911 Pentagon Video Released

[Prometheus]

More of my highlights and then... So - kilo - old buddy, can you post the link again? Prometheus has gone all sour and doesn't want to play any more.

Don't want to waste my time looking for stuff for the amusement of the brainless.

hmmm... not quite what I am saying. Maybe: "this is a NOT a conspiracy therefore the kook reports are all lies". I think that captures my position more accurately.

No these assumptions (which were never said and which you concocted) captures your position very accurately:

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/think/print.php?num=18 (let me guess, you would immediately think aliens, right?)

(maybe "programmers" made the civilians sound like loved ones people knew, eh prometheus??)

I personally believe that Xenu is responsible for all of this - try to prove me wrong.

Oh - I finally get it - you somehow think that if you prove JFK was a conspiracy, then WTC is a conspiracy.

Here is my latest theory:
Tom Cruise is a scientologist [FACT!]
Xenu is an alien [FACT!]
Therefore Xenu was responsible for 911.... it is so obvious I don't even want to give you any credible support for this. I know MIT did a comprehensive study on Xenu's involvement, but the government had those scientists killed (by Xenu's orders).

If I posted my "Xenu was behind 911" site, would you believe it then? I still don't know why you don't believe me... maybe you are just a conspiracy snob... my fantasies are not as cool as yours, eh? Take another look at the Xenu information. LOOK at the design of his space planes... ahhhhhh - PLANES went into the WTC!! COINCIDENCE? - I think not! It is all coming together now, isn't it? Forget missiles - Xenu's space planes were responsible.

It is a huge multinational conspiracy involving Al Qaeda, US intelligence, martyrs/willing-suicidal participants, programmers, US military, planes, missiles, nuclear weapons, collusion amongst dozens of government bodies like FEMA, NSA, FBI, CIA - cover up all the nuke stuff, hide evidence etc)...

Oh - and stop dropping my "equally accurate" Xenu theory. How is it equally accurate, you ask? Well, I just wrote that, so it must be. (remember: the irrefutable proof is that space planes were involved,

and I am also trying to propogate my Xenu theory - which is the most coherent one thus far.

(as demonstrated by the "JFK is a conspiracy, so therefore this is a consipracy" line of thought) and now further establish that with your "if scientists don't know exactly how something works to the minutest detail it must therefore mean it is a conpspiracy" line of thought.

like "of course nuclear weapons took down the WTC"...

You would think so - but their main argument with all of this is that everyone was paid/mind-controlled/killed off... the scientists, witnesses, programmers, weapons-experts, FEMA/FBI/local authorities. So basically nobody who supports the official version can be trusted.

Now you are back on track: Xenu is a far more palatable theory than yours... can I please, please, please join your kook gang with my Xenu theory?

Who's the kook now. You made all that stuff up and you call US crazy saying that WE believe it all when YOU were the one that stated it all. You have now shown everyone that you are a blabbering idiot. Congratulations idiot.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

The only @ss I make is the one you see in the mirror in the morning before you brushed your teeth.

LMAO waaaaaa dude that's so lame it's actually funny! Thanks for making my evening

 

[ignacio]

Who's the kook now. You made all that stuff up and you call US crazy saying that WE believe it all when YOU were the one that stated it all. You have now shown everyone that you are a blabbering idiot. Congratulations idiot.

It takes a special man to use my Xenu joke theory to prop up their own theory.... Look everyone, our theory is kooky, but this theory is REALLY kooky!!!But I encourage you to keep working the ad hominem angle and other desperate measures to try to discredit me when all else has failed. I am glad to see you have a renewed hope and vigour... it is better than running off and sulking like our cherished friend.

 

[pupa]

Sounds like the EnimEm movie when he won the contest! LOL

@ Highflyer_GP, Heh Heh pleasure man, it was fun, can this flame war get back on track again. Was it not about how and why the Towers dropped. Who cares, it sad. They say it was the high temperature. The building was not at fault as it was not designed to protect against airplanes with high octane fuel that created temperatures so high that the metal structures that kept the concrete together failed, Concrete can burn, that is maybe where the powdering or sintering came from exposing the metal structure. The rest is plain, when the top structure collapsed the rest was not up to the kinetic energy imparted on it. Therefore the pancake effect!

