I believe 911 was an inside job, do you?

skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
I believe 911 was an inside job, do you?

This is not really a poll.

I've been all over the internet researching the 911 issue.

Starting off with the basics, Bush did something unprecedented the day before 911, he had the Sarasota Hotel outfitted with a surface-to-air-defense missile battery.  That's not standard protocol for the president staying in a hotel.

If believe Bush and Rice's later comments that nobody can have guessed that terrorists might use planes as missiles, what aerial threat do you suppose Bush was guarding against on September 10, 2001?

How about Bush assuring us Osama did it, but the FBI saying they had no hard evidence linking him to 911?

How about those obviously fake "confession" videos?

How about Sybil Edmonds being silenced?

 

There's more, but the girls working this coffee shop are starting to stare impatiently at me.  Probably not because of my dashing good looks either.

skepticdude

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Starting off with the

Quote:

Starting off with the basics, Bush did something unprecedented the day before 911, he had the Sarasota Hotel outfitted with a surface-to-air-defense missile battery.  That's not standard protocol for the president staying in a hotel.

If believe Bush and Rice's later comments that nobody can have guessed that terrorists might use planes as missiles, what aerial threat do you suppose Bush was guarding against on September 10, 2001?

There appears to be an internal contradiction in your assertion. You have stated that you hold that the 9/11 attacks were carried out as an inside job. Then you stated that the US President, prior to the attacks, had fortified himself against the possibility of attack. This makes no sense. If the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated on the inside, what need would there be for the president to ensure that he was protected, being that there would be no thread to his person? It would make more sense to say that Bush knew the attacks would be carried out and therefore took extra safety precautions. This, however, is not the definition of "inside job".

Note that I didn't give away my opinion on this matter. Conspiracy is not my forte, and, I might add, that "doing research on the internet" is internally contradictory. When you researched certain things, or rather, knowledge claims made by certain sites, did you, in turn, check the sources cited by those sites? Or, perhaps more importantly, did you try and find a site which made a knowledge claim contradictory to the claim of the site you just researched, to judge who held the better argument?

Apart from that, I won't really get into conspiracy, because like I said, it is not my forte. Unless someone claims that a commercial aircraft cannot bring down a skyscraper (which is not correct). That's physics, which is my forte.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 I'm not sure dropping the

 I'm not sure dropping the ball counts as "inside job". Seriously, what's more likely: that the Bush administration somehow managed to coordinate an attack on Americans by people who were already planning an attack on Americans anyway, or that the Bush administration simply dropped the ball, and those same attackers exploited an opening.

I'm going to go with the second option. Door number one implies that the administration is  extremely clever and evil, while door number two is a simple bungling of the defense of the country. Door number two is just more likely.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Are you saying you would

Are you saying you would like to believe that the Bush Administration is diabolically evil and can pull off huge coverups in the 24 hour news world where every little act they do is picked apart and dissected?

Can you not fathom that 19 men could plan and put into action flying planes into buildings?

Do you want to believe that this is a step into the direction of the new world order?

Do you want to believe that those planes could not physically cause a collapse of the world trade center?

Thats what it sounds like to me. Yes, I think truthers in general give way too much credit to the Bush Administration that they could pull something like this off. Its the idea that the government is bent on world domination and they are trying to keep us down. Ultimately this is a simple example of Occam's razor, nothing more.

If you are looking to come to a predetermined conclusion, and will only accept statements that support that conclusion, while rejecting all the evidence to the contrary, then of course 911 is an inside job...and Jesus is Lord...and....and...and?

Seriously, pick your poison. This is the exact same rationale certain theists apply to GOD. They discount all evidence to the contrary, and only accept evidence that will support their predetermined conclusions.

You believe 911 was an inside job because you would like it to be true, not because it necessarily is true.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
9/11 was not perpetrated by

9/11 was not perpetrated by the U.S. administration. There isn't evidence for this. Arguing that Dubya conspired to have the attack carried-out only throws-up another fucking smokescreen before the REAL crime he committed: criminal negligence.

Given ample warning by the intelligence community, Bush scratched his head at the notion of doing all that complicated stuff they thought he should do andwent dickering off to his ranch. Beyond that, he then plodded forward with despicable intent after the fact - choosing to exploit what his ignorance and laziness had wrought rather than learning from it and taking responsibility for it.

The man should assuredly be behind bars, but for none of the reasons 9/11 liars want to claim.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Deludedgod:There

Quote:
Deludedgod:

There appears to be an internal contradiction in your assertion. You have stated that you hold that the 9/11 attacks were carried out as an inside job. Then you stated that the US President, prior to the attacks, had fortified himself against the possibility of attack. This makes no sense. If the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated on the inside, what need would there be for the president to ensure that he was protected, being that there would be no thread to his person? It would make more sense to say that Bush knew the attacks would be carried out and therefore took extra safety precautions. This, however, is not the definition of "inside job".
 First, ever hear of counter-intelligence? You do realize that inconsistencies at the White House sometimes end up making a shit-load of money for the news networks? The mere fact that he set up those anti-aircraft batteries doesn't suddenly prove he felt the threat was real. Second, 911 could still be an inside job even if Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. The catch is, where did Osama get the help he needed to get the hijackers into America and trained as pilots? If you read up on their immigration status, you might not like knowing that they were given extra pushes from authorities above the customs-agents to get passports and so get into America. Third, the FBI said they had no hard evidence linking Osama bin laden to the 911 attacks, why then was Bush and his corporate media skywriting "Osama did it" immediately after the attacks, and ever since? Fourth, have you ever heard of the USS Liberty? Operation Northwoods? Nato's secret wars? American CIA overthrowing democratically elected leaders of other countries to be replaced with more American-friendly leaders? Should the rational person who is knowledgeable of these obvious cases of previous false flag terrorism first approach the 911 issue thinking Bush is probably criminally culpable in some way for planning the attacks? Or should they approach 911 as if the history of America's false flag terrorism should be completely denied unless and until Bush explicitly confesses his guilt in a national address? Fifth, most non-conspiracy theorists are very surprised to learn that the White House met with the Taliban months before 911 to close a gas pipeline deal that would let us build a pipe through Afghanistan. The Taliban didn't like the terms and conditions and so didn't close the deal. Suddenly, 911 happened, and the White House is positively certain that the solution to this terrorist threat is to get rid of the Taliban. Geeee.....might the displacement/dispersion of the Taliban open exactly the door to cheaper oil for America that the Taliban denied us months earlier? The rational investigator looks at who benefited from the crime the most, and starts there thinking the suspect is probably guilty unless they have a good alibi.   What is YOUR explanation for Osama bin Laden causing the financial dreams of American defense contractors to come true, by attacking in America in way that would assure Congress gives Bush what amounts to a blank check, so he can accomplish his pre-911 stated goal of upgrading the military, which might take a very long time, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new pearl harbor? Bin Laden was a college graduate in civic engineering, how likely is it that he didn't suspect an event like 911 and the death of 3000 Americans would turn around and end up strengthening his enemy (Congress gave a blank check to Bush to upgrade the military, his pre-911 stated goal in "rebuilding America's defenses&quotEye-wink and put his purposes at risk even more? Bin Laden wasn't stupid....we should first suspect that he knew perfectly well how the psychological horror-effect on a patriotic congress would motivate them to give Bush what amount to a blank check to fight back against Osama's purposes. There's a whole can of worms Mark Roberts doesn't touch concerning the subject of what Osama would have anticipated to be the effect of a 911-type attack. Sixth, every rational responder here agrees that Bush has lied consistently about mostly everything that might embarrass or convict him of crimes. We thus have the perfect right to expect he'd do worse than lie concerning other matters, such as 911, which might point more forcefully to his criminal culpability. You can help me make my case against you; please tell us how open Bush was to investigating 911, and how criminally implicating you thought it was when you found out that Bush required that his 911 commission testimony not be recorded, not be under oath, be spoken behind closed doors, and that he'd only do this while Cheney was sitting right next to him the whole time. You know Bush is guilty of crimes that are directly related to 911, you just don't know it. Unless you think the conditions he set down for giving his 911-testimony is how you'd expect an innocent person to act? 
Quote:
Note that I didn't give away my opinion on this matter. Conspiracy is not my forte, and, I might add, that "doing research on the internet" is internally contradictory. When you researched certain things, or rather, knowledge claims made by certain sites, did you, in turn, check the sources cited by those sites? Or, perhaps more importantly, did you try and find a site which made a knowledge claim contradictory to the claim of the site you just researched, to judge who held the better argument?
 I am fully aware of Mark Roberts work, and though I disagree with his ultimate position, he is a positive influence on the 911 truth movement, helping us rid ourselves of the more stupid theories. I thought Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood were important players in the field, but when they tried to get space-beam weapons out of the "spire", I could not believe my eyes and I no longer regard them as objective or important to the cause. Mark Roberts debated yesterday on Hardfire, the president of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth, Richard Gage. The subject will be the 911 truth movement’s biggest smoking gun, WTC Building 7, which never had the benefit of being hit by a plane to help account for its complete symmetrical collapse. Looking forward to seeing it. If we acknowledge the reality of counter-intelligence and how the spreading of false information would be the natural course chosen by a government that does crime and doesn't want to get caught for it, we need to factor "plausible deniability" into the evidence. If the Bush White House really did outfit the WTC with explosives to bring it down, and if they planned on making the later argument that the crash and the fire is what brought it down, they obviously wouldn't use conventional explosives in conventional fashion to do the job, making it obvious there was a cover-up. They would have experts on building demolition join heads with military counter-intelligence analysts and discuss the best way to bring the towers down that would leave as little evidence of itself behind as possible. Counterintelligence would wish to confuse the enemy, and therefore might even be willing to let the operation leave behind a bit of incriminating evidence which they know will further divide America on what exactly happened. 
Quote:
Apart from that, I won't really get into conspiracy, because like I said, it is not my forte. Unless someone claims that a commercial aircraft cannot bring down a skyscraper (which is not correct). That's physics, which is my forte.
 physics is not my forte, but the question is not "can a commercial aircraft bring down a skyscraper?", but is rather "Were WTC 1 & 2 specifically designed to withstand multiple passenger jet collisions?" The very idea that Martini, one of the people involved in the WTC design, forgot to account for aircraft fuel that would start fires after a collision, is preposterous.  Maybe he didn't know physics as well as you?

 

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote: I'm not

HisWillness wrote:

 I'm not sure dropping the ball counts as "inside job". Seriously, what's more likely: that the Bush administration somehow managed to coordinate an attack on Americans by people who were already planning an attack on Americans anyway, or that the Bush administration simply dropped the ball, and those same attackers exploited an opening.

I'm going to go with the second option. Door number one implies that the administration is  extremely clever and evil, while door number two is a simple bungling of the defense of the country. Door number two is just more likely.

Door #2 is less likely when you take into account America's history of deliberate false-flag terrorism (i.e., USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, NATO's secret wars, Kissinger, etc.)  It's also less likely when you remember that Bush's conditions for testifying before the 911 commission are what you expect to see of a guilty person, how Bush always opposed such an investigation and only buckled under pressure, and how many obvious conflicts of interest were involved between the purpose of the investigation and the political/professional affiliations of it's members.  And let's not forget how accidents and stupidity don't exactly explain the White House's inability to account for some 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the budget, admitted by Rumsfeld the day before 911.  You have to be in 100% denial of the reality of counter-intelligence and how useful false rumors/evidence would be to the larger purposes of a Bush-run government.  It's not as simple as causing the buildings to collapse without leaving evidence of controlled demolition.  Read up on how useful the dissemination of false information and infiltration of false "opponents" is to a government that conspires, more than simply committing secret crimes and covering them up.  It was not the purpose of the Bush administration to coverup their guilt in 911 completely. 

Oh, by the way, Bush explicitly admitted there were explosives involved in the 911 attack on the WTC.  Surely you already knew this?  The youtube version is way out of audio/video synch, here's a link to a better copy.  Watch the video, then tell us why the White House is admitting to explosives while neither NIST nor FEMA ever did, actually denying the use of explosives, then join the cause:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=320_1185036933

 

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
HeyZeusCreaseToe wrote:Are

HeyZeusCreaseToe wrote:

Are you saying you would like to believe that the Bush Administration is diabolically evil and can pull off huge coverups in the 24 hour news world where every little act they do is picked apart and dissected?

You appear to know next to nothing about who owns the major media news corporations, nor how they choose which stories to run.  Bush admitted explosives were used in the 911 attacks, watch the video at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=320_1185036933, then ask yourself why the government sponsered investigations of FEMA and NIST and the 910 CONmission do nothing but deny explosives were used, or just plain fail to bring them up at all.

Either way, if you know about counter-intelligence, you recognize that trying to cover up guilt would not be the most useful way to exploit a self-inflicted wound.  Psyops is a major part of warfare and coverup, so is "hiding in plain sight".  Bush did NOT have to divulge such incriminating information as the above video shows, where he admits explosives were involved in the WTC collapses.  Why then would he admit something so obviously contradicted by the official 911 investigations NIST, FEMA and the 911 CONmission?  Maybe because they aren't as interested in covering up their guilt as much as you'd think they would?  Maybe there is something else going on that they wish to accomplish more than simply covering up their guilt?  The main 911 debunker movement is absolutely bereft of any and all consideration of the use of Psyops and counter-intelligence in the 911 scam.  They act like Osama, college grad with degree in civic engineering, never would have suspected how such an attack in full public view on 911 would work to incite congress to give Bush basically a blank check to chase Osama with even more gusto.  Osama bin laden helped the Bush achieve their wet dream of upgrading the military, as they admitted prior to 911 in the "Rebuilding America's defenses" PNAC document.  And you think this is just a happy coincidence?  Bin Laden never knew how the 911 attack would end up hurting his cause?  He wasn't that stupid, there's far more to the story that you get on the 6 o'clock news.

Quote:
Can you not fathom that 19 men could plan and put into action flying planes into buildings?

With help from the CIA to overrule the suspicions of the hijacker's possible terrorist links, thus allowing them passports to begin pilot training in American schools, yes, I can fathom it.  Jose Melendez-Perez and Michael Springmann, customs agents, suspected and flagged several terrorists, but were inexplicibly overruled and forced to grant visas.

Quote:
Do you want to believe that this is a step into the direction of the new world order?

given that the next step was the furiously unconstitutional Patriot Act, which steals away the rights of human beings and grants the government dictator-like oppressive powers, yeah.  You?

Quote:
Do you want to believe that those planes could not physically cause a collapse of the world trade center?

Irrelevant, Bush admitted explosives were used in the 911 WTC attacks, case closed.

Quote:
Thats what it sounds like to me. Yes, I think truthers in general give way too much credit to the Bush Administration that they could pull something like this off. Its the idea that the government is bent on world domination and they are trying to keep us down. Ultimately this is a simple example of Occam's razor, nothing more.

What's the simplest explanation for the failure of 3 major government investigations into 911 failing to mention the explosives in the WTC that Bush admitted to afterward?  What's next?  Operation Northwoods is a false document?

Quote:
Seriously, pick your poison. This is the exact same rationale certain theists apply to GOD. They discount all evidence to the contrary, and only accept evidence that will support their predetermined conclusions.

You believe 911 was an inside job because you would like it to be true, not because it necessarily is true.

Doesn't need to be "necessarily" true.  All that matters is that the person with the theory has rational reasons to hold it.  Mark Roberts is the mortal enemy of the 911 truth movement, I'm fully aware of his work, and while he has successfully debunked various faulty 911 theories, he has done nothing to get rid of the obvious signs that the Bush White House helped orchestrate the 911 attacks. 

If you know about the USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, the CIA overthrowing democratically elected leaders of other countries and replacing them with leaders more friendly to America, and Bush's deliberate lies, and NATO's secret wars, the question is not "how can we think Bush is guilty for planning 911?" but rather "how can we think Bush is INNOCENT of planning 911?"

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:9/11 was

Kevin R Brown wrote:

9/11 was not perpetrated by the U.S. administration. There isn't evidence for this. Arguing that Dubya conspired to have the attack carried-out only throws-up another fucking smokescreen before the REAL crime he committed: criminal negligence.

