Len Colby Posted September 15, 2007 Share Posted September 15, 2007 The author is quite long winded, can you sum up what you think are the salient points? This might not be the authors salient points about the Naudet film , but these few paragraphs pretty much sum up his opinion about who attacked innocent American citizens on September 11 , 2001 .... and I coudn't agree with him more . [...] Like I said the author is very long winded can anyone tell me what her salient points were regarding the film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 15, 2007 Share Posted September 15, 2007 I don't know whether to laugh or feel frustrated. People repeating the myths and disinformation of the "truth" movement. 9/11 happened. An investigation happened. Causes were determined. Findings were published. People without the necessary expertise dispute the findings. Truthers repeat the lies that a large number of scientists in the field, professionals, etc, have raised serious and valid doubts; they don't. As a majority they look at the findings and say "yep!". The lies and disinformation continue to echo and be bandied about ("pull", the gold, using hearing "explosion" as being evidence of an explosion... rather than a non-explosive bang, etc). Finally, qualified people say "enough!" and publish their works disproving the "truth movement" claims. The truthers then say "Look! They have to publish more work to defend the OCT! That PROVES it is all lies..." Truthers will simply not accept anything that goes against their beliefs. It is reminiscent of when I asked some Apollo workers why they were not at the forefront of the debunking movement. I was asked "Have you convinced any of these notable Hoax Believers they are wrong? Do they examine evidence? Use science? or do they just claim it is all lies and stick to their own beliefs, no matter how illogical or patently incorrect?" I had to admit they were basically right. "That is why", I was told, "They are a waste of time. Don't waste YOUR precious time and energy trying to convince these people, because there is nothing that can convince them that their own views are wrong. Let them have their fantasy, and don't dignify their claims with attention. Forget about them and just deal with people who live in the real world". Almost to a man, they seemed to hold up the actions of the Apollo 11 crew as the correct way to deal with them: Treat the claims with silent disdain (Collins), if appropriate give calm short answers why they are not worth the time answering (Armstrong), but if pushed beyond the bounds of reasonableness don't hesitate to use the appropriate response (Aldrin punching Sibrel). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 15, 2007 Share Posted September 15, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 My God. That's at least the third time I've seen that pitiful "cartoon" posted on a forum. I feel sorry for people who actually think it's humorous, whatever their stance on 9/11. The person who wrote and/or drew it has no sense of humor whatsoever. It does appear, however, that he or she is filled with unadulterated hate. Some "troofer" must have pissed in his or her cereal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 (edited) My God. That's at least the third time I've seen that pitiful "cartoon" posted on a forum. I feel sorry for people who actually think it's humorous, whatever their stance on 9/11. The person who wrote and/or drew it has no sense of humor whatsoever. It does appear, however, that he or she is filled with unadulterated hate. Some "troofer" must have pissed in his or her cereal. Ron ... Couldn't of said that better myself ! ... The most annoying thing is I'm here to work with others who share my views in order to refine the information - endless fighting with the blind, deaf and dumb to conspiracies [911 was one even under the official lie version, by the way] is just a waste of time. I don't think most of them and NONE of the regular posters on that 'side' would ever change their views and a few are IMO here as a job to do just that...take up our time and stop progress...well it didn't work with Dallas and it ain't gonna work with 911. More and more people in the USA and the World are doubting the official version is in part or in whole true. Peter ... Couldn't of said that better myself either ! Edited September 16, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 (edited) David,I believe it was Scott Forbes of Fiduciary Trust who first broke the story about the power down. Here's an interview with him: http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott...-interview.html That's the one. Thanks Ron. I see that Marvin Bush worked for an outfit called Stratesec in Sterling, Virginia that handled WTC security "up to the day the buildings fell down" (quote by Barry McDaniel CEO -- nice description Barry!). Interestingly, Stratesec was backed by an investment bank, Kuwait-American Corp. In June 2000, Marvin, having cashed in his shares in the company that he acquired at 52 cents and sold at $8.50 a share, toddles off to another berth in McLean Virginia, just a stone's throw from his Pappy's old place of work. It seems that by the odd chance of fate that the contract Stratesec had to maintain security at the WTC began in 1996 and expired on, well, 11th September 2001. Now there's an odd coincidence. Meanwhile Marvin, was kicking back his heels in Mclean and enjoying life in HCC Insurance Holdings Inc. HCC was formerly known as Houston Casualty Company (hence HCC). And not to put too fine a comb through this, it transpires that HCC was one of the insurance companies that held cover for, well, the WTC. And as coincidences go, Houston Casualty Company was one of the companies I took a quick gander at yesterday as it was one of the key insurance companies sued by Silverstein in the WTC case. Marvin just couldn't keep away could he. Which just goes to show that it's a small, small world for those Virginians. Interestingly, the "former" CEO of Stratsec - who remained the chairman of the board, however, is Wirt D. Walker III. He was the managing director of Kuwair-American Corp. Stratsec does highly classified business for government clients such as the US Army, Air Force, Navy DoJ etc. There's definitely that "sniff" in the air... http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/ma...ds_role_911.htm Edited September 16, 2007 by David Guyatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Peter, How many engineers with appropriate qualifications the relevant field (so as to be able to give an informed opinion) claim it was not explainable without demolition? How many say it