 'no' you will acknowledge you made a nonsensical point.

[Len Colby]

Rule (v) says “Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings.”

Rule (v) states in full:

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.

I assume you are familiar with the meaning of the word "includes", are you suggesting that the rule doesn't cover factual errors? I didn't include the rest of the rule because it wasn't relevant to my point.

If it seems a member is intentionally being inaccurate other members should be able to call them on it as long as they don’t violate any other rules in the process.

When I used to cite the many obvious examples of your failure to proofread your own posts, you responded with unrelated attacks, weak excuses, and general whining.

Arguing over this with you can only lead to a tedious back and forth that will lead nowhere.

As to Steve's question about Fetzer's book, as made clear I haven't read that obscure tome yet nor do I pretend to, I'm already familiar with the work/thought patterns of most of the contributors and that's enough for me to make the informed judgment that doing so would be a waste of my time and money. At least two of the contributors are members here perhaps they would be willing to post their chapters here.

Edited March 23, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Sid said: "the WTC-2 fires appear to have been small, localized and not very hot. Not sufficient to explain the unprecedented collapse of the entire building at virtual free-fall velocity"

I was wondering if he or any other "inside jobbers" could cite any evidence in support of the theory the fires in the Twin Towers were "small, localized and not very hot"?

As pointed out ad infinium video evidence shows the collapses took over 14 seconds far longer than the 9 seconds of "free fall time" - BTW

[Ron Ecker]

It at least sounds like it's better than nothing.

He also said that as chairman of a House subcommittee on domestic policy, he plans to launch an investigation of "a narrow portion" of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He offered few details, but said his subcommittee would be looking at "a few, specific discrepancies in the public record." The 9/11 Commission that published its final report in 2004 never resolved some conflicting facts, Kucinich said. He announced his own look at 9/11 in answer to a question from an audience member. The man complained that the 9/11 Commission was too tied to the Bush administration to offer an unbiased report, and Kucinich agreed.

link

[Don Jeffries]

This will be a test as to wheter or not Kucinich is a real populist reformer or just another "liberal" who is indistinguishable from his Republican "opponents." I emailed his wife over a month ago, asking her for his positions on 9/11 and the JFK assassination. I'd heard she was good about responding to voter inquiries, but she never replied. Hey, maybe my email gave him the idea to expose the whole conspiracy....

[Len Colby]

The logic here seems to be “any investigation that doesn’t confirm my pre-conceived notions is corrupt” exactly why “truthers” calls for new investigation ring hollow, they will only be satisfied by an investigation that tells them what they already believe. That said there still are many unanswered questions about

a) what warning signs the government received and failed to act upon during the Bush and Clinton administrations *

people failing to do their jobs properly

c) whether Bush intentionally pushed for info falsly linking Iraq to the attacks to justify the already planned invasion

d) what lies were told to cover up a) & c) and

e) if any flaws in the Twin Towers design and construction hastened their collapses

* I think LIHOP is possible but I have yet to see convincing evidence in favor of that theory.

Edited March 29, 2007 by Len Colby

[Guest Stephen Turner]

e) if any flaws in the Twin Towers design and construction hastened their collapses

.

Mafia sponsored concrete perhaps? I understand that the building trade in 70s NY was run almost exclusively by "The Families"

[Sid Walker]

The logic here seems to be “any investigation that doesn’t confirm my pre-conceived notions is corrupt” exactly why “truthers” calls for new investigation ring hollow, they will only be satisfied by an investigation that tells them what they already believe. That said there still are many unanswered questions about

a) what warning signs the government received and failed to act upon during the Bush and Clinton administrations *

people failing to do their jobs properly

c) whether Bush intentionally pushed for info falsly linking Iraq to the attacks to justify the already planned invasion

d) what lies were told to cover up a) & c) and

e) if any flaws in the Twin Towers design and construction hastened their collapses

* I think LIHOP is possible but I have yet to see convincing evidence in favor of that theory.

Thanks Len.

Nice to get confirmation on what respectable, conformist people should spend their time researching - and the right questions for decent folk to ask. Doubtless Kuchinich has been made aware of that too.

Of course, looking at "a few, specific discrepancies in the public record" (re: 9-11) covers a multitude of possibilities.

Let's hope he chooses the best lines to question wisely, with integrity and courage. Kuchinich could certainly crack the whole case open, on C-SPAN if not on Fox.

Here are a few possible lines of inquiry where plenty of discrepancies may be found.

Anthrax Murders/Scares

Collapse of WTC Towers / Contolled Demolition

WTC-7

Pentagon

Identity of 'hijackers'

'Exercises' on 9-11

Israeli Spies

Insider Trading

There are plenty more, but that should be enough to bring down the official house of cards.

[Myra Bronstein]

It at least sounds like it's better than nothing.

He also said that as chairman of a House subcommittee on domestic policy, he plans to launch an investigation of "a narrow portion" of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He offered few details, but said his subcommittee would be looking at "a few, specific discrepancies in the public record." The 9/11 Commission that published its final report in 2004 never resolved some conflicting facts, Kucinich said. He announced his own look at 9/11 in answer to a question from an audience member. The man complained that the 9/11 Commission was too tied to the Bush administration to offer an unbiased report, and Kucinich agreed.

link

I don't think there's a better person in gov't than Dennis Kucinich. Not that it's a highly competitive field. But of the few good ones, he's at the top.