Given ample warning by the intelligence community, Bush scratched his head at the notion of doing all that complicated stuff they thought he should do andwent dickering off to his ranch.

Probably because he felt that an attack on the US would move a patriotic congress to give him essentially a blank check to help him achieve his pre-911 stated goal of upgrading the military.  Ever ask yourself why Osama bin Laden's suicide pilots have such a keen interest in making America's defense contractors richer by billions?

Ever ask yourself why 911 happened months after the U.S. tried and failed to close an Afghanistan gas pipeline deal with the Taliban?  Taliban said no, months later, the corporate media are bludgeoning us with "terrorist network of the Taliban which must be stopped."  They links to terrorism certainly were no problems whatsoever for the White House months earlier when they were hoping to gain access to Taliban owned territory to help American oil-causes.  Google "carpet of bombs" and discover a whole new world.

Quote:
Beyond that, he then plodded forward with despicable intent after the fact - choosing to exploit what his ignorance and laziness had wrought rather than learning from it and taking responsibility for it.

Bush is not lazy or stupid, but guilty of masterminding 911 with other American government interests.  Or maybe you never heard about Osama bin Laden escaping from our military 4 times, the last of which included a ride on American military planes?

Quote:
The man should assuredly be behind bars, but for none of the reasons 9/11 liars want to claim.

When Bush admitted explosives were used regarding the 911 WTC attacks, (something never mentioned or else denied by all three government-sponsered investigations; FEMA, NIST and 911 CONmission).... is this another one of his lies too?

Does America's obvious history of false flag terrorism suggest that the 911 tragedy, which made Bush's defense contractors and corporate cronies far richer than their wildest dreams, suggest incompentence or complicity?

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
skepticdudecongratulations

skepticdude

congratulations on being a skeptic

But I think you should be skeptical about the inside job hypothesis.

Do you think you have enough factual information to hold to this idea? If your answer is yes, then do you think you have more information than all the people who actually have the power to do something about it if the inside job hypothesis was true? 

Let's suppose there are people that have more information than you and that they did have the power to do something about it (if it was true), why then is nothing being done?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
aiia

aiia wrote:

skepticdude

congratulations on being a skeptic

But I think you should be skeptical about the inside job hypothesis.

Do you think you have enough factual information to hold to this idea? If your answer is yes, then do you think you have more information than all the people who actually have the power to do something about it if the inside job hypothesis was true? 

Let's suppose there are people that have more information than you and that they did have the power to do something about it (if it was true), why then is nothing being done?

Fear of reprisal would keep many whistle-blowers mouths shut.  The question you ask actually works FOR the 911 truth movement.11 warnings and post 911 investigation, is non-controversial.

Bush's incompetence regarding pre-911 warnings, and his lying us into the Iraq war are impeachable offences.

Why is nothing being done?   Pelosi was seriously considering impeaching Bush.  She becomes Speaker of the House, and suddenly, impeachment is "off the table".

Do you agree with Kucinich's arguments before the House, that Bush and Cheney deserve impeachment?  If so, why is nothing being done?

Did you just move a few inches closer to the conspiricy theory?

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote: Fear of

skepticdude wrote:

Fear of reprisal would keep many whistle-blowers mouths shut.  The question you ask actually works FOR the 911 truth movement.11 warnings and post 911 investigation, is non-controversial.

What are the PROVEN FACTS? I don’t want to read any hypotheses. Anybody can hypothesize.

Quote:
Bush's incompetence regarding pre-911 warnings, and his lying us into the Iraq war are impeachable offences.
Why is nothing being done?   Pelosi was seriously considering impeaching Bush.  She becomes Speaker of the House, and suddenly, impeachment is "off the table".
Do you agree with Kucinich's arguments before the House, that Bush and Cheney deserve impeachment?  If so, why is nothing being done?

The consideration of impeachment has nothing to do with Bush actually being a part of a conspiracy. It’s about lying concerning the reason he gave for attacking Iraq.

Quote:
Did you just move a few inches closer to the conspiracy theory?

There was a conspiracy - a plot involving 2 or more people. There were more people besides the pilots involved,  but to suggest Bush and his associates were involved is a bit too excessive.

Why is there no effort to find out if the Saudi Arabian government was involved, after all that's where most of the pilots lived and trained.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
First off, Skepticdude, I

First off, Skepticdude, I think the Democrats fear looking weak on national security, they have bought into the Republican's talking points and are politically naive when it comes to playing the game and getting things done. Its not a conspiracy, they don't want to be seen as rocking the boat, and don't want to use impeachment as an issue in the presidential election to let conservatives have a rallying point to drum up their base. For better or worse, that is their plan, not a conspiracy to protect Bush. I think he should be impeached personally, unfortunately it is not going to happen for purely politically motivated reasons.

 

PNAC and the neocons did use 911 for political purposes to enforce their agenda, that is a given, but they didn't cause it. Using an act of violence against America to push through voluntary foreign wars through fear mongering...yes. Creating act of violence for said strategy...no.

The CIA helping hijackers...I doubt it.

The Patriot Act was created to give the executive branch more control, did erode civil liberties, and 911 was used as justification for the creation of this document. The neocon and regular conservative idea of empowering a unitary executive is real, its not NWO, its authoritarian. Conservatism is based on authoritarianism, and it is part of this new philosophy that the "decider" needs to have plenty of leeway and a free hand to assess and defeat the threats imposed by terrorism. I don't agree with said philosophical viewpoints, but they are not the basis for creating a NWO.

In that clip of Bush supposedly admitting explosives were used, he was clearly speaking about the planes being used as explosives, and hitting the towers at specific spots so that the upper floors could not evacuate. He isn't speaking about controlled demolition. You are attributing things you would like to be true to merely poor usage of the term explosive. The planes are the explosives, listen again, and you will hear him use planes and explosives synonymously.

As for Operation Northwoods....apples and oranges. Look here Northwoods

The CIA has taken out government's, carried out assasinations, and Bush has deliberately deceived Americans(Iraq, Scooter Libby leak(that was Cheney) etc). The difference is that I am quite sure President Bush would not directly cause the deaths of American civilians for political purposes. While I vehemently disagree with conservative ideology, I don't believe they see attacking American civilians as a viable strategy, and some see it as immoral(including the President). No, this cannot be analogized to the Iraq war, one is an attack on one's citizens, the other is a war with a foreign entity. Your line of how can we think he is innocent is a complete non sequitir, and is merely hyperbolic zealotry.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/ Check out this site and others, and look with a skeptical viewpoint that perhaps 911 might just be a massive governmental fuckup on multiple levels. The 911 commision did a shitty job, left out Saudi Arabia in its report due to favorable diplomatic ties. Bush didn't want to be looked upon as having been a part of this epic governmental failure, which is why his secrecy and lack of candor on the matter are so evident. The man is a horrible leader, with terrible policies that have lead to economic depression, needless American soldier casualties, politicization and corruption of the US attorneys....I could go on and on, but I won't.

The point is, we can agree that many of his actions are worthy of impeachment, but the evidence is simply not there to point to 911 being a huge planned inside job of the government, with the President leading a NWO. That is a conspiracy theory, and one that is continually debunked at every level. I hope that helps.

 

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:What are the

aiia wrote:

What are the PROVEN FACTS? I don’t want to read any hypotheses. Anybody can hypothesize.

First, one proven fact is that Bush, reading from a previously prepared speech paper in a press conference, connected explosives with the 911 WTC attack. 

Second, your inistence on proven facts shows you prioritize probable cause far less than our courts of law, which often detain a person in jail on probable cause alone,  BEFORE any facts are proven.  You don't need proven facts in the 911 case.  All you need is the ability to sustain a case for probable cause to believe 911 was an inside job, in the face of criticism.  When you can do that, then you are rational to believe 911 was an inside job.

Quote:
The consideration of impeachment has nothing to do with Bush actually being a part of a conspiracy. It’s about lying concerning the reason he gave for attacking Iraq.

Incorrect, part of the argument for impeachment includes Bush being criminally culpable for not taking the pre-911 warnings more seriously, among other things.

You missed my point, which was that the dragging slowness of progress toward impeaching Bush above the grassroots level gives probable cause to believe there is an effort within Congress to stonewall such efforts until Bush leaves office, which implies a conspiritorial Congress that has a good case for impeaching the President, and refuses to do what needs doing. 

Quote:
There was a conspiracy - a plot involving 2 or more people. There were more people besides the pilots involved,  but to suggest Bush and his associates were involved is a bit too excessive.

Really?  How do you explain Osama bin Laden's caravan of cars and trucks escaping our military in Torra Borra, after being cornered, leaving at night with a trail of headlights the locals saw for miles?

How about those other 3 times Osama escaped capture after being cornered?  World's luckiest terrorist, or conspiricy?

Quote:
Why is there no effort to find out if the Saudi Arabian government was involved, after all that's where most of the pilots lived and trained.

Yeah, Arabia was in those 28 pages the White House redacted out of the Joint Senate 911 Committee, and in spite of zero probable cause to link Sadaam with 911 or hosting of those hijackers, Bush lies us into war with Iraq.  Bush tells the the whole nation many times that Osama sure did carry out the 911 attack, while the FBI admits no hard evidence exists linking him with 911 Quite obviously, the idea that Bush is involved in a conspiricy is a bit too excessive.  Bush wouldn't use lies and deception to further causes that make American defense contractors rich by the billions, would he?  He's from TEXAS, for the luv a Christ!

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sometimes it seems people

Sometimes it seems people can be so inept and lazy about doing their jobs that it appears they must be deliberately trying to fuck things up. I think that's the case here, I don't think bush or anyone in the Bush administration, CIA/NSA/FBI is competent enough to pull off such a conspiracy even if they wanted to. 9/11 was just religious nut jobs finding a big hole in our security.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
HeyZeusCreaseToe wrote:First

HeyZeusCreaseToe wrote:

First off, Skepticdude, I think the Democrats fear looking weak on national security, they have bought into the Republican's talking points and are politically naive when it comes to playing the game and getting things done. Its not a conspiracy, they don't want to be seen as rocking the boat, and don't want to use impeachment as an issue in the presidential election to let conservatives have a rallying point to drum up their base.

I have a bit more faith that some Democrats believe in impeachment, regardless of the political cost.  On the other hand, I have little faith that the people who win elections these days were authentically voted into office.  Election Fraud was a hard lesson we learned with both Bush appointments.

Quote:

For better or worse, that is their plan, not a conspiracy to protect Bush. I think he should be impeached personally, unfortunately it is not going to happen for purely politically motivated reasons.

I disagree,  you are discounting the benefits of impeaching Bush, irrationally thinking it will make things BETTER for Republicans.  You are wrong.  Impeachment is a total disgrace, and has great possibility of being justified given that it requires a majority vote of Congress.  After impeachment, the fence-sitters today would be forced to decide whether it was justified or not.  Nobody has anything good to say about Bush, everybody except Fox news agrees Bush LIED us into an illegal war and shreds the constitution with his Patriot Act.  The chances are thus greater that most fence-sitters will be glad that Bush was impeached, which will strengthen the political platform tremendously for any reigning Democratic candidate. They could then say "see!? the democractic model works!"   While it might provide talking points for Republicans, they certainly couldn't deflect the complete negativity of such impeachment.  You are not realistically dealing with the negative impact Bush's impeachment would have on the Republican party.

Quote:
PNAC and the neocons did use 911 for political purposes to enforce their agenda, that is a given, but they didn't cause it.

I see. So it was just dumb luck that the Pearl Harbor Bush's greedy cronies said needed to take place to enable them to upgrade the military, actually took place?  If the PNAC shows us they know what's necessary to getting Congress to give Bush a blank check and thus cause America's defense contractors to hit the Lottery, how on earth can you say it was just their lucky day?  Not lucky for the victims, but VERY lucky for corporations.  I'm not buying it.  Short of a full candid confession, ALL conspiricy theories are by nature possibly explainable by non-conspiricy hypotheses.  Watch out that you don't deny conspiricy just because Bush doesn't come right out and say "I'm guilty for helping Osama orchestrate the 911 attacks".  You have to be sharper than that, and you have to know what a conspiring government would do to manufacture plausible deniability.

Quote:
Using an act of violence against America to push through voluntary foreign wars through fear mongering...yes. Creating act of violence for said strategy...no.

What did you learn from the Operation Northwoods document? 

Quote:
The CIA helping hijackers...I doubt it.

Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, sure didn't doubt it:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=us_consulate,_jedda,_saudi_arabia_office

Quote:
The Patriot Act was created to give the executive branch more control, did erode civil liberties, and 911 was used as justification for the creation of this document. The neocon and regular conservative idea of empowering a unitary executive is real, its not NWO, its authoritarian. Conservatism is based on authoritarianism, and it is part of this new philosophy that the "decider" needs to have plenty of leeway and a free hand to assess and defeat the threats imposed by terrorism. I don't agree with said philosophical viewpoints, but they are not the basis for creating a NWO.

What else would the beginning of a NWO-police state look like, if not the gradual erosion of civil liberties and laws granting the President dictatorship powers?

Quote:
In that clip of Bush supposedly admitting explosives were used, he was clearly speaking about the planes being used as explosives, and hitting the towers at specific spots so that the upper floors could not evacuate. He isn't speaking about controlled demolition. You are attributing things you would like to be true to merely poor usage of the term explosive. The planes are the explosives, listen again, and you will hear him use planes and explosives synonymously.

First, nobody on either side of the fence in the entire history of the 911 truth movement, has ever said "explosives" and meant "the planes".  The people in the debate are always exactly DISTINGUSHING "explosives" from "the plane".

Second, Bush said the operative told him how they were told to make sure "the explosives WENT OFF".  "went off" is commonly used to describe explosives exploding, and nobody in the history of the 911 truth movement, on either side, has ever said "the explosives went off" and meant "the plane ripped through the towers and the jet fuel ignited."

Third, in spite of disagreeing with me, you say Bush used "explosives" in a "poor" way, so you acknowledge that your interpretation of his words requires that he be using his terms in a "poor" way, when actually his having read them straight off of a written script argues that he was not using words poorly.   Maybe his script said "the planes exploded after hitting the buildings"? Not likley.  The White House carefully prepares those press statements, the words were carefully chosen, your "poor usage" argument is itself poor.

Quote:
As for Operation Northwoods....apples and oranges. Look here Northwoods

I'm not debating them, I'm debating YOU, and I already know what they have to say, and no, it's not apples and oranges.  The single solitary reason you are inclined to first disagree with the conspiricy theory is because you started out knowing next to nothing about America's history of false flag terrorism.   The idea that greedy liars and decievers in powerful government positions would NOT assist in orchestrating such a money-maker is the most outrageous theory of all.

Suppose I have a history of lying, deceit, killing people, breaking the law, violating people's rights, and believing myself above the law, and that I've used faudulent documents to justify violence toward innocent people, and that my whole life is characterized by a love of money and power.

Then you find out my wife died in an "accident".  Then you find out I stand to gain $15 million from her death.  Now ask yourself why it is standard procedure among criminal investigators to begin the investigation with the person who benefitted the most from the "accident".  How long would you attempt to debunk the people who accused me of foul play, before your brain started vaporizing? 

Quote:

The CIA has taken out government's, carried out assasinations, and Bush has deliberately deceived Americans(Iraq, Scooter Libby leak(that was Cheney) etc). The difference is that I am quite sure President Bush would not directly cause the deaths of American civilians for political purposes.

Yes, given his gargantuan efforts to preserve human life in the Katrina disaster, and given that he's certainly willing to sacrifice American military lives and innocent Iraqi lives for his 100% illegal war, only stupid paranoid conspiricy theorists would dare think Bush would approve of the deaths of his own people to achieve political goals.  You are quite irrational.

Quote:

While I vehemently disagree with conservative ideology, I don't believe they see attacking American civilians as a viable strategy, and some see it as immoral(including the President). No, this cannot be analogized to the Iraq war, one is an attack on one's citizens, the other is a war with a foreign entity.