 

[Prometheus]

Again, not really what I am saying: again - neither you nor I are structural engineers or PhD physicists or expert peers in any field related to the kook prof - accordingly, and as much as this may hurt kookie eater's ego, we are not the ones to confer credibility on kook prof: journals and peers would do that. With regards to that, no journal has published his paper and no named peers (apart from a linguistics professor) have come forward to claim to have reviewed his paper - journals don't have this luxury: their named journal review board's credibility as well as the credibility of the journal are on the line with respect to how they review and accept papers. He has NOT undergone this rigorous test – or if he has, he has failed it (and hence is not published) - and his paper can accordingly not be afforded the credibility conferred on journal published papers. Again - my training is in a science other than engineering, so I do not make the preposterous supposition that I could evaluate the dynamics involved in the aforementioned phenomena as well as an expert in the field. You and fellow kooks and kookie eater will gladly make that supposition - because you have arrogance to suggest that "reasoning" alone is what gives you the power to do so. (Who knew PhDs in engineering are so meaningless... any old layperson with enough "reasoning" is the peer of a PhD!). I am truly sorry if the gist of what I am saying is going over your head.

I am saying this again. YOU assume you have the knowledge to decide what is a credible report and what is not. We didn't decide which reports were credible and which ones not. We showed you that "published" reports contradicted themselves and explained only that which was not witnessed to have happened. If the journals credibility is on the line then they have all failed because they are CONTRADICTORY and UNEXPLANATORY. Then you have the arrogance to decide which reports are valid based on whether they have been published or not in a "credible" journal. Please explain your flawed reasoning here that you seem to think that you can judge which reports are credible.

 

[Prometheus]

wow prometheus. i am really unimpressed by your tactful approach to discredit ignacio (sp?)

He is the one doing the discrediting

lets not forget: arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics

Please stop the derogatories.

 

[ignacio]

Please explain your flawed reasoning here that you seem to think that you can judge which reports are credible.

If you would bother to read more closely, you would quickly see that I say that I CANNOT judge credibility in these matters - since I am not a structural engineering peer or expert in these fields. BUT, as even kook prof will be glad to tell you, a paper's publication is what an academic strives for in order to give a paper credibility. Since you have yet to provide us with one published paper in ANY journal that backs up your theory, I can only assume that no journal (and associated peer review board) finds kook prof's paper credible. Again, this has nothing to do with my judgement - this is all to do with the judgement of his peers - it is just an application of elementary logic.

 

[ignacio]

Please stop the derogatories.

pffffft!

 

[Prometheus]

For the sake of clarity, I suppose it's best to state my views briefly.

As I said in a previous post I'm not particularly for OR against the conspiracy theory thing as an idea in itself, but what we're arguing about here is not about the overall picture, but merely certain parts of the story that we're trying to dissect. Such as the way the towers collapsed and the Pentagon crash.

There may very well be a conspiracy here, but some of you are taking certain points to quite an extreme and making leaps of judgement which are actually quite ludicrous. Which is how the fun flamewar part of this thread started.

I've got a hunch that Ignacio agrees with me here, I don't think he's necessarily against the idea of a conspiracy completely, but mainly certain major points that some conspiracy theorists make which are simply ridiculous.

EDIT: Ah, I think I've found a way to end this thread. At least for the next few weeks. Kilo39, Prom, Highflyer, here ya go, it's the holy grail: http://www.torrentspy.com/directory/920/assorted/conspiracy

That is exactly what we are doing here. We see the "inefficiencies" if you could even call them that of the reports and ignacio immediately jumps to conspiracy theory. Being ignorant to the facts he starts posting rubbish like his Xenu theory.

 

[Prometheus]

Well, as a seasoned fantacist, you would make a great dramatist. My tips: I would have the sane people set up much like a Greek chorus, providing a grounding amid the turmoil. Then you could have kilo in a King Lear role (blinded from the truth by his conspiracy pride) and you in an Othello role (paranoia and suspicions) and kookie eater as School for Scandal's backbiting Lady Sneerwell, or really, any other bitter woman would work out just as well.

Fine, continue living YOUR fantacy.

 

[Prometheus]

It takes a special man to use my Xenu joke theory to prop up their own theory.... Look everyone, our theory is kooky, but this theory is REALLY kooky!!!But I encourage you to keep working the ad hominem angle and other desperate measures to try to discredit me when all else has failed. I am glad to see you have a renewed hope and vigour... it is better than running off and sulking like our cherished friend.