conforms to expected behaviour? How many demolition experts with appropriate qualifications the relevant field (so as to be able to give an informed opinion) claim it was demolition? How many say it was not demolition? How many pilots with appropriate qualifications the relevant field (so as to be able to give an informed opinion) claim it hijackers could not have flown those aircraft? How many say it was quite possible? How many witnesses saw an airliner hit the Pentagon? How many say there was no airliner? How much footage is there of airliners hitting the WTC? How much footage is there of laser beams? UFO? Other crackpot claims? How many people who were at the scene said WTC7 was brought down by explosives? How many said it was heavily damaged and expected to collapse. Just how much do you need to understand that terrorists committed a terrorist act? Perhaps the CIA recruited those terrorists; I don't think so but I grant it is possible - but aircraft hit the Pentagon / WTC, and the damage sustained initiated the collapse of the WTC, whose collapse caused collateral damage to WTC7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 A whole lot of us have to read your longwinded and uninformed posts...do your own homework and read the article yourself.....proof positive you are either lazy [not likely] or here only to divert persons with busy work and thwart progress. Peter, I have to say that you've hit the nailon the head.... "do your own homework" -- a comment I have considered more than once. Were Len genuinely seeking to be informed he would do this automatically and without being told. A thoroughly reccomended and succinct response for the future, if you ask me... David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 When they handled the building security "up until the building fell down" it didn't mean that the contract happened to expire that day. It meant that they no longer provided security because there was no building to provide security for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Evan's sarcasm aside, presumably there is no need to read the actual article or wait for the peers to review. Let's just accept his conclusions now....why wait? After all, he lectures at Cambridge. His paper passed peer review in a prominent engineering journal. So far papers from the "inside job" camp have only passed "peer-review" and "inside job" publications. And yes having a a degree in civil engineering from and teaching at one of the world's top universities does make him more qualified than Drs. Fetzer and Jones From Nature International Weekly Journal of Science: Nevertheless, scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/de...ature05032.html Quality assurance of scientific publications usually proceeds through two pathways: a pre-publication short-term assessment by designated reviewers during the peer-review process, and a post-publication long-term assessment by the scientific community through comments, citations, review articles and monographs. http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/de...ature04988.html From the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Peer reviews are performed by independent teams or individuals not associated with the original design team. http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy_...s.cfm?hdlid=117 Have you read his article? Do you understand what led him to his conclusions? Are you aware of any counter-arguments to his theories? You want to conclude that his theories are valid based upon what you know so far? That pretty much sums up how you evaluate things with no evidence in front of you. Of course knowing nothing about an author, or failure to read their work hasn't stopped you in the past from making your pronouncements. Fetzer and Jones are not even relevant to the discussion. Just another non sequitur to avoid the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 (edited) nm Edited September 16, 2007 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 (edited) My God. That's at least the third time I've seen that pitiful "cartoon" posted on a forum. I feel sorry for people who actually think it's humorous, whatever their stance on 9/11. The person who wrote and/or drew it has no sense of humor whatsoever. It does appear, however, that he or she is filled with unadulterated hate. Some "troofer" must have pissed in his or her cereal. Looks pretty dang funny to me. I can understand why 'half-truthers' might not since its their ox getting gored. I feel sorry for YOU Ecker. That cartoon aptly describes what you guys look like, to someone outside...and the inside I might add. Lighten up. Edited September 16, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 Just how much do you need to understand that terrorists committed a terrorist act? This wasn't directed to me, but I would like to say it is obvious that terrorists committed a terrorist act. The question is, who were the terrorists? Since you accept the official conspiracy theory, what is your theory as to why the government lied almost from the beginning about the attacks, to the extent that the 9/11 commission considered criminal charges but chickened out? According to a Zogby International poll last year, 45 percent of Americans believe that "so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any U.S. government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success." That means that not just some posters on this forum but 45 percent of Americans are basically troofers. They just want to know the troof about 9/11. I would like to ask you if you agree that there should be an investigation to answer the many unanswered questions that the 9/11 commission did not answer and/or would not try to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 The author is quite long winded, can you sum up what you think are the salient points? This might not be the authors salient points about the Naudet film , but these few paragraphs pretty much sum up his opinion about who attacked innocent American citizens on September 11 , 2001 .... and I coudn't agree with him more . [...] Like I said the author is very long winded can anyone tell me what her salient points were regarding the film? The short story is the author thinks it just did not look right...'to him' Pretty much the standard stuff from the Half-Truthers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted September 16, 2007 Share Posted September 16, 2007 How many of Ken Rahn's JFK bullet fragments NAA "proof " articles were positively peer-reviewed? They should have been pier-reviewed: tossed into Narragansett Bay. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now