Yes it CAN be analogized to the Iraq war, because you and I agree that the war is illegal, that Bush lied us into it, and yet he is still willing to accept American deaths in it regardless.  Sorry, the analogy is perfect.  Even if it wasn't, one of Bush's impeachable offenses was his failure to act in a timely way to save lives in the Hurricane Katrina disaster.  Bush is obviously not concerned to preserve human life when it might pose an inconvenience. 

Quote:

Your line of how can we think he is innocent is a complete non sequitir, and is merely hyperbolic zealotry.

Nope, you candidly admit Bush is innocent of murder, when in fact Kuninich and most democrats are pushing to have Bush impeached for exactly crimes of omission that any dummy knows would result in death, like his slowness regarding Katrina.  If he isn't stupid, then he knew that taking months to set up a proper rescue operation will assure the needless death of many people.  No justification whatsoever for the wasted time and resultant lost lives.

Quote:
 

http://www.debunk911myths.org/ Check out this site and others, and look with a skeptical viewpoint that perhaps 911 might just be a massive governmental fuckup on multiple levels.

I already know about Mark Roberts and the entire debunking movement.  My arguments sidestep theirs.  I don't need to prove thermate signatures in WTC dust to implicate Bush in 911.   Bush's post 911 efforts to thwart/stonewall/drag feet regarding 911 investigation demonstrate solid rational warrant that there is something about 911 he thinks will ruin him if subjected to disclosure.  Why else would he fight the possibility of investigating 911?  Why else would he hire Kissinger, master cover-up-artist of the century, to lead the 911 CONmission? 

Is this where you suddenly discover how many convenient coincidences and dumb luck are necessary to prop up your "Bush-would-never-do-something-so-horrible" theory?

Quote:
The 911 commision did a shitty job,

They said the WTC 1 & 2 were made with a hollow tube running all the way through them, this is a weakness that helped them collapse.  No such hollow tube was used in their construction. Shitty job, or cover-up?

Quote:
left out Saudi Arabia in its report due to favorable diplomatic ties.

yeah, and those diplomatic ties are worth money, right?

3000 Americans died on 911, yet Bush covers up not just a possible lead, but the most obviously correct lead in pursuing the investigation, the Saudi connection.  I think you are getting closer to seeing that Bush is less concerned about American human life than you suppose.  You just aren't following out his lies and deceptions and criminal actions as much as a FBI criminal profiler would.

U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, intelligence committee chairman, calls it a cover up:

"Yet this administration has taken every step to obfuscate, avoid and cover up Saudi Arabia's actions," he added. (WASHINGTON (Reuters))

Do you agree with him?  Refusing to mention the Saudi connection, when it's perfectly obvious the hijacker were Saudis, not Iraqis,  constitutes COVER UP, agreed?

When the entire Bush Administration and the Saudi who deny their connection to 911, both work toward the common goal of smothering investigative efforts to follow the Saudi connections, that's called CONSPIRICY, right?

Quote:
Bush didn't want to be looked upon as having been a part of this epic governmental failure, which is why his secrecy and lack of candor on the matter are so evident.

We learn from your previous admission that Bush also engages in secrecy and deceptive behavior when there is potential money and political power to be lost.  It is n't just an ego motivating him to distance himself from "mistakes".  It's worse than that.

Quote:
The man is a horrible leader, with terrible policies that have lead to economic depression, needless American soldier casualties, politicization and corruption of the US attorneys....I could go on and on, but I won't.

Sounds innocent of murder to me!  Especially given how lucrative 911 was for Bush's defense contractors.  When given the choice, a guy like Bush would always choose to saving lives over money, yessir.

Quote:
The point is, we can agree that many of his actions are worthy of impeachment, but the evidence is simply not there to point to 911 being a huge planned inside job of the government, with the President leading a NWO. That is a conspiracy theory, and one that is continually debunked at every level. I hope that helps.

YOU believe in a conspiricy theory too. Don't get too mouthy about "conspiricy theories" being unproved.  I could also preach to the choir and say your own conspiricy theory has been debunked at every level, but I don't.

By the way, the FBI doesn't have any hard evidence linking Osama with 911.  Why therefore do you suppose Bush and his corporate media were pushing the Osama connection as if it was "obvious"?  Does the Bush administration engage in deception of it's American citizens?  If so, what's the purpose of such deception?  Why blame Osama in the press if the truth is, the case for his guilt hasn't actually been made?  Could it be that Bush wishes to take the heat off of certain investigation targets and place it where he won't be implicated in anything?

Bush lies about his responsibility for the deaths of now 4000 Americans in Iraq, saying the war was necessary, while even Fox news now says it was an optional war.  Where did you ever get the silly idea that Bush would never lie to cover up his guilt for the deaths of 3000 Americans?

Do you live in Texas?

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Sometimes it seems

EXC wrote:

Sometimes it seems people can be so inept and lazy about doing their jobs that it appears they must be deliberately trying to fuck things up. I think that's the case here, I don't think bush or anyone in the Bush administration, CIA/NSA/FBI is competent enough to pull off such a conspiracy even if they wanted to. 9/11 was just religious nut jobs finding a big hole in our security.

Go educate yourself about the history of false flag terrorism in America.  Bush's incompetence is irrelevant, when he wants to get things done, he's got profressionals to do the job.

You know nothing about the CIA if you think they are incompentent.  Go read "NATO's Secret Wars".

All you prove is that you've bought this "incompetence" theory from the Bush administration, which was actually part of their cover up plan, as Bush insisted the 911 Commission focus solely on the communication mishaps and misjudgements of the military/FAA.  That's called tampering with evidence, corrupting an investigation, call it what you want.  So unless you can figure a reason why an innocent party would wish to stonewall, obfuscate, dictate the limits of an investigation, deny access to potentially incriminating data, etc, such things always imply GUILT.  Only criminals are afraid of investigations:

New American, The,  Dec 30, 2002  by William Norman Grigg
"The White House is setting this [commission] up for a whitewash," complained Stephen Push, director of the group Families of September 11, in a telephone interview with THE NEW AMERICAN. "Because of foot-dragging by intelligence agencies, the congressional inquiry didn't have access to the information they needed to find out what we knew in advance about the attack, and why it wasn't acted upon.... And now the White House has appointed Henry Kissinger, the master of government secrecy, to head the commission."

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The thing with these

The thing with these conspiracy theories, is that they aren't really falsifiable.

 

I mean every refutation is 'part of the plot'.

"Oh the CIA made it look like they dropped the ball!"

 

See?

 

If they pulled this off they are the best fucking genuises in the history of the universe.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Dude, you need to chill out.

Dude, you need to chill out. Seriously. I told you, this is not an issue about which I have major concern. I only form strong opinions on those things about which I am highly educated and therefore less likely to form poor arguments. So, for example, this includes evolution, physics and cosmology such as Big Bang Theory, etc. Whenever I encounter an issue about which there is no way for me to evaluate an argument, because I am unfamiliar with the territory, I just tag it as another knowledge claim and leave it at that. If I wanted to pursue the matter, I would study the subject first. For example, taking Global Warming as the knowledge claim, the first thing I would do would be to study climatology, until I am very familiar with climatology and so can evaluate arguments being made. Naturally, this practice severely limits the number of things about which one can form strong opinions but it also limits the possibility that they will commit epistemological malfeasance. So, what I said was tentative and there is no need to become so overly emotional. I really don't have strong emotions about this matter primarily because I wouldn't be able to form strong emotions until I possessed sufficient knowledge to be able to evaluate arguments on this matter. Stick to this principle and you can never fuck up. I once argued with a creationist who sent me a link on thermodynamics that, as I found out by replying in an equally complex fashion, he did not understand the contents of the link he sent. I don't make the same mistake.

Quote:

 physics is not my forte, but the question is not "can a commercial aircraft bring down a skyscraper?", but is rather "Were WTC 1 & 2 specifically designed to withstand multiple passenger jet collisions?" The very idea that Martini, one of the people involved in the WTC design, forgot to account for aircraft fuel that would start fires after a collision, is preposterous.  Maybe he didn't know physics as well as you?

Whether or not they "forgot" to account for aircraft fuel fire bringing down the building, or whether or not it was designed to do something is not the issue. The issue is whether or not fire did bring down WTC 1 and 2. You see? This I can argue about, because this is something I understand completely. So, go ahead if you wish.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I don't think you understand

I don't think you understand that your own logic refutes itself.  First the democrats are unwilling to impeach Bush as part of the conspiracy, then most of the Democrats want to impeach him, sounds like you want to have it both ways. As for mischaracterizing me stating the democrats have a plan not to impeach to mean I support their plan and think it is a swell idea.....well that is just dishonest. Their plan is flimsy at best, I disagree with it, and said I favor impeachment.

Saying I would deny all conspiracy theories until Bush came out and admitted it is just ludicrous and shows no respect for what I actually have said on the subject.

You continue to mischaracterize my explanations as support for Bush, its a bad straw man. First I want to impeach him, but then I think he is innocent, huh? He is guilty of manufacturing a false rationale for a voluntary, unnecessary war. He and members of his administration deliberately mislead and often times outright lied to the American people, the UN, members of Congress....etc. That war lead to numerous American deaths. Those deaths and the money lost in the debacle are on his hands. I wish he would face those crimes, but as I have said before, the Democrats lame political strategy is more concerned with winning an election than carrying out justice.

Your other references to Northwood and false flag terrorism, and saying I am unaware of them is simply dishonest and factually incorrect. You act like I agree with the majority of covert and not so covert operations the US govt has performed in the past. I don't, but I also don't paint them to be things they are not either. Northwoods is apples to 911's oranges because it didn't involve the murder of Americans, the faux murders perhaps, but staging innocent victims through actors is much different than murdering 3000 people.

You are agreeing with me when I said the 911 commission did a shitty job, but inserting it was a cover up. To a certain extent it did cover some things up for the Bush Administration. Mainly the links to Saudi Arabia, which I implicitly mentioned. That was a travesty, most of the commission's recommendations were also dismissed and forgotten, another travesty. It doesn't equate to proof of the administration orchestrating the attacks though. I see it as more of the same political expedience and tight control of negative information of authoritarian regimes, of which this administration is a perfect example.

Osama bin Laden first denied, then accepted responsibility for the attacks in multiple audio tapes since 2004. I think he did it. He is fairly irrational, and I am not sure as to his motivations in denying then admitting something. It is a pretty safe bet that he was involved from the evidence of his own accounts on the subject. Ultimately the people that carried it out are dead. A conspiracy between 19 men carried to fruition a large scale terrorist attack.

As for people gaining monetarily from the Iraq war, that is not up for debate. There is definitely war profiteering going on. The military-industrial complex is a very real phenomenon which Ike warned us against in his farewell speech. I think the neoconservative ideals of creating stability in the middle east through aggressive foreign policy, regime change, and war fit squarely in with the rise of defense spending, private mercenaries, and war profiteering. The extent to which securing Iraq's oil resources fits into this equation looks suspect at best, and damning at the worst. I don't want to believe that two ex oil men(Bush and Cheney) with direct ties to the current profiteers of the Iraq occupation(Halliburton, KBR, Exxon etc) used this military endeavor to plunder foreign oil reserves, but as the evidence piles up, and the old rationales for the war and staying in Iraq cease to be employable, the truth seems to possibly point in that direction. The recent no bid contracts for the future of Iraq's oil reserves going to companies of countries that were involved in the war is quite suspicious to say little of the openly corrupt process. I hold out little hope that anyone in the current administration will be held to any account of their provable crimes, let alone their unprovable crimes.

So to finish, I think neither one of us will change position, but in the end some of the, shall we say, more unbelievable conspiracy claims hold at their core ideas like, everything was made to look like that as part of the coverup. Some of these things strike me as paranoid delusions. Indeed coverups do occur, government corruption happens, but in this case I just don't think the evidence supports your conclusions. Thats the bottom line. This will be my last post on the subject. Attack my ideas, but please don't mischaracterize my position of create a straw man of my response.

As for the idea I am from Texas and I find it inconceivable that Bush would lie about something to cover up his guilt, cmon! I already stated that he has lied about crimes he is guilty of. Cheap shot at Texas as well. I lived there for a year when I was six years old...uhoh...the neocons brainwashed me then! Although I am a Dallas Cowboys fan, but that is only because the Arizona Cardinals have the worst management in the history of sports and one conspiracy theory I might put some stock in is that the Bidwell's prize money over winning, and don't find the need to win to be successful all that compelling. I say goodday!

 

 

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The thing with these conspiracy theories, is that they aren't really falsifiable.

 

I mean every refutation is 'part of the plot'.

"Oh the CIA made it look like they dropped the ball!"

 

See?

 

If they pulled this off they are the best fucking genuises in the history of the universe.

Why?  The CIA has all the capabilities to assist terrorists, go read "NATO's Secret Wars".

As far as falsifiability, I'm willing to deal with any and all evidence.  Bush can't go back in time and undo his lies, so it would be pretty difficult for me to answer the falsifiability question "what would it take to convince you that the Bush administration is innocent of the 911 attacks?"

The official version is certaintly falsified though.  Bush pushed the media hard to burn Osama's guilt into our brain, in spite of the fact that the FBI listing for Osama doesn't list 911 as one of his crimes, in spite of the fact that the FBI candidly admitted they have no hard evidence linking Osama to 911.

If that's true, why was Bush pushing the Osama connection as if it was point blank obvious?

CONSPIRICY.  Get used to it.  He already conspires against your civil rights with unprecedented dictator like abuse of power. 

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote:Why? The

skepticdude wrote:

Why?  The CIA has all the capabilities to assist terrorists, go read "NATO's Secret Wars".

As far as falsifiability, I'm willing to deal with any and all evidence.  Bush can't go back in time and undo his lies, so it would be pretty difficult for me to answer the falsifiability question "what would it take to convince you that the Bush administration is innocent of the 911 attacks?"

The official version is certaintly falsified though.  Bush pushed the media hard to burn Osama's guilt into our brain, in spite of the fact that the FBI listing for Osama doesn't list 911 as one of his crimes, in spite of the fact that the FBI candidly admitted they have no hard evidence linking Osama to 911.

If that's true, why was Bush pushing the Osama connection as if it was point blank obvious?

CONSPIRICY.  Get used to it.  He already conspires against your civil rights with unprecedented dictator like abuse of power. 

 

 

Several problems with this:

 

1) The FBI is a government organization. What, so Bush couldn't get them in on it? So Bush got the NSA, CIA, NIST, FEMA but couldn't get the FBI? If they have proof that Bush did it, wouldn't they charge him?

 

2) As for the 'pushing Osama' part, it isn't surprising since prior to 9/11 all Osama did was the USS Cole bombings 2000 and I think an embassy in Saudia Arabia. Other than that Bin Laden wasn't that well known.

 

 

What about the first WTC bombing in '93? Was that a plot too?

 

Oh and of course the CIA has the capability to assist terrorist, but that doesn't mean they do.

 

Even if CIA assisted other terrorist attacks doesn't mean they assisted this one.


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
I believe 9/11 was an inside job, do you?

NO.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Whether or

deludedgod wrote:

Whether or not they "forgot" to account for aircraft fuel fire bringing down the building, or whether or not it was designed to do something is not the issue. The issue is whether or not fire did bring down WTC 1 and 2. You see?

Of course, but absolute truth is not obtainable, so unfortunately for you, when the WTC designers said it should have survived multiple plane impacts, that provides rational warrant for being suspicious of it's collapse after a single plane hit each.  Martini's pencil-through-mosquito-netting analogy to the 757 hitting the wtc, concluding "it really does nothing to the netting", makes him sound like a conspiricist, doesn't it?

Quote:

This I can argue about, because this is something I understand completely. So, go ahead if you wish.

Sure, NIST admits the steel in their replication of the post-crash conditions of the WTC towers, failed to collapse:

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was
capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11." (NIST, 2005, p. 141.)

Their caveat is that test conditions were somewhat different than the actual wtc tower fires, but there are three problems with that:

a - the closest replication they could come up with, failed to collapse. This cannot simply be waved aside, it's a genuine loss of points for NIST and the official theory.  Nobody automatically discounts replication testing just because the replication conditions can never perfectly mirror the original destruction being analyzed.  Ford and Chevrolet still test crash their cars in controlled conditions, thinking the results are useful, yet knowing similar crashes in the real world will not exactly replicate the test crashes.

b - The testing conditions, being in a controlled environment, would therefore subject the steel to a more consistent source of heat, generally, than would be expected to obtain in the uncontrolled conditions of the actual WTC fires, where there are no assurances that any flame source will consistently heat a steel beam from the same location for an hour.  This means the wtc fires are even less likely to have heated the steel enough to critical failure.

c - whatever other variables there were that the testing environment couldn't replicate, are diminished by the fact that the steel held up for TWICE as long in testing fires which are more uniform and consistent in degrading the steel, than they did in the actual wtc fires.  Do you have any bright ideas about what unreplicable sources of heat in the actual wtc's caused their steel greater damage and more quickly than NIST's testing environment?  What else would you expect to read in their report, if indeed the fire-theory is the wrong one?

NIST's computer models also didn't collapse until they had tweaked the data to the point that the model was in a greater state of destruction than the WTC's were upon point of collapse initiation.  NIST declined to reveal their calculations or the software used to model the collapses, and refused, twice, to discuss their findings with people like Steven Jones, whose Ph.d in physics makes him perfectly qualified to peer-review their physical model calculations.  So because NIST refuses to allow their findings to be subjected to peer-review (meaning, NIST's scientists refuse to discuss problems with their model that other ph.d scientists have with it), the NIST model is NOT scientific. This is reinforced by the previously noted problem that they also refuse to disclose the computer software for their modeling nor would they disclose the calculations they input to finally get the model to collapse.  The failure to submit to peer-review discussion of the first sign that a scientist doesn't know the first rules of science, or else has something to hide, is it not?  Did the government spend it's money wisely on their NIST investment?

Nobody should be saying fire caused the steel to weaken so much that it eventually gave way.

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

skepticdude wrote:

Why?  The CIA has all the capabilities to assist terrorists, go read "NATO's Secret Wars".

As far as falsifiability, I'm willing to deal with any and all evidence.  Bush can't go back in time and undo his lies, so it would be pretty difficult for me to answer the falsifiability question "what would it take to convince you that the Bush administration is innocent of the 911 attacks?"

The official version is certaintly falsified though.  Bush pushed the media hard to burn Osama's guilt into our brain, in spite of the fact that the FBI listing for Osama doesn't list 911 as one of his crimes, in spite of the fact that the FBI candidly admitted they have no hard evidence linking Osama to 911.

If that's true, why was Bush pushing the Osama connection as if it was point blank obvious?

CONSPIRICY.  Get used to it.  He already conspires against your civil rights with unprecedented dictator like abuse of power. 

 

 

Several problems with this:

 

1) The FBI is a government organization. What, so Bush couldn't get them in on it? So Bush got the NSA, CIA, NIST, FEMA but couldn't get the FBI? If they have proof that Bush did it, wouldn't they charge him?

No, google sybil edmonds.  The FBI was part of the coverup.  The reason they honestly admitted no hard evidence, was because if they had said they DO have hard evidence, they know they would have been hounded to death by people demanding to the see the case proven, which they could never do.  If they refused to lay out their case, it would be an obvious sign of lying.  If they tried to make a case, it would be weak and people would ask how they ever connected Osama to 911 in the first place.  So by admitting no hard evidence, they pass over a shitload of problems. 

Quote:
2) As for the 'pushing Osama' part, it isn't surprising since prior to 9/11 all Osama did was the USS Cole bombings 2000 and I think an embassy in Saudia Arabia. Other than that Bin Laden wasn't that well known.

How does that justify Bush pushing Osama's name as the 911 guilty party so furiously after 911, when the FBI had no hard evidence?  Can you not admit that Bush was overstating the case?

Quote:
What about the first WTC bombing in '93? Was that a plot too?

 Sure seems like it.  An informant was part of the plan, he was to switch the explosive with harmless powder substitute, but his FBI supervisor pulled him off the case before that switch, so the bomb was made and detonated.  The FBI's failure to thwart that bombing, having gotten that close to the suspects, is a sure sign of a plot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs

Quote:
Oh and of course the CIA has the capability to assist terrorist, but that doesn't mean they do.

Like I said, read "NATO's secret wars".  I didn't say the CIA merely had the capability, I said they DID assist the terrorists, and they've been doing that for decades.  They controled the illegal drugs and their Lords from Columbian cocaine to Afghanistan's opium.  Google the terms and discover how horrible the CIA really is.  When they do secret projects that are higher than even the President, how do you figure they get Congress to give them funding?

Quote:
Even if CIA assisted other terrorist attacks doesn't mean they assisted this one.

Of course not, but probable cause based on repeated past criminal history is still a valid way to think according to judges and prosecutors who may hold an innocent man in jail because the new charge (theft) fits the pattern of his past criminal convictions (theft, buglary).

More directly, Michael Springman, a person who authorized or denied Visas to people in Customs, testifies that the CIA would often overrule his choice to deny passports to men we'd later know as the terrorist hijackers.  The following link contains video and audio llnks to a formal presentatioan of evidences against 911 by key people working in key positions that related directly to how the 911 attacks were pulled off.

http://www.911busters.com/911-Commission.html

Anything is always possible, but in a court of law, one DOES have the right to examine the credibility of the witness.  If the CIA is on the witness stand, and they say "we didn't help the 911 terrorists", a lawyer is allowed by law to disclose the CIA's past instances of helping terrorists and others like them, and then letting the jury decide the merit's of their "we're innocent" claim.

If you found out I was deeply involved in drugs, murders, and terrorism for 20 years, that wouldn't prove I'm still a bad guy today....but would you hire me for your babysitter? 

Your objection is also irrelevent.  When a person is first arraigned in court on a criminal matter, the prosecutor is quick to bring up their criminal history, if any, to justify holding them in jail.  So the fact that a former burglar might be innocent of the new buglary charge, is unimpressive to those who deal with the rules of evidence every single day (judges and prosecutors).   If the man has enough of a criminal history, that's enough probable cause to hold him in jail and deny release pending trial.

My point is that your technical objection "just because they did it before, doesn't mean they do it now" accomplishes nothing, because it doesn't take into account the legitimacy of "probable cause".

I don't have to prove to you that the CIA are currently corrupt.  Anybody who knows anything about the history of the CIA (anybody who spends five minutes googling "CIA 911 drugs" will have good probable cause to believe the CIA was also involved in getting those hijacker pilots Visas so they could enter and live in the U.S.

Probable cause is always short of proof or conviction, but it's still a valid legal precedent to make punishing decisions.

 

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote:No, google

skepticdude wrote:

No, google sybil edmonds.  The FBI was part of the cover up.  The reason they honestly admitted no hard evidence, was because if they had said they DO have hard evidence, they know they would have been hounded to death by people demanding to the see the case proven, which they could never do.  If they refused to lay out their case, it would be an obvious sign of lying.  If they tried to make a case, it would be weak and people would ask how they ever connected Osama to 911 in the first place.  So by admitting no hard evidence, they pass over a shitload of problems. 

 

This would show Bush's inability to plan. After all, they made all the other shit up, why couldn't they forge evidence?

 

 

Quote:

How does that justify Bush pushing Osama's name as the 911 guilty party so furiously after 911, when the FBI had no hard evidence?  Can you not admit that Bush was overstating the case?

 

The reason for the pushing Bin Laden is to get us riled up for the 'war on terrorism' so Bush can get his cronies more contracts.

 

However this does not mean the he did 9/11, it just means he took advantage of it.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"NIST contracted with

Quote:

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was
capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11." (NIST, 2005, p. 141.)

The following should be interesting, because the response I am to give will be technical.

Firstly, I shall presume you are familiar with the concept of a stress-strain curve. In mechanics, this is sometimes referred to as  Hooke's Law curve. The stress tensor for steel is described as a highly inelastic, up to the yield point, which is very high, but with very little strain, after which it starts to buckle. Now, there is a second-order differential equation that links temperature with the yield strength point, because the expansion causes an effect that is known as viscoplasticity, which steel exhibits above 720 Kelvin. This means that the yield point for steel at temperatures exceeding this is significantly lower than normal. There is a double-effect associated with this. A jet will sever most of the columns, and, in fact, it severed roughly 60% of the columns in question, on the floor/s in question. This means, for the floor sitting below, the thermal expansion induced will cause an inward buckle. The important point to remember here is that the critical load, that is, the stress at which the strain induces buckling, is about 10 times smaller for a multistory buckling, because the critical load decreases proportionally to the distance from the pivot at which force is applied. This effect induces a "crush down". This effect is well known. The WTC are not the only high-story buildings to fall as a result. The kinetic energy of the upper stories falling through the ejected floor is greater than the absorption capacity of the lower story (taking away the gravitational potential energy lost as a result of the shortening of the building). If this occurs, the kinetic energy being transferred by the upper part of the building will be transferred to the part beneath it. If the kinetic energy being transferred to the lower columns (which have also deformed, albeit not to as great an extent, due to differential thermal expansion) exceeds the elastic . This is combined with the fact that compaction results in the loss of GPE, which must be converted into KE, by the law of conservation of energy. It is for this reason that the civil engineering community has concluded, rightfully, that even a displacement of the upper section by half a meter will result in the collapse of the building. This force being exerted by the upper section of the building on the exposed beams prior to their yielding, is called the crushing force.

In other words, there was a multipart factor combination required to induce the transfer of KE from the upper to the lower load beams. (1) The differential expansion of the columns as a result of fire. Since the temperature of the fire exceeded 720K, the material will exhibit a viscoplastic response to stress, also called "creeping". At this temperature, the yield point for steel drops by 85%. (2) The ejection of a floor by the impact caused the dissipation of GPE. (3) The stress redistribution that resulted from the severing of most supports upon impact, added to the fact that the supports have force being exerted over a greater distance from the anchored points, causes a lateral buckle. You know NIST does not accept your version of events and here is why. They stated, quite clearly, that the design load was sustained under fire for two hours. Draw a free-body force diagram and check, for the exposed columns with the crushing force being exerted on them, the crushing force being exerted on the exposed columns was 31 times the design load. You can find that in turn with data. You will need the stress-temperature expansion function for steel, the stress-strain curve as well, the mass of ejected rubble, the mass of the upper part, the displacement of the upper part, and the length of exposed steel. Thus the third condition (4) Multistory buckling of exposed columns, where the force being exerted is greater than the load capacity for the exposed columns by an order of magnitude.

The GPE, given as E=mgh, that is at the floor in question, can be found on a load against displacement graph. The energy transferred is therefore found by the integration of this area under the graph . Thus for a displacement s of a piece of tower, the energy criterion is [Int]F(s)ds. This is critical so pay attention. There is one criterion for preventing the chain reaction of collapse that results from the transfer of kinetic energy of impacting mass. The kinetic energy of the impact mass must be less than the net energy loss during one story being crushed. That in turn is calculated by the area under the force-load graph. In the case, of 9/11, the crushing force decreased quickly in response to the displacement of the upper piece of the building as it fell through the ejected floors. The primary reason for the sharp decline of F against s was the plastic buckling, due to the fact that temperature was hot enough for the metal to act as viscoplastic. As a result, the upper area fell, with little resistance, into the lower area, with the compaction resulting from the crushing of the floors in between.  As such, the total energy dissipation (found by integration) minus the GPE lost due to the compaction, was smaller than the kinetic energy which was transferred by the upper part smashing into the standing section. This is enough to trigger collapse. Since the GPE lost was quite large due the high degree of compaction and large volume of ejecta, the kinetic energy transferred exceeded this value.

It's not so much that I care about what happened on 9/11 as I do about good physics. Fire was one criterion in the buckling of the exposed columns. Fire induces thermal expansion which has the double effect of viscoplasticity and very decreased yield point. The ejection of a floor and the resulting compaction, added to the severing of most of the supports upon impact, placed a load redistribution on what was left of the steel supports. Thus the force being exerted per beam was greater, in fact, 31 times greater, then the yield point for the beams themselves. As for the remaining columns, even those still standing, most would have been subject to severe buckling because of the hole left in the building.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
entomophila wrote:NO.Then

entomophila wrote:

NO.

Then maybe you can explain why Osama hates Americans so much, that he did something, which any dummy knows makes American defense contractors super rich,  and which caused his mortal enemy Bush to be handed a blank check from Congress to increase American military power, allowing Bush to more confidently pursue Osama's destruction, with the the United Nations behind us 100%?

Then maybe you can explain how Osama bin Laden escapes our military 4 different times after being cornered each time?

Does that college grad with a degree in civil engineering and a very heavy involvement in US/Mideast politics for the last 25 years, just LIKE hurting his own cause?

or do you suppose there's probably something more going on behind the scenes, since this shit doesn't add up?

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

skepticdude wrote:

No, google sybil edmonds.  The FBI was part of the cover up.  The reason they honestly admitted no hard evidence, was because if they had said they DO have hard evidence, they know they would have been hounded to death by people demanding to the see the case proven, which they could never do.  If they refused to lay out their case, it would be an obvious sign of lying.  If they tried to make a case, it would be weak and people would ask how they ever connected Osama to 911 in the first place.  So by admitting no hard evidence, they pass over a shitload of problems. 

 

Quote:
This would show Bush's inability to plan. After all, they made all the other shit up, why couldn't they forge evidence?

They don't need to.  They are counting on you to trust everythying you hear on the 6 o'clock news, which you couldn't independently verify if your life depended on it.  Like the USS Cole bombing, or suicide bombers killing people in Israel.  You don't know shit.  For all you know the suicide bomber never suspected somebody strapped bombs under his car and blew it up when he got near a crowd.  I'll say it again...they are counting on you, and the general populace, to trust the information fed to them from corporate owned news media agencies.

Ever wonder why you can never find that white house memo on Fox news? It's particularly incriminating, not much can be done to spin it and let Bush save face, best leave it alone.

When coordinating a conspiricy, you can't do everything perfect, and 911 was no exception.  I have learned as a conspiricy theorist to recognize the error of thinking that the guilty parties are all equally agreed on how to do the job.  Being human, there will be players are sure, and not sure, planning to go all the way and just about ready to blow the whistle, etc.  As such, we should only expect to see inconsistency in the carrying out of the conspiricy.   

Quote:

How does that justify Bush pushing Osama's name as the 911 guilty party so furiously after 911, when the FBI had no hard evidence?  Can you not admit that Bush was overstating the case?

Quote:
 The reason for the pushing Bin Laden is to get us riled up for the 'war on terrorism' so Bush can get his cronies more contracts.

 So you admit Bush is willing to condemn people to death when the case for their guilt never went beyond probable cause?

Quote:
However this does not mean the he did 9/11, it just means he took advantage of it.

First, Bush's past corruptions don't have to mean that he did 9/11.  It merely has to supply probable cause to believe he did it.  Just like innocent people get arrested and detained in jail based on probable cause, but cannot sue for false arrest upon acquital or charges dropped, because the court nevertheless had good reason to believe the charges were true at the time.

Second, given that we call it a conspiricy of the government, you are accomplishing nothing by denying that the examples of corruption in Bush prove he did 911.  Given that it is a conspiricy, you don't expect too much "smoking gun" evidence anyway.   SO you are committing the fallacy of begging the question "it wasn't a conspiricy" if you simply argue that the evidence isn't crystal clear and forceful.  It's a conspiricy, they aren't going to give you a "smoking gun" anyway, so the lack of totally forceful evidence is only expected in cases of government conspiricy.  They wouldn't need to conspire if they weren't concerned to keep evidence of their crime at a minimum.

Third, the total available evidence for Bush's trail of lies, greed and corruption must be brought to bear to make a good probable-cause case for his complicity in the 911 attacks.  Yeah, one example of corruption probably won't do the job.  You got a few weeks?

Fourth, Bush was already looking for a reason to provoke war with Iraq before 2001, so you cannot completely divorce him from the possibilty of engineering a national self-inflicted wound as a false pretext to get money from congress to upgrade the military, which would be a natural step after delcaring war on Iraq. http://downingstreetmemo.com/archive/2004-10-31-HoustonChron-Herskowitz/

Given Bush's history of corruption, why do you keep hanging on to the ridiculous notion that Bush gives one flying fuck about Americans, and so would never order terrorism against 3000 of his countrymen, otherwise known as 911?  What, is there some goodness to Bush that outweighs his corrupted side?  What exactly makes you refrain from concluding that Bush's clear history of corruption and deciet make for probable cause that he also had a hand in planning the 911 event that gave him his long sought-for dictator-like power grab, and made his greedy corporate cronies and defense contractors richer than ever?  DO you have the "bush must be a good guy no matter what" virus?

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: The

deludedgod wrote:

 

The following should be interesting, because the response I am to give will be technical.

First, I am aware of other factors inducing collapse, but I was solely focusing on the "fire did it" explanation.  You didn't reply directly to that rebuttal, you are simply side-stepping it and offering your own analysis which gets into other details which go beyond my specific NIST rebuttal.  We can discuss your own analysis after you refute my NIST attack, or else admit NIST was flawed.

Second, the coffee shop's closing, see ya tomorrow.

__________--

Quote:

Firstly, I shall presume you are familiar with the concept of a stress-strain curve. In mechanics, this is sometimes referred to as  Hooke's Law curve. The stress tensor for steel is described as a highly inelastic, up to the yield point, which is very high, but with very little strain, after which it starts to buckle. Now, there is a second-order differential equation that links temperature with the yield strength point, because the expansion causes an effect that is known as viscoplasticity, which steel exhibits above 720 Kelvin. This means that the yield point for steel at temperatures exceeding this is significantly lower than normal. There is a double-effect associated with this. A jet will sever most of the columns, and, in fact, it severed roughly 60% of the columns in question, on the floor/s in question. This means, for the floor sitting below, the thermal expansion induced will cause an inward buckle. The important point to remember here is that the critical load, that is, the stress at which the strain induces buckling, is about 10 times smaller for a multistory buckling, because the critical load decreases proportionally to the distance from the pivot at which force is applied. This effect induces a "crush down". This effect is well known. The WTC are not the only high-story buildings to fall as a result. The kinetic energy of the upper stories falling through the ejected floor is greater than the absorption capacity of the lower story (taking away the gravitational potential energy lost as a result of the shortening of the building). If this occurs, the kinetic energy being transferred by the upper part of the building will be transferred to the part beneath it. If the kinetic energy being transferred to the lower colums (which have also deformed, albeit not to as great an extent, due to differential thermal expansion) exceeds the elastic . This is combined with the fact that compaction results in the loss of GPE, which must be converted into KE, by the law of conservation of energy. It is for this reason that the civil engineering community has concluded, rightfully, that even a displacement of the upper section by half a meter will result in the collapse of the building.

In other words, there was a multipart factor combination required to induce the transfer of KE from the upper to the lower load beams. (1) The differential expansion of the colums as a result of fire. Since the temperature of the fire exceeded 720K, the material will exhibit a viscoplastic response to stress, also called "creeping". At this temperature, the yield point for steel drops by 85%. (2) The ejection of a floor by the impact caused the disappation of GPE. (3) The stress redistribution that resulted from the severing of most supports upon impact, added to the fact that the supports have force being exerted over a greater distance from the anchored points, causes a lateral buckle. You know NIST does not accept your version of events and here is why. They stated, quite clearly, that the design load was sustained under fire for two hours. Draw a free-body force diagram and check, for the exposed columns with the crushing force being exerted on them, the crushing force being exerted on the exposed columns was 31 times the design load. You can find that in turn with data. You will need the stress-temperature expansion function for steel, the stress-strain curve as well, the mass of ejected rubble, the mass of the upper part, the displacement of the upper part, and the length of exposed steel. Thus the third condition (4) Multistory buckling of exposed columns, where the force being exerted is greater than the load capacity for the exposed columns by an order of magnitude.

The GPE, given as E=mgh, that is at the floor in question, can be plotted on a load againt displacement graph. The kinetic energy transferred is therefore found by the integration of this area under the graph. Thus for a displacement s of a piece of tower, the energy criterion is [Int]F(s)ds. This is critical so pay attention. There is one criterion for preventing the chain reaction of collapse that results from the transfer of kinetic energy of impacting mass. The kinetic energy of the impact mass must be less than the net energy loss during one story being crushed. That in turn is calculated by the area under the force-load graph. In the case, of 9/11, the crushing force decreased quickly in response to the displacement of the upper piece of the building as it fell through the ejected floors. The primary reason for the sharp decline of F against s was the plastic buckling, due to the fact that temperature was hot enough for the metal to act as viscoplastic. As a result, the upper area fell, with little resistance, into the lower area, with the compaction resulting from the crushing of the floors in between.  As such, the total energy disappation (found by integration) minus the GPE lost due to the compaction, was smaller than the kinetic energy which was transferred by the upper part smashing into the standing section. This is enough to trigger collapse. Since the GPE lost was quite large due the high degree of compaction and large volume of ejecta, the kinetic energy transferred exceeded this value.

It's not so much that I care about what happened on 9/11 as I do about good physics. Fire was one criterion in the buckling of the exposed columns. Fire induces thermal expansion which has the double effect of viscoplasticity and very decreased yield point. The ejection of a floor and the resulting compaction, added to the severing of most of the supports upon impact, placed a load redistribution on what was left of the steel supports. Thus the force being exerted per beam was greater, in fact, 31 times greater, then the yield point for the beams themselves. As for the remaining columns, even those still standing, most would have been subject to severe buckling because of the hole left in the building.

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote:They don't

skepticdude wrote:

They don't need to.  They are counting on you to trust everythying you hear on the 6 o'clock news, which you couldn't independently verify if your life depended on it.  Like the USS Cole bombing, or suicide bombers killing people in Israel.  You don't know shit.  For all you know the suicide bomber never suspected somebody strapped bombs under his car and blew it up when he got near a crowd.  I'll say it again...they are counting on you, and the general populace, to trust the information fed to them from corporate owned news media agencies.

Ever wonder why you can never find that white house memo on Fox news? It's particularly incriminating, not much can be done to spin it and let Bush save face, best leave it alone.

When coordinating a conspiricy, you can't do everything perfect, and 911 was no exception.  I have learned as a conspiricy theorist to recognize the error of thinking that the guilty parties are all equally agreed on how to do the job.  Being human, there will be players are sure, and not sure, planning to go all the way and just about ready to blow the whistle, etc.  As such, we should only expect to see inconsistency in the carrying out of the conspiricy.  

 

I'm sorry, but not forging up evidence to place the blame on someone else is not a minor detail.

 

I mean seriously, they couldn't keep Scooter Libby out of jail for ratting out a CIA agent, yet they can keep a plot involving FBI, CIA, FEMA, NIST, NSA, etc... secret?

 

 

skepticdude wrote:

  DO you have the "bush must be a good guy no matter what" virus?

 

False dichotomy. I don' t think Bush is a good guy.

 

Just because I don't think he slaughtered 3000 people does not mean that I think he's a 'good guy.' Otherwise EVERYONE  would be a 'good guy/girl.'

 

 

Once again, he took advantage of it, not perpetrated it.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You didn't reply

Quote:

You didn't reply directly to that rebuttal, you are simply side-stepping it and offering your own analysis which gets into other details which go beyond my specific NIST rebuttal.  We can discuss your own analysis after you refute my NIST attack, or else admit NIST was flawed.

Their analysis wasn't flawed. Your using it as support for your position was. The issue under discussion is whether the plane alone brought down the tower. Thus two primary causal factors need to be considered. The impact and the resulting ejecta and crushing of a floor, and the fire. The steel might be able to withstand the design load, but that was not what was being exerted. Fire was the most important factor. Without the fire, there would be no viscoplasticity of the steel support, and thus no accelerating collapse due to the accretion of mass. Obviously, the other rather important factor was that a plane impacting a building at those speeds will transfer over 10GJ of kinetic energy into the building. These two factors were sufficient to take down the building, as I have shown above.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I'm

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I'm sorry, but not forging up evidence to place the blame on someone else is not a minor detail.

 For all you know, the news story that says "Osama bombed the Cole" was considered sufficiently forged evidence.  The government knows that you cannot independently verify stories about foreign explosions, and they know you generally believe the 6 o'clock news when it reports those things.  As such, they would have no reason to forge actual evidence against Osama bin Laden, and so they'd figure a local news story on the subject will be sufficient to keep you in the dark.

There is however, a death-blow to your position.  Do you seriously believe the man in the "Osama-911-confession" video is authentically Osama bin Laden?  A good case can be made that this guy is NOT Osama, but only partially resembles him.

Quote:
I mean seriously, they couldn't keep Scooter Libby out of jail for ratting out a CIA agent,

President Bush immediately pardoned him after he was justly convicted.  Bush obviously looks out for his own, even when it's proved they committed crimes.  I never said all government personel involved, agree on how to do things.   

Quote:
yet they can keep a plot involving FBI, CIA, FEMA, NIST, NSA, etc... secret?

Where did you get the silly idea that it is being kept a secret?  Yes, the government will not implicate itself, obviously, but there's all kinds of whistle blowers and others blowing the lid off the 911 deception.  Bob Graham,  while Senete Intelligence Committee Chairman, said the Bush Administration is deliberately smothering investigation of Saudi Arabia and it's connection to 911.  NIST's own tests on the steel from the WTC showed the steel held up to the replicated wtc fires for longer than 2 hours, when the testing environment is more likely to heat the steel more and more consistently than the unpredictable undirected spontaneous wtc fires themselves.  Rumsfeld admitted flight 93 was shot down.  Edna Cintron, the woman waving to people from the middle of the plane crash hole, proves that the wtc fires were no raging inferno.  Sibyl Edmonds has publically stated she was taken off her national security post with the FBI in translating terrorist communications, when the trail toward Osama got too hot, and was then gagged by court order, the government crying "state secrets" privilege.  Why?  How many decks of "incompetence" cards do you really have up your sleeve, ready to play at any time?

You have not answered Bush's actions which fit the profile of a guilty defendant trying to avoid investigation:  His refusal to investigate 911, his rejection of requests to investigate it, then buckling under pressure, his first choice of Commission Head was master government-coverup artist Kissinger, his choice to initially throw far less money toward the 911 breach of national security, than Republicans spent investigating Clinton's blowjob, Bush's command that they restrict the investigation to the safer less-incriminating subject of communication breakdowns between FAA and other intelligence agencies, and the fact that this commission was plagued by obvious conflicts of interest, since most of them would be hurt personally and professionally if the government conspiricy was proven true, which means they could not be expected to objectively consider evidence that might be damning to their own interests. Well?  Stupid President acting like an innocent person, or calculating guilty president fitting the profile of everybody else who also wouldn't want proof of their guilt to come to light?

skepticdude wrote:

  DO you have the "bush must be a good guy no matter what" virus?

 

Quote:
False dichotomy. I don' t think Bush is a good guy.

If I misrepresented what you believe, that's not a false dichotomy, it would be a strawman.

But either way, you seem determined to make sure nothing in Bush's past makes him look like a greedy selfish politician who thinks people's lives are expendable and don't deserve basic human rights whenever those would get in his way.

Bush's corruption-history, his stomping on the basic human rights of his own fellow Americans, and his willingness to put American lives at risk for his illegal war (4000 dead and counting) makes my case that Bush fits the expected profile of a greedy deadly politician who is likely to consider the deaths of 3000 Americans acceptable, as long as it works toward his goal of world domination.

It's time for you to step up to the plate and give actual argument NOT ASSERTION, that Bush's willingness to subject his own military to death for that illegal war he frauded us into, somehow, doesn't make him fit the profile of a calculating murderer of his own people.  But if he does fit that profile, then you have no rational basis to continue holding out hope that somehow, Bush "would never do such a thing".  You know nothing about Bush's history if you think he has limits.

By the way, did you know that Bush's grandfater, Prescott Bush, aided and financed Hitler, and was found guilty of trading with the enemy (Nazis)?

Does Bush need to point a gun in your face and pull the trigger before you'll say his past actions fit the profile of a murderer?

Quote:
Just because I don't think he slaughtered 3000 people does not mean that I think he's a 'good guy.' Otherwise EVERYONE  would be a 'good guy/girl.'

Bush knew perfectly well his war with Iraq was illegal, and he started it with total lies and fraudulent evidence.  Bush is continuously willing to subject Americans to death (4000 and counting) for this war.  Where did you ever get the silly idea that Bush, somehow, still doesn't fit the profile of a corrupted politician who considers murdering Americans a fair price to achieve his corrupt goals?

Quote:
Once again, he took advantage of it, not perpetrated it.

You are not making argument, you are simply insisting and asserting.  YOu wouldn't think I had proven my case if used your logic, and said "once again, Bush perpetrated it, not took advantage of it".  So don't expect your logic to convince others when you don't even accept it yourself.

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:"NIST

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was
capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11." (NIST, 2005, p. 141.)

Quote:
The following should be interesting, because the response I am to give will be technical.

My case against Bush is based on his own evidence, so let's first deal with the question of whether NIST's tests are reliable.  If they are, we don't need to discuss physics.  The steel held up for two hours in the NIST tests, fire obviously didn't cause the collapse.  If NIST's tests are not reliable, it would suggest conspiricy, since now, not even government sponsered tests conducted by the properly qualified authorities, are not reliable.

Quote:
You know NIST does not accept your version of events and here is why. They stated, quite clearly, that the design load was sustained under fire for two hours. Draw a free-body force diagram and check, for the exposed columns with the crushing force being exerted on them, the crushing force being exerted on the exposed columns was 31 times the design load.

Then their testing environment did not replicate the actual conditions of the wtc fires, leaving us to wonder why they claimed replication, when it wasn't replication, and leaving us to wonder whether such incompentence implies deliberate deception.  Why do tests to figure out what happened to the building after jet-impact, if the tests don't replicate the post-impact conditions?  Nothing good on cable?

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote: For all

skepticdude wrote:

 For all you know, the news story that says "Osama bombed the Cole" was considered sufficiently forged evidence.  The government knows that you cannot independently verify stories about foreign explosions, and they know you generally believe the 6 o'clock news when it reports those things.  As such, they would have no reason to forge actual evidence against Osama bin Laden, and so they'd figure a local news story on the subject will be sufficient to keep you in the dark.

There is however, a death-blow to your position.  Do you seriously believe the man in the "Osama-911-confession" video is authentically Osama bin Laden?  A good case can be made that this guy is NOT Osama, but only partially resembles him.

 

Quote:

Quote:
I mean seriously, they couldn't keep Scooter Libby out of jail for ratting out a CIA agent,

President Bush immediately pardoned him after he was justly convicted.  Bush obviously looks out for his own, even when it's proved they committed crimes.  I never said all government personel involved, agree on how to do things.

 

The point is why was he caught in the first place?

 

Quote:

Quote:
yet they can keep a plot involving FBI, CIA, FEMA, NIST, NSA, etc... secret?

Where did you get the silly idea that it is being kept a secret?  Yes, the government will not implicate itself, obviously, but there's all kinds of whistle blowers and others blowing the lid off the 911 deception.  Bob Graham,  while Senete Intelligence Committee Chairman, said the Bush Administration is deliberately smothering investigation of Saudi Arabia and it's connection to 911.  NIST's own tests on the steel from the WTC showed the steel held up to the replicated wtc fires for longer than 2 hours, when the testing environment is more likely to heat the steel more and more consistently than the unpredictable undirected spontaneous wtc fires themselves.  Rumsfeld admitted flight 93 was shot down.  Edna Cintron, the woman waving to people from the middle of the plane crash hole, proves that the wtc fires were no raging inferno.  Sibyl Edmonds has publically stated she was taken off her national security post with the FBI in translating terrorist communications, when the trail toward Osama got too hot, and was then gagged by court order, the government crying "state secrets" privilege.  Why?  How many decks of "incompetence" cards do you really have up your sleeve, ready to play at any time?

You have not answered Bush's actions which fit the profile of a guilty defendant trying to avoid investigation:  His refusal to investigate 911, his rejection of requests to investigate it, then buckling under pressure, his first choice of Commission Head was master government-coverup artist Kissinger, his choice to initially throw far less money toward the 911 breach of national security, than Republicans spent investigating Clinton's blowjob, Bush's command that they restrict the investigation to the safer less-incriminating subject of communication breakdowns between FAA and other intelligence agencies, and the fact that this commission was plagued by obvious conflicts of interest, since most of them would be hurt personally and professionally if the government conspiricy was proven true, which means they could not be expected to objectively consider evidence that might be damning to their own interests. Well?  Stupid President acting like an innocent person, or calculating guilty president fitting the profile of everybody else who also wouldn't want proof of their guilt to come to light?

 

Quote:

skepticdude wrote:

  DO you have the "bush must be a good guy no matter what" virus?

 

Quote:
False dichotomy. I don' t think Bush is a good guy.

If I misrepresented what you believe, that's not a false dichotomy, it would be a strawman.

 

I meant the dichotomy would be either you believe Bush did 9/11 or he's a good guy.

 

Which is the false dichotomy. Just because he didn't do 9/11 doesn't mean he's a good guy.

 

Quote:

But either way, you seem determined to make sure nothing in Bush's past makes him look like a greedy selfish politician who thinks people's lives are expendable and don't deserve basic human rights whenever those would get in his way.

 

Bush is a greedy selfish politician who thinks people's lives are expendable. However this does not mean he committed 9/11.

 

Quote:

Bush's corruption-history, his stomping on the basic human rights of his own fellow Americans, and his willingness to put American lives at risk for his illegal war (4000 dead and counting) makes my case that Bush fits the expected profile of a greedy deadly politician who is likely to consider the deaths of 3000 Americans acceptable, as long as it works toward his goal of world domination.

 

Once again, all this shows is that Bush is a douche. This does not mean he committed 9/11.

 

Quote:

It's time for you to step up to the plate and give actual argument NOT ASSERTION, that Bush's willingness to subject his own military to death for that illegal war he frauded us into, somehow, doesn't make him fit the profile of a calculating murderer of his own people.  But if he does fit that profile, then you have no rational basis to continue holding out hope that somehow, Bush "would never do such a thing".  You know nothing about Bush's history if you think he has limits.

 

I think Bush bootlegs booze to the NWO. He caught picked up for DUI, so he fits the profile, it must be true!

 

Quote:

By the way, did you know that Bush's grandfater, Prescott Bush, aided and financed Hitler, and was found guilty of trading with the enemy (Nazis)?

Did you know his father is a decorated U.S Navy pilot?

 

Both points are irrelevant as to whether Bush did or didn't do 9/11.

 

Quote:

Does Bush need to point a gun in your face and pull the trigger before you'll say his past actions fit the profile of a murderer?

 

WTF? Since when are you a forensic profiler?

 

Quote:

Quote:
Just because I don't think he slaughtered 3000 people does not mean that I think he's a 'good guy.' Otherwise EVERYONE  would be a 'good guy/girl.'

Bush knew perfectly well his war with Iraq was illegal, and he started it with total lies and fraudulent evidence.  Bush is continuously willing to subject Americans to death (4000 and counting) for this war.  Where did you ever get the silly idea that Bush, somehow, still doesn't fit the profile of a corrupted politician who considers murdering Americans a fair price to achieve his corrupt goals?

 

Jesus Christ, all you're saying is 'he fits the profile!'

 

Eric Rudolph fits the profile, does that mean he did it?

 

I think Bush fits the profile of a power hungry douche, not one who killed 3000 innocent people.

 

Quote:

Quote:
Once again, he took advantage of it, not perpetrated it.

You are not making argument, you are simply insisting and asserting.  YOu wouldn't think I had proven my case if used your logic, and said "once again, Bush perpetrated it, not took advantage of it".  So don't expect your logic to convince others when you don't even accept it yourself.

 

All I hear from you is 'HE FITS THE PROFILE!!'


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:You

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

You didn't reply directly to that rebuttal, you are simply side-stepping it and offering your own analysis which gets into other details which go beyond my specific NIST rebuttal.  We can discuss your own analysis after you refute my NIST attack, or else admit NIST was flawed.

Their analysis wasn't flawed. Your using it as support for your position was. The issue under discussion is whether the plane alone brought down the tower. Thus two primary causal factors need to be considered. The impact and the resulting ejecta and crushing of a floor, and the fire. The steel might be able to withstand the design load, but that was not what was being exerted. Fire was the most important factor. Without the fire, there would be no viscoplasticity of the steel support, and thus no accelerating collapse due to the accretion of mass. Obviously, the other rather important factor was that a plane impacting a building at those speeds will transfer over 10GJ of kinetic energy into the building. These two factors were sufficient to take down the building, as I have shown above.

There you go again, submitting your own analysis, and refusing to directly defend NIST, even after you assert my use of their report was flawed.    Please defend the NIST account if you think it wasn't flawed, by directly addressing my rebuttal.  You seem to have lost the debate, since you admit NIST's tests did not replicate the post-crash conditions. Wow, a lot of good a pre-crash test does, to help figure out post-crash results.

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


Sanitarium
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote:How about

skepticdude wrote:

How about those obviously fake "confession" videos?

skepticdude wrote:

Do you seriously believe the man in the "Osama-911-confession" video is authentically Osama bin Laden?  A good case can be made that this guy is NOT Osama, but only partially resembles him.

What do you mean 'only partially resembles him'? I didn't bother looking into this conspiracy theory stuff; I went the other way instead and undertook a two year study of Islam to see if terrorism was really an acceptable practice (it is).

So, please avail me of this evidence that bin laden's appearance so drastically changed so that the resemblance could only be 'partial'. Are you saying he doesn't look exactly the same in each picture (different hair/clothes? weight gain/loss?) so therefore its not the same man?

Yes I am a little sceptical, because when I heard the first 'proofs!!!!' re: bin laden they were arguments made from their own ignorance of Islam (eating with left hand and wearing gold) etc... I was immediately suspicious - if you have people that claim to have 'done their homework' but then some *easily verifiable* information is plainly WRONG then shouldn't you look at their other claims with increased scepticism?

Anyway, I do hope I'm wrong, but it seems you have only confined your research to "proof" of the conspiracy theory - you have not looked at, nor weighed the evidence fairly.

Please note: I don't give a flying buraq about all the other conspiracy theory garbage; just your claims re: bin laden.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

skepticdude wrote:

 For all you know, the news story that says "Osama bombed the Cole" was considered sufficiently forged evidence.  The government knows that you cannot independently verify stories about foreign explosions, and they know you generally believe the 6 o'clock news when it reports those things.  As such, they would have no reason to forge actual evidence against Osama bin Laden, and so they'd figure a local news story on the subject will be sufficient to keep you in the dark.

There is however, a death-blow to your position.  Do you seriously believe the man in the "Osama-911-confession" video is authentically Osama bin Laden?  A good case can be made that this guy is NOT Osama, but only partially resembles him.

Ok....so you aren't gonna response to the problem of the fake Osama-confession video?

 

Quote:
Quote:
President Bush immediately pardoned him after he was justly convicted.  Bush obviously looks out for his own, even when it's proved they committed crimes.  I never said all government personel involved, agree on how to do things.

 

The point is why was he caught in the first place?

Because the conspiring government doesn't agree with itself on what crimes should be exposed and which shouldn't.

Quote:
 
Quote:
yet they can keep a plot involving FBI, CIA, FEMA, NIST, NSA, etc... secret?

Where did you get the silly idea that it is being kept a secret?  Yes, the government will not implicate itself, obviously, but there's all kinds of whistle blowers and others blowing the lid off the 911 deception.  Bob Graham,  while Senete Intelligence Committee Chairman, said the Bush Administration is deliberately smothering investigation of Saudi Arabia and it's connection to 911.  NIST's own tests on the steel from the WTC showed the steel held up to the replicated wtc fires for longer than 2 hours, when the testing environment is more likely to heat the steel more and more consistently than the unpredictable undirected spontaneous wtc fires themselves.  Rumsfeld admitted flight 93 was shot down.  Edna Cintron, the woman waving to people from the middle of the plane crash hole, proves that the wtc fires were no raging inferno.  Sibyl Edmonds has publically stated she was taken off her national security post with the FBI in translating terrorist communications, when the trail toward Osama got too hot, and was then gagged by court order, the government crying "state secrets" privilege.  Why?  How many decks of "incompetence" cards do you really have up your sleeve, ready to play at any time?

You have not answered Bush's actions which fit the profile of a guilty defendant trying to avoid investigation:  His refusal to investigate 911, his rejection of requests to investigate it, then buckling under pressure, his first choice of Commission Head was master government-coverup artist Kissinger, his choice to initially throw far less money toward the 911 breach of national security, than Republicans spent investigating Clinton's blowjob, Bush's command that they restrict the investigation to the safer less-incriminating subject of communication breakdowns between FAA and other intelligence agencies, and the fact that this commission was plagued by obvious conflicts of interest, since most of them would be hurt personally and professionally if the government conspiricy was proven true, which means they could not be expected to objectively consider evidence that might be damning to their own interests. Well?  Stupid President acting like an innocent person, or calculating guilty president fitting the profile of everybody else who also wouldn't want proof of their guilt to come to light?

gonna answer this?  What does it mean to you, if Bush fits the profile of a greedy politician willing to sacrifice American lives to achieve his political goals?  Can you act like a jury that has just been given evidence concerning the defendant's past behavior?  Why do courts of law allow lawyers to dredge up a defendant's past illegal actions/behavior, if it's wrong to judge a present case based on past conduct?

Quote:
I meant the dichotomy would be either you believe Bush did 9/11 or he's a good guy.

I assumed you knew Bush's history, which means your refusal to suspect him of murder makes it appear that such a conclusion is an emotionally forbidden issue for you, not an intellectual one.

Quote:
Quote:

But either way, you seem determined to make sure nothing in Bush's past makes him look like a greedy selfish politician who thinks people's lives are expendable and don't deserve basic human rights whenever those would get in his way.

Bush is a greedy selfish politician who thinks people's lives are expendable. However this does not mean he committed 9/11.

Can you please tell me why judges often allow the prosecutor to tell juries about the defendant's past criminal behavior?  After all, just because Joe was convicted of stealing a radio 5 years ago, doesn't mean he robbed that bank last month, does it?

Quote:
Quote:
Bush's corruption-history, his stomping on the basic human rights of his own fellow Americans, and his willingness to put American lives at risk for his illegal war (4000 dead and counting) makes my case that Bush fits the expected profile of a greedy deadly politician who is likely to consider the deaths of 3000 Americans acceptable, as long as it works toward his goal of world domination.

Once again, all this shows is that Bush is a douche. This does not mean he committed 9/11.

Gee that's funny, I could have swore that sending soldiers to go fight and die in a completely illegal war based on fraudlent information constitutes murder, and therefore constitutes Bush having the rap sheet of a murderer, not just a "douch"

Thank Christ you aren't a criminal investigator.  You'd never arrest anybody.  Just because the man you are investigating has beaten his wife bloody 4 times in the past, only proves he's a douch, not that the current accusation of spousal battery is true.  Past conduct doesn't contribute to a guilty verdict on current charges, so I guess you let him go, case closed?

You have a flawed understanding of the rules of evidence.  A court of law does not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence. 

Suppose your nextdoor neighbor lady tells you I raped her.  Suppose I deny it.  Suppose you find out I've been convicted of rape several times before.

That does not prove that I raped your neighbor lady.  What's the liklihood you'll hire me as your babysitter?  After all, my past criminal behavior only proves I'm a douch, not that the current charge of rape is true, amen?

Quote:
Quote:

It's time for you to step up to the plate and give actual argument NOT ASSERTION, that Bush's willingness to subject his own military to death for that illegal war he frauded us into, somehow, doesn't make him fit the profile of a calculating murderer of his own people.  But if he does fit that profile, then you have no rational basis to continue holding out hope that somehow, Bush "would never do such a thing".  You know nothing about Bush's history if you think he has limits.

I think Bush bootlegs booze to the NWO. He caught picked up for DUI, so he fits the profile, it must be true!

First, false analogy, Bush's history of sending innocent Americans to their deaths is far more comprehensive and extensive than his past drunk driving issue.  My case against Bush regarding 911 doesn't consist of a single past parallel case, but 4000 and counting, which are his fault because the war is totally illegal and fraudulent, which means he is putting Americans in the way of death when there is no legal basis to do so, which is called MURDER or ATTEMPTED MURDER any way you slice it.

Second, nobody is charging Bush with bootlegging.  But if there were hundreds of scholars and a large majority of Americans charging him with bootlegging, and Bush was convicted of driving drunk 4000 times before, yeah, there might be something to that charge.  Unfortunately for you, your analogy fails because nobody is charging Bush with bootlegging, but there are millions who charge him with high crimes, including his own former press secretary.

Quote:
Quote:

By the way, did you know that Bush's grandfater, Prescott Bush, aided and financed Hitler, and was found guilty of trading with the enemy (Nazis)?

Did you know his father is a decorated U.S Navy pilot?

Oh gee, if yer a decorated Navy Pilot, you surely couldn't hold to the Nazi beliefs and ethics of your dad, could you?

Prescott, Bush Sr and Bush Jr, were all members of the racist "Skull and Bones" society.  Whatever you intended with Bush's miltary decorations, it was totally pointless.

Quote:
Both points are irrelevant as to whether Bush did or didn't do 9/11.

Given that I'm saying it's a conspiricy, what proof would you accept that Bush IS guilty of planning 911?  Are you just totally paralyzed to give a verdict short of actual confession?

Are there any conspiricy theories about the American government that you DO accept?  Do you think McNamera was just kidding when he proposed Operation Northwoods to Kennedy?

Quote:
Quote:

Does Bush need to point a gun in your face and pull the trigger before you'll say his past actions fit the profile of a murderer?

WTF? Since when are you a forensic profiler?

Ever since I sat on a jury 4 years ago and had to consider the past behavior of a defendent to help determine her guilt or innocence.  No, that didn't make me a forensic profiler, but then again, we don't need to hold that professional title, to do forensic profiling work.  Now answer my question. 

Quote:
Quote:
Bush knew perfectly well his war with Iraq was illegal, and he started it with total lies and fraudulent evidence.  Bush is continuously willing to subject Americans to death (4000 and counting) for this war.  Where did you ever get the silly idea that Bush, somehow, still doesn't fit the profile of a corrupted politician who considers murdering Americans a fair price to achieve his corrupt goals?

Jesus Christ, all you're saying is 'he fits the profile!'

That's all FBI criminal profilers say about suspects too, but their work sure is considered worthy by the FBI nonetheless. 

Quote:
Eric Rudolph fits the profile, does that mean he did it?

Strawman, you don't have to have proof that somebody did something.

My point is that one is RATIONALLY WARRANTED to DRAW THE INFERENCE that Bush is guilty, based on his past actions.

Being thus rationall warranted, the debunking movement is wrong for saying us 911 truthers are "irrational" for holding the basic position that the Bush administration is guilty of helping plan the 911 attacks.

Quote:
I think Bush fits the profile of a power hungry douche, not one who killed 3000 innocent people.

Is Bush criminally responsible for the deaths of 4000 + Americans who died fighting his illegal and fraudulently started Iraq war, yes or no?  If yes,  then Bush has "murderer" in his dossier, not just "douch".

Quote:
Once again, he took advantage of it, not perpetrated it.

You are not making argument, you are simply insisting and asserting.  YOu wouldn't think I had proven my case if used your logic, and said "once again, Bush perpetrated it, not took advantage of it".  So don't expect your logic to convince others when you don't even accept it yourself.

Quote:

All I hear from you is 'HE FITS THE PROFILE!!'

Said the FBI agent to the Forensic Profiler.  Thank Christ you aren't in charge of the FBI.

 

[mod edit: quote function]

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Sanitarium wrote:skepticdude

Sanitarium wrote:

skepticdude wrote:

How about those obviously fake "confession" videos?

skepticdude wrote:

Do you seriously believe the man in the "Osama-911-confession" video is authentically Osama bin Laden?  A good case can be made that this guy is NOT Osama, but only partially resembles him.

What do you mean 'only partially resembles him'? I didn't bother looking into this conspiracy theory stuff; I went the other way instead and undertook a two year study of Islam to see if terrorism was really an acceptable practice (it is).

So, please avail me of this evidence that bin laden's appearance so drastically changed so that the resemblance could only be 'partial'. Are you saying he doesn't look exactly the same in each picture (different hair/clothes? weight gain/loss?) so therefore its not the same man?

Yes I am a little sceptical, because when I heard the first 'proofs!!!!' re: bin laden they were arguments made from their own ignorance of Islam (eating with left hand and wearing gold) etc... I was immediately suspicious - if you have people that claim to have 'done their homework' but then some *easily verifiable* information is plainly WRONG then shouldn't you look at their other claims with increased scepticism?

Anyway, I do hope I'm wrong, but it seems you have only confined your research to "proof" of the conspiracy theory - you have not looked at, nor weighed the evidence fairly.

Please note: I don't give a flying buraq about all the other conspiracy theory garbage; just your claims re: bin laden.

The real Osama bin Laden went on record denying responsibility for the 911 attacks.

I'm convinced that the confession video is not Osama,  not just because it doesn't look exactly like him, but because terrorists typically have no problems taking credit for their terrorism.  If Osama really does hate American as much as he himself and Bush insists, Osama should be more than willing to candidly confess his guilt.  After all, he seems to have magic powers that enable him to escape American military after being cornered 4 times, what's he to worry about?

Yet the Osama videos which both parties in the 911 debate agree are authentic, have him denying an attack that he'd otherwise have regarded as glorifying Allah. 

Furthermore, where the hell is YOUR evidence that Osama perpetrated 911?  Sorry, the 6 o'clock news isn't good enough.

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
When you were on the jury is

When you were on the jury is all they presented was the past actions, or did they actually present evidence that he did that specific crime?

 

As for what would convince me:

1) Positive proof that the towers fell with demolitions. By positive proof, I don't mean, the NIST report is wrong. Even if NIST is wrong, it doesn't mean it was explosives, it could have been another collapse mechanism.

 

2) Actual proof of this NWO and I don't mean Hulkamania.

 

3) Plausable methods of execution. I don't need to know every single detail, but a way that would work and evidence that they did this would help.

 


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:When you

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

When you were on the jury is all they presented was the past actions, or did they actually present evidence that he did that specific crime?

You should have figured out from the fact that they presented past actions, that they didn't have any direct proof of her guilt.  The charge was child molestation, the child was 3 years old by the time of trial, the defense succeeded in having the child therapist's videos (of the child playing with anatomically correct dolls) thrown out because she asked too many leading questions, making the testimony of the child unreliable, so we had to go simply on the mother's complaint that the child told her the babysitter touched her inappropriately, and combine that accusation with the babysitters past conviction for a similar offense and other witnesses from a daycare she had worked at previously, who had heard similar allegations from the children and who then fired her.

We would never have gotten a conviction had you been on the jury.  After all, her past actions only prove she was a douch, not that the current changes against her were necessarily true. 

Quote:
As for what would convince me:

1) Positive proof that the towers fell with demolitions. By positive proof, I don't mean, the NIST report is wrong. Even if NIST is wrong, it doesn't mean it was explosives, it could have been another collapse mechanism.

Which is why I hope you never sit on a jury.  You simply do not understand how one is justified to rationally infer guilt apart from "smoking gun" evidence.  Those who understand America's history of perpetrating false flag terrorism first assume 911 was somehow planned by our government.  The people who never learned of Operation Northwoods until a conspiricy theorist told them about it, falsely assume the government is innocent 'til proven guilty, and always demanding ridiculously blunt clear evidence in spite of the fact that it's charged to be a conspiricy/coverup, so they have no right to expect they ever will see "smoking gun" evidence.

If Operation Northwoods had been carried out, they would obviously have tried to cover it up as much as possible, knowing that most people are stupid and demand positive evidence before issuing a guilty verdict, when in fact our own courts of law don't demand that much.

Quote:
2) Actual proof of this NWO and I don't mean Hulkamania.

Which means you obviously don't pay attention to Bush's many and repeated assertions showing his goal is exactly a NWO.

But anyway, ever hear of the Patriot Act?  Does a legal document that shreds the constitution make it appear that extreme changes in government are ocurring? 

Bush Sr. gave his first "NWO" speech on September 11, 1991,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo

Quote:
3) Plausable methods of execution. I don't need to know every single detail, but a way that would work and evidence that they did this would help.

NIST confirmed the fire temperature and length of time before collapse was not sufficient to initiate collapse.  The live woman standing in the plane-impact hole shows the fires were far less than the raging infernos NIST ordered done on the steel in their testing environment, which held up for two hours.  NIST's computer models also didn't collapse until they crippled the towers more than they were really by the time of collapse.  Do you trust government studies?

Sorry, fire didn't weaken the steel enough.  You got a better idea?

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


Sanitarium
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote:The real

skepticdude wrote:

The real Osama bin Laden went on record denying responsibility for the 911 attacks.

You have yet to show *any* evidence that there was more than one "Osama". So what if he denied it at first? He has since admitted it. Your whole case here rests on your proof that there is more than one and this is my point. You need to prove that.

skepticdude wrote:

I'm convinced that the confession video is not Osama,  not just because it doesn't look exactly like him, but because terrorists typically have no problems taking credit for their terrorism.  If Osama really does hate American as much as he himself and Bush insists, Osama should be more than willing to candidly confess his guilt.  After all, he seems to have magic powers that enable him to escape American military after being cornered 4 times, what's he to worry about?

1. He admitted later on that he did it.

2. Osama hates all non-Muslims not just Americans.

3. I don't give a crap about american military I already told you.

 

So what you're really saying is that you are stringing together a bunch of your OWN assumptions about how Osama and terrorists would act and then applying your OWN criteria to disqualify the "one Osama" theory.

 

You're joking!!

 

skepticdude wrote:

Yet the Osama videos which both parties in the 911 debate agree are authentic, have him denying an attack that he'd otherwise have regarded as glorifying Allah. 

Oh so you're an Islamic expert now eh? How about you tell us all about the doctrine of Al Taqqiyah? (hint: lying).

skepticdude wrote:

Furthermore, where the hell is YOUR evidence that Osama perpetrated 911?  Sorry, the 6 o'clock news isn't good enough.

Excuse me? We have Osama admitting he was behind the attacks. This isn't Jeopardy! ya know... its not "I must take your first answer" type deal. If that were the case, murderers and other criminals would be free!

 

Anyway, YOU are the one claiming the "fake Osama/s" theory, but you have not presented any evidence for it! And forgive me here, but your own opinions on Islamic behaviour and terrorists isn't evidence of anything but your own arrogance. You need to back up your claims with evidence or withdraw.

 

FYI: as I have said, we have Osama admitting to being behind the attacks. THAT is my proof. You have presented no evidence thus far to change my mind; although I would be glad to see it if it were forthcoming.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
So if someone gets convicted

So if someone gets convicted of robbing a bank, they can be convicted if another bank is robbed?

 

I have a feeling you're leaving something out about that story.

Quote:

Which is why I hope you never sit on a jury.  You simply do not understand how one is justified to rationally infer guilt apart from "smoking gun" evidence.  Those who understand America's history of perpetrating false flag terrorism first assume 911 was somehow planned by our government.  The people who never learned of Operation Northwoods until a conspiricy theorist told them about it, falsely assume the government is innocent 'til proven guilty, and always demanding ridiculously blunt clear evidence in spite of the fact that it's charged to be a conspiricy/coverup, so they have no right to expect they ever will see "smoking gun" evidence.

If Operation Northwoods had been carried out, they would obviously have tried to cover it up as much as possible, knowing that most people are stupid and demand positive evidence before issuing a guilty verdict, when in fact our own courts of law don't demand that much.

 

This sounds like a creationist. 'We don't need evidence!! We know it's true!!'

 

You said nothing will convince you otherwise. Sound familar?

 

Quote:

 

Which means you obviously don't pay attention to Bush's many and repeated assertions showing his goal is exactly a NWO.

But anyway, ever hear of the Patriot Act?  Does a legal document that shreds the constitution make it appear that extreme changes in government are ocurring? 

Bush Sr. gave his first "NWO" speech on September 11, 1991,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo

 

 

I sure hope Bush gets it before January. (The inaguration of the next president..)

 

Quote:

NIST confirmed the fire temperature and length of time before collapse was not sufficient to initiate collapse.  The live woman standing in the plane-impact hole shows the fires were far less than the raging infernos NIST ordered done on the steel in their testing environment, which held up for two hours.  NIST's computer models also didn't collapse until they crippled the towers more than they were really by the time of collapse.  Do you trust government studies?

 

You'd think NIST would fake the results and said 'Er yeah, see, the fire brought down the building!'

 

But apparently not.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Sanitarium wrote:skepticdude

Sanitarium wrote:

skepticdude wrote:

The real Osama bin Laden went on record denying responsibility for the 911 attacks.

You have yet to show *any* evidence that there was more than one "Osama". So what if he denied it at first? He has since admitted it.

For about $300 worth of software and one $500 laptop, I can manipulate video and audio of you to show you walking around at the north pole and saying how much you love getting butt fucked by Dick Cheney. I can then manually degrade the video and add noise to the audio to make sure anybody who tries to analyse it will have a much harder time proving it's fake.

Is the burden of proof on me to prove it's not Osama?

Or is the burden of proof on you to prove it is Osama?  Unfortunately for you, technology has made it possible to make convincing video and audio of a person making incriminating statements, when in fact they never did.  So don't act like you live in the dark ages, and ask me to disprove the tape.  With today's technology in mind along with the unforgivable lies of Bush he's willing to make Americans die for, there is rational warrant to believe the government is manufacturing false evidence to beef up their Osama claims every bit as much as they did regarding the Niger-Yellowcake claims.

If I can turn you into a homosexual republican polar bear with less than $1000 of commerically avaiable equipment, what do you think I could do if Congress got all pissed off about 911 and so handed me $80 Billion dollars to support my war against Osama?

Go familiarize yourself with the level of today's video technology available in the public markets, then ask yourself how much more sophisticated than commerically available stuff the government's own video equipment could be, bear in mind that America has a consistent history of perpetrating false flag terrorism, keep in mind that Bush has already demonstrated in the Iraq war that he is willing to sacrfice American lives for a cause that is completely corrupt, fraudulent and a lie, then you come back and assure me it's really Osama,  and that the burden of proof is on yellow bellied liberals to prove that the timing of this convenient find, so soon after 911 does nothing to advance the lies of the Bush Administration.

Or do you now agree that uncorroborated single grainy degraded videos with lots of audio noise, which America's top Bin Laden expert says are bullshit, probably isn't what you should be resting your defense of the official theory on?

First, I claim the Osama confession videos are fake.  Therefore you cannot uncritically cite them against my claim, that's called begging the question.  I cannot be wrong just because the tape are authentic, their authenticity is exactly the question.

Second, the FBI said Osama is left-handed, but he writes with his right hand in the 2001 video. 

Third, he suspiciously wears a US Army coat, when in fact a determined Muslim extremist with thousands of supports and leader of his own private anti-American army, who hates all things Western, most likely would have sufficient Muslim clothing that he doesn't need to wear American Military clothing. 

Fourth, his being overweight still maintains a claim for inauthenticity, because you don't have any other photos of Osama in late 2001 or early 2002 showing him to be overweight like that.  Osama is a consistently thin guy according to all evidence outside the disputed video, and you are just committing the fallacy of begging the question at issue to assume the overweight guy in the 2001 video surely is Osama.  What's the liklihood that Osama GAINED weight by the date of this video (late 2001), when he was allegedly put on the run even faster after 911, with many of his supporters getting killed?

Fifth, America’s top academic Bin Laden expert, Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program, has gone on official record denouncing the video as a fake.  That doesn't prove it's a fake, but the agreement of an expert on my side forbids you from saying my position is crazy, retarded, totally uninformed, or other similar epithet.  His position is the same as mine, that the videos are bogus, but that even if the man really is Osama, it's more likely older video footage mixed with different audio.  The grainy video and conveniently loud noise level of the audio would preclude an objective analysis of either.  Heck, Los Alamos has already perfected voice morphing technology, so that all they need is about a 10 minute audio same of you talking, and they can manipulate it to make you say whatever they want, and it doesn't sound fake at all, and Alamos scientists played a trick on one of their own, and created audio of him saying he'd overthrow the government, when he said no such thing, read the 1999 Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

Sixth, the date and place the US assigns to this video (Jallalbad, November 2001) is also the date and place where US forces were placing Al-Qaeda under heavy fire, Osama taking heavy losses.  I don't find it very likely that Osama, trained military leader and graduate from college would be as relaxed as the fat man in the video, while there is utter chaos and crises going on all around them. If it's really him, then the defense department is more likely lying about the date of the video and the place it was found, this being video of Osama at some other time when tensions weren't as high.

Seventh, FOIA requests for the government to do what it needs to do, to use this video as evidence in any future trial (i.e., document the chain of custody and explain the exact cirumstances under which it was obtained) have been answered in the negative.  Here's the video, it's Osama, and we can't authenticate it sufficiently to be used in court.  My guess is probably because they know the tape is only designed to convince YOU, the general public, whose standard of evidence is far lower than that required by a court of law.  AGAIN the government seems quite determined to protect Bin Laden.  If I protected child-molesters the way our government protects Osama, would you first assume I wasn't a child molester, or would you assume my guilt is a rationally warranted inference until contrary evidence comes to light?  Would you hire me to be your babysitter?

Quote:
1. He admitted later on that he did it.

Really?  Cite your source. I'm guessing you have nothing but yet another video whose authenticity is questionable

Quote:
2. Osama hates all non-Muslims not just Americans.

3. I don't give a crap about american military I already told you.

Not giving a crap about the American military doesn't deal with the problem of how Osama bin laden escaped them 4 times after being allegedly cornered, which is problematic for you, as I cite this completely unexpected unbelievable conicidence as strongly suggesting high government officials with power to direct the troops, ordering the military to assist Osama's escape for backing off or leaving obvious escape routes open and ungaurded.  If Bush didn't plan 911, why does he violate his own mandate against helping terrorists and insure Osama keeps escaping justice? 

skepticdude wrote:

Furthermore, where the hell is YOUR evidence that Osama perpetrated 911?  Sorry, the 6 o'clock news isn't good enough.

Excuse me? We have Osama admitting he was behind the attacks.

Given how much Osama would know how America can hurt his cause and indeed has, what Osama-lie is more likley?  Confessing guilt or innocence of 911?  Be sure you ascertain that Bush and Osama surely are mortal enemies in your answer, when in fact the Bush's and Bin Ladens have been in business for years, and NO, Osama's family does NOT necessarily regard him as a black sheep.  Money changes people, and for all we know, Osama might not give a shit about Muslim religion, but continues to act the part to help America lie us into war and further erosion of basic human rights.  Smart people that already know about America's history of false flag terrorism first approach the nightly news about our foreign wars with SKEPTICISM, we don't know what the fuck the truth is, until other investigators perform their own analysis and place it on the web.

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote:I can

skepticdude wrote:

I can manipulate video and audio of you to show you walking around at the north pole and saying how much you love getting butt fucked by Dick Cheney.

As an aside to 911, I would love to see you do this. Carry on.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:So if

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

So if someone gets convicted of robbing a bank, they can be convicted if another bank is robbed?

Yes, because the law allows similar past actions to be brought up in court to help the prosecution build a case that the current charges are consistent with the defendant's past pattern of behavior. And the Law doesn't distinguish between circumstantial and direct evidence.  They would hardly allow that if these arbiters of justice held the simpleminded unrealistic viewpoint that you hold.  You are making no room whatsoever for acknowledging that a person's behavior patterns are significant, when in fact the FBI uses Forensic Profilers to exactly predict the future behavior of suspects, because the science is pretty solid.  This proves that your simple-minded "just because they broke the law in the past doesn't mean they did it now" bullshit is strictly reserved for internet chat forums and has no place whatsoever in the halls of justice where real evidential arguments are made.

Quote:
I have a feeling you're leaving something out about that story.

And you also feel more bitchy when you are on your period, so what?

quote]

Quote:

Which is why I hope you never sit on a jury.  You simply do not understand how one is justified to rationally infer guilt apart from "smoking gun" evidence.  Those who understand America's history of perpetrating false flag terrorism first assume 911 was somehow planned by our government.  The people who never learned of Operation Northwoods until a conspiricy theorist told them about it, falsely assume the government is innocent 'til proven guilty, and always demanding ridiculously blunt clear evidence in spite of the fact that it's charged to be a conspiricy/coverup, so they have no right to expect they ever will see "smoking gun" evidence.

If Operation Northwoods had been carried out, they would obviously have tried to cover it up as much as possible, knowing that most people are stupid and demand positive evidence before issuing a guilty verdict, when in fact our own courts of law don't demand that much.

This sounds like a creationist. 'We don't need evidence!! We know it's true!!'

They don't need evidence to prove creationism, rationally warranted inferences from general truths would be sufficient, but they have none.

Quote:
Quote:
Which means you obviously don't pay attention to Bush's many and repeated assertions showing his goal is exactly a NWO.

But anyway, ever hear of the Patriot Act?  Does a legal document that shreds the constitution make it appear that extreme changes in government are ocurring? 

Bush Sr. gave his first "NWO" speech on September 11, 1991,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo

I sure hope Bush gets it before January. (The inaguration of the next president..)

Unnecessary, the 2000 and 2004 elections should have removed all your last hopes that we the people have anything to do with who becomes president.  Obama is probably a good guy, but that doesn't matter, the president doesn't contribute influence to those who truly run the world.  See Alex Jones's "Endgame" video. 

Bilderberg Group.  Eugenics.  International highways through the US between Canada and Mexico, causing Texans to lose their property to the US government's "eminant domain" perogative.  The Patriot Act stomping out our civil liberties as well as removing a suspect's chances of defeating false charges. The lying powerful politicians and leaders who act out mock child-sacrifice plays at Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones at Yale. 

You used to be able to drive somewhere privately, now camaras show up on almost every street in major cities. 

You used to be able to buy things anonymously with cash alone.  Now you have to fight with the clerk at Circuit City to justify refusing to give your name when trying to buy a radio with cash alone.

You used to clip coupons from the newspaper and get the savings at the grocery store, anonymously.  That's slowly being replaced with "savings cards" that you sign up for.  Swiping them not only gives you savings, it gives somebody else a record of where you were, what you bought, how much you bought, how that purchase compares to your previously documented pattern of food buying, with your name attached to it.   Most items now in such grocery stories are ridiculously higher priced than normal, but promise savings if the club card is used.  The use of the convenient "club card" appears everywhere, Starbuck's, Safeway, Circuit City, obviously Costco.  Why?  What the hell is wrong with coupons or special "savings" day sales?

I don't have to prove the NWO is coming, YOU have to prove it ISN'T.

I couldn't purchase a printer last week from Circuit City, because I was using cash and refused to give my phone number or name to the cashier.  I got the same problem at Best Buy, but a manager was called up and authorized the nameless transation to go through.  Yes, we are correct, your money is becoming worthless, because it means less and less to vendors who demand that your name or other ID characteristic be attached to it.   Their cover story is "so we can mail you coupons" which is total bullshit, since it shouldn't take such a gargantuan effort to allow me to refuse coupons in the mail.  Attaching your name to your purchases is growing more and more important than just your simple offer of money to the vendor.

You used to be able to rent a car with a credit card that had enough money on it for the rental and deposit.  Now most places refuse to rent you a car regardless of financial worth if you have a low credit score, telling them you might crash the car or use it irresponsibly, costing them money for repairs or loss.  They have figured out a way to make more money and avoid potential expenditures by denying cars to those with low credit scores.  Because it protects their investment statistically, you aren't getting a car if you've defaulted on your student loans, for example.

Trust me, when the NWO finally arrives, it will take a military man who is guarding you, about 15 seconds to access all the patterns of choice-making you've made in the last 10 years, so he knows what job you'd be better at doing.  His cover story will be something that contains a partial truth: they use this technology to suppress crime, not watch people.  Any dummy knows that absolute power corrupts absolutely.  If they have access to your private information, it is more likely they were peruse it even when not constitutionally necessary.

It's not a question of innocent people having nothing to hide, it's a question of big brother having no right to access that kind of private information in those cases in the first place.  We progressed to this point from a much simpler less big-brother existence from 50 years ago, maybe you've got a better idea of where such tracking technology will put us in 20 years?

Quote:

NIST confirmed the fire temperature and length of time before collapse was not sufficient to initiate collapse.  The live woman standing in the plane-impact hole shows the fires were far less than the raging infernos NIST ordered done on the steel in their testing environment, which held up for two hours.  NIST's computer models also didn't collapse until they crippled the towers more than they were really by the time of collapse.  Do you trust government studies?

 You'd think NIST would fake the results and said 'Er yeah, see, the fire brought down the building!'

They did fake it.  They ran fire tests on the steel, the steel didn't fail within the time frame dicated by the actual wtc collapses, so they then refused to plug those unfriendly results into the computer models, motivating me to demand refund of the tax mony they used for fire tests that never became part of their final hypothesis.  The obvious connotation is that the fire tests on the steel showed the steel maintaining the known wtc structure without buckling for over 2 hours.  That obviously doesn't contribute to explaining the fall of the towers, which fell in less than 1 hour, so they simply chuck the fire tests and rely on computer models.  They could never answer the question 'if your testing facility could not replicate the wtc conditions of 911, what good did you hope to derive from tests that don't replicate the disaster you are trying to figure out?"

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote:Yes,

skepticdude wrote:

Yes, because the law allows similar past actions to be brought up in court to help the prosecution build a case that the current charges are consistent with the defendant's past pattern of behavior. And the Law doesn't distinguish between circumstantial and direct evidence.  They would hardly allow that if these arbiters of justice held the simpleminded unrealistic viewpoint that you hold.  You are making no room whatsoever for acknowledging that a person's behavior patterns are significant, when in fact the FBI uses Forensic Profilers to exactly predict the future behavior of suspects, because the science is pretty solid.  This proves that your simple-minded "just because they broke the law in the past doesn't mean they did it now" bullshit is strictly reserved for internet chat forums and has no place whatsoever in the halls of justice where real evidential arguments are made.


 

Dude, YOUR views are scaring the shit out of me.

 

Seriously, have fun getting pulled over for speeding everyday, since hey! they don't have to prove you did it if you sped before!


 

Quote:

And you also feel more bitchy when you are on your period, so what?

I'm ALWAYS bitchy

Quote:

You used to be able to buy things anonymously with cash alone.  Now you have to fight with the clerk at Circuit City to justify refusing to give your name when trying to buy a radio with cash alone.

You used to clip coupons from the newspaper and get the savings at the grocery store, anonymously.  That's slowly being replaced with "savings cards" that you sign up for.  Swiping them not only gives you savings, it gives somebody else a record of where you were, what you bought, how much you bought, how that purchase compares to your previously documented pattern of food buying, with your name attached to it.   Most items now in such grocery stories are ridiculously higher priced than normal, but promise savings if the club card is used.  The use of the convenient "club card" appears everywhere, Starbuck's, Safeway, Circuit City, obviously
 

I couldn't purchase a printer last week from Circuit City, because I was using cash and refused to give my phone number or name to the cashier.  I got the same problem at Best Buy, but a manager was called up and authorized the nameless transation to go through.  Yes, we are correct, your money is becoming worthless, because it means less and less to vendors who demand that your name or other ID characteristic be attached to it.   Their cover story is "so we can mail you coupons" which is total bullshit, since it shouldn't take such a gargantuan effort to allow me to refuse coupons in the mail.  Attaching your name to your purchases is growing more and more important than just your simple offer of money to the vendor.

 

Yep, 'cause the FBI gives a flying shit if you buy a printer or twinkies.

The population of America is 300 million, you really think they have time to sort through all that info?

And the real question is:

What are they going to do with it?

Quote:

I don't have to prove the NWO is coming, YOU have to prove it ISN'T.

 

Shifting the burden of proof. You're making the positive claim.

Quote:

They did fake it.  They ran fire tests on the steel, the steel didn't fail within the time frame dicated by the actual wtc collapses, so they then refused to plug those unfriendly results into the computer models, motivating me to demand refund of the tax mony they used for fire tests that never became part of their final hypothesis.  The obvious connotation is that the fire tests on the steel showed the steel maintaining the known wtc structure without buckling for over 2 hours.  That obviously doesn't contribute to explaining the fall of the towers, which fell in less than 1 hour, so they simply chuck the fire tests and rely on computer models.  They could never answer the question 'if your testing facility could not replicate the wtc conditions of 911, what good did you hope to derive from tests that don't replicate the disaster you are trying to figure out?"

 

Of course when your expirements proof you wrong, the most rational thing would be to release it to the public and NOT fake the results, because everyone would rush to verify the claim.

 


Sanitarium
Posts: 7
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
skepticdude wrote:For about

skepticdude wrote:

For about $300 worth of software and one $500 laptop, I can manipulate video and audio of you to show you walking around at the north pole and saying how much you love getting butt fucked by Dick Cheney. I can then manually degrade the video and add noise to the audio to make sure anybody who tries to analyse it will have a much harder time proving it's fake.

Red herring. We are not discussing video/audio manipulation. It has not been suggested by experts/FBI etc.., nor has any evidence been presented that the video we see is computer generated. Since you have yet to present anything suspicious (in which one may think it may not be Osama) then we have to take it at face value until such evidence is presented.

skepticdude wrote:

Is the burden of proof on me to prove it's not Osama?

YES!!! The man in the vid is identified as Osama and in each video/audio exhibits behaviour that is decidedly osama-esque, he looks like Osama, speaks with the same dialect,etc.... Since YOU are claiming it is NOT him, then YOU need to present evidence to support your claim!

skepticdude wrote:

Or is the burden of proof on you to prove it is Osama?  Unfortunately for you, technology has made it possible to make convincing video and audio of a person making incriminating statements, when in fact they never did.  So don't act like you live in the dark ages, and ask me to disprove the tape.  With today's technology in mind along with the unforgivable lies of Bush he's willing to make Americans die for, there is rational warrant to believe the government is manufacturing false evidence to beef up their Osama claims every bit as much as they did regarding the Niger-Yellowcake claims.

Red herrings ignored. The burden of proof is on you here.

 

skepticdude wrote:

Or do you now agree that uncorroborated single grainy degraded videos with lots of audio noise, which America's top Bin Laden expert says are bullshit, probably isn't what you should be resting your defense of the official theory on?

This is HILARIOUS! Here is what you are saying:

(a) The Government is lying to us! They did 9/11!!

(b) The Government's OWN bin laden experts claim the video is fake!!!

(c)I KNOW they're lying on (a) but I completely believe them for (b); furthermore, I am using their (b) statements to further PROVE my theory that they are LIARS!!!!

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Which is it? (other ramblings ignored btw as I told you I am only interested in your claims re: bin laden).

skepticdude wrote:

First, I claim the Osama confession videos are fake.  Therefore you cannot uncritically cite them against my claim, that's called begging the question.  I cannot be wrong just because the tape are authentic, their authenticity is exactly the question.

I'm ASKING you to give some EVIDENCE!!!! You're the one saying "the vids are computer generated/manipulated." I am asking for actual evidence, not more crackpot conspiracy theories. So, unless you can provide some (actual evidence) then I am not yet convinced.

skepticdude wrote:

Second, the FBI said Osama is left-handed, but he writes with his right hand in the 2001 video. 

Perhaps he is ambidextrous? Where did the FBI get this information? Did Osama fill out some form that said he had to state whether he was left handed or right handed? Let me tell you about a pecularity about Islam, okay? In Islam, Muslims follow Muhammad's example (if Muhammad did it, they do it, right?). Muhammad had this whole OCD thing going on; and a part of this was that he had this obsessive belief that the right side of one's body was "good" and the left side was "bad". Thus he introduced a lot of rules about what can be done with the right hand/foot/side/ etc.. and what MUST be done with the left.

 

ie. eating, washing, greeting, stepping out of the toilet, into a mosque, etc... ALL to be done with the right hand. ie. going to the toilet, wiping ones self etc... with the left hand.

 

You will see in many Islamic societies that the left hand is considered dirty (najis) and thus "right handed is better." Using the right hand for all "non dirty" things is considered Muhammad-emulating, and thus, closer to Allah.

 

So, continuing this, IF Osama was observed writing with opposite hands, it can mean he is ambidextrous. Of course, the FBI could be mistaken?

 

AGAIN, you're calling the Government liars about 9/11 but AT THE SAME TIME using their evidences as "truth!" to (attempt to) indict them

skepticdude wrote:

Third, he suspiciously wears a US Army coat, when in fact a determined Muslim extremist with thousands of supports and leader of his own private anti-American army, who hates all things Western, most likely would have sufficient Muslim clothing that he doesn't need to wear American Military clothing. 

Again with the likely's and maybe's huh? I have not seen the picture/video you are referring to, so I can't comment on this. Can you provide me with this evidence?

skepticdude wrote:

Fourth, his being overweight still maintains a claim for inauthenticity, because you don't have any other photos of Osama in late 2001 or early 2002 showing him to be overweight like that.  Osama is a consistently thin guy according to all evidence outside the disputed video, and you are just committing the fallacy of begging the question at issue to assume the overweight guy in the 2001 video surely is Osama.  What's the liklihood that Osama GAINED weight by the date of this video (late 2001), when he was allegedly put on the run even faster after 911, with many of his supporters getting killed?

I'd say the evidence is pretty good, depending on what part of the year the video's were actually taken. Muslims are required by Muhammad's example to observe the 30-day fast of Ramadan, in which they eat NOTHING or drink NOTHING from first prayer to last (sun up to sun down). They do this for 30 days straight. They eat at night - and as a consequence of going without food for half the day, they tend to eat more - and many gain weight during this time.

 

Of course, there are at least 4 other OPTIONAL fasts - but these are not obligatory - but only for those who wish to do it -the pious in other words. Therefore, unless you can show me with certainty that you KNOW Osama isn't fasting during the day for a lot of the year; I feel I have presented a valid alternate theory as to why Osama may gain/lose weight.

skepticdude wrote:

Fifth, America’s top academic Bin Laden expert, Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program, has gone on official record denouncing the video as a fake.  That doesn't prove it's a fake, but the agreement of an expert on my side forbids you from saying my position is crazy, retarded, totally uninformed, or other similar epithet. 

You ARE totally uninformed. You feel you can tell ME all about Osama bin Laden, yet you CANNOT because you don't understand Islam - thus you have made many mistakes already (detailed above).  Also note AGAIN that you are selectively accepting evidence from those you claim are liars and not to be trusted.

The claims of one so called expert don't FORBID me from claiming any such thing. You put your stock in the opinion of this one guy? Is he one of the non-liars? What is the criteria for telling them apart?

skepticdude wrote:

His position is the same as mine

OHHHH THAT criteria!! gotcha. If they agree with you then they're not part of the conspiracy.

skepticdude wrote:

, that the videos are bogus, but that even if the man really is Osama, it's more likely older video footage mixed with different audio. 

HAHAHA make up your mind! First you say its a complete fake, made with computers, then you say "this expert agrees" and NOW you say its a clipshow of the "real" Osama? Stop hedging your bets mate.

skepticdude wrote:

Sixth, the date and place the US assigns to this video (Jallalbad, November 2001) is also the date and place where US forces were placing Al-Qaeda under heavy fire, Osama taking heavy losses.  I don't find it very likely that Osama, trained military leader and graduate from college would be as relaxed as the fat man in the video, while there is utter chaos and crises going on all around them. If it's really him, then the defense department is more likely lying about the date of the video and the place it was found, this being video of Osama at some other time when tensions weren't as high.

Ohhh you "don't find it likely" uh? Well there you go again.... you don't understand Islam. Muhammad taught his followers to value the next life over this one. I believe Osama himself said "you [americans] love life, while we Muslims love death." Why would he be upset? As far as Islam is concerned, if he WAS killed by US forces, then he would go straight to Jannat - heaven - to live