You REALLY are so stupid that you can't see it. YOU are the one with the ad hominems by making all the assumptions that you do. I merely show you the assumptions you are making and you call it an ad hominem. Good, you learned a new word, maybe some day you'll learn its meaning as well.

 

[ignacio]

That is exactly what we are doing here. We see the "inefficiencies" if you could even call them that of the reports and ignacio immediately jumps to conspiracy theory. Being ignorant to the facts he starts posting rubbish like his Xenu theory.

If all you were doing is pointing out inefficiencies, that would be one thing - but no, you are both creating and - there is a remote possibility - finding the holes AND filling them in. Hence the missiles, forces bigger than world governments, recruited programmers, nuclear bombs, JFK and other nonsense IS conspiracy theory (it is NOT simply finding inefficiences). Don't feign innocence - doesn't suit you.

 

[ignacio]

You REALLY are so stupid that you can't see it. YOU are the one with the ad hominems by making all the assumptions that you do. I merely show you the assumptions you are making and you call it an ad hominem. Good, you learned a new word, maybe some day you'll learn its meaning as well.

LOL - I am sure I have a good handle on the English language, unlike you... but, yes, to attempt to use name calling and my own jokes against me in order to descredit my thoughts on your conspiracy theory is - in fact - ad hominem, since they are clearly attacks against me and not my positions.

 

[Prometheus]

The only @ss I make is the one you see in the mirror in the morning before you brushed your teeth. I have been to America and like any country there is areas to stay away. Here in South Africa everywhere is a mess, You do not know if you will see your loved ones tonight no matter where you go. ATM Iraq could be safer in some areas at least! (Pun)

Hillbrow is more of a mess. I'm just as safe here where I am as I would be most places in the US.

can this flame war get back on track again. Was it not about how and why the Towers dropped. Who cares, it sad. They say it was the high temperature. The building was not at fault as it was not designed to protect against airplanes with high octane fuel that created temperatures so high that the metal structures that kept the concrete together failed, Concrete can burn, that is maybe where the powdering or sintering came from exposing the metal structure. The rest is plain, when the top structure collapsed the rest was not up to the kinetic energy imparted on it. Therefore the pancake effect!

No it was about the Pentagon video. The building was designed for a plane crash presumably with fuel. The powder was the concrete, it can't burn, it was pulverised. There was no pancake effect. The top structure started to pivot and then suddenly exploded. If there was a pancake we would not be having this conversation. The steel was melted (official wording liquified) but according to the "published" reports the fire wasn't hot enough to do this.

Do you see the irregularities? That is what we are debating. Ignacio came up with the conspiracy theory and now he's saying we "kooked" it up.

 

[mooK]

SHOW ME THE PANCAAAAKE!

 

[Prometheus]

If you would bother to read more closely, you would quickly see that I say that I CANNOT judge credibility in these matters - since I am not a structural engineering peer or expert in these fields. BUT, as even kook prof will be glad to tell you, a paper's publication is what an academic strives for in order to give a paper credibility. Since you have yet to provide us with one published paper in ANY journal that backs up your theory, I can only assume that no journal (and associated peer review board) finds kook prof's paper credible. Again, this has nothing to do with my judgement - this is all to do with the judgement of his peers - it is just an application of elementary logic.

And yet you do so by deciding that anything not published is not credible and anything published is credible. Your still using the "kook" ad hominem as a discreditor. Nice going.

 

[ignacio]

That is what we are debating. Ignacio came up with the conspiracy theory and now he's saying we "kooked" it up.

Desperate times call for desperate measures - you realise people can easily go back into the thread and see for themselves who came up with conspiracy theories? Now you are resorting to out and out lies in order to discredit me.... a sad day for kooks everywhere.

 

[ignacio]

And yet you do so by deciding that anything not published is not credible and anything published is credible. Your still using the "kook" ad hominem as a discreditor. Nice going.

Academics themselves use being published as the credibility signifier - or are you that oblivious to how scientific research works? He is a kook as are you - in your case, you and kilo imagine missiles and nukes - in his, he imagines Christ visited the Mayans.... his views on the WTC may or may not make him a kook, they are just not credible. I am calling him cuckoo for his Mayan fantasy alone.

 

[Xarog]

Kilo is a good sport - he is fun to banter with because "he really believes what he writes". As I have said before, he is a respectable kook. The people who I have no respect for - on the other hand - are the kookie eaters: they don't know if a conspiracy is true or not, they don't really care, all they know is they want to believe in it just because (in this case) they hate the USA. The kookie eaters are truly dishonorable and intellectually dishonest and warrant all derision that is heaped on them.

Well, good thing I'm not a kookie eater then.

But I wouldn't yammer too much about being intellecually dishonest, as you're getting first prize for that with all your debate by ad-hominem. You can't hold an argument without resorting to ad-hominems, and your inability to respond to all the ad-hominems of yours that I've pointed out shows you know it to be true, too. If you had any kind of integrity whatsoever, you'd apologise for it. But you haven't so far, so I guess you never will. You'll just forever be stuck in that mud you call an argument.

If USA knew it was a "self injury" to give credence to the war in Iraq as claimed, why would they hurt their economy by shutting down all flights, close all borders, crash in the two towers, down their own plane with witness cellphone accounts from loved ones. Don't You freaks see how feeble this sound to the rest of the world, even the guys that stated this conspiracy's is laughing at you!

The powers that be have profitted immensely from the war with Iraq, and the invasion of Afghanistan. As was shown in the hurricane katrina disaster, they're fully willing to screw people over for a quick buck, so why should they care about the economy if they can personally make themselves rich?

The thread is long so I may have missed something, but didn't he say that a scientist/engineer's views that aren't published in a respectable journal or properly peer reviewed are not worth much?

Thats not "discrediting" a scientist, its saying the scientist has not yet earned credibility.

That doesn't inherently make the scientist wrong, and it's no excuse to start attacking the poster as a tactic of debating the subject.

Scientists once thought that the world was flat, and people who suggested otherwise were branded as being mad, and coming up with wild-unsupported theories.

hmmm... not quite what I am saying. Maybe: "this is a NOT a conspiracy therefore the kook reports are all lies". I think that captures my position more accurately.

Ad-hominem at it's finest. Now you just have to call a few people kooks, and your argument is proven.

Well, Kilo, Prometheus et. al : Now all you have to do is to quote his own position back at him - since you're kooks, and your arguments and sources are *all* lies, he will have to admit that his own reports are BS, and we can all be done with the idiot. Well, either that or he will have to show an ounce of integrity and actually apologise for his fallacious debating methods.

Well, I am actually pretty much opposed to the conspiracy as a whole - militant Arabs hijacking planes is obviously the simplest explanation for what happened in this case.

It's the simplest, but it doesn't explain everything. See the problem? It's like claiming Newtonian physics is better than General Relativity, because it's simpler. But Newtonian physics doesn't actually represent what happens in the real world (it's still useful to us, though, because we generally deal with speeds so low compared to the speed of light, that the changes in mass and time are unnoticable.)

But a far-flung, multinational conspiracy with many participants which resulted in the killing of thousands of Americans and costing billions if not trillions of dollars is beyond reasonable.

I don't say it's right, but it does try to address the things that don't make sense with the official story.

Academics themselves use being published as the credibility signifier - or are you that oblivious to how scientific research works? He is a kook as are you - in your case, you and kilo imagine missiles and nukes - in his, he imagines Christ visited the Mayans.... his views on the WTC may or may not make him a kook, they are just not credible. I am calling him cuckoo for his Mayan fantasy alone.

OK, so an authority in science cannot be trusted because his views on history (not his field) are strange. Nice ad-hominem against the scientist there.

 

[Prometheus]

If all you were doing is pointing out inefficiencies, that would be one thing - but no, you are both creating and - there is a remote possibility - finding the holes AND filling them in. Hence the missiles, forces bigger than world governments, recruited programmers, nuclear bombs, JFK and other nonsense IS conspiracy theory (it is NOT simply finding inefficiences). Don't feign innocence - doesn't suit you.

Firstly I didn't make the posts in bold you idiot. Secondly I merely corrected your thinking on the programming issue as your thinking was flawed. We were speaking hypothetically as you had already assumed a conspiracy. I was also just stating the official version of what happened to JFK. I.e. head flung violently backward, rear skull and brains blown back onto the trunk lid. Shot from oswald came from back. "Magic" bullet from the front. Clearly not the truth. Tell me there is not a conspiracy there. Oh yes, you're afraid to comment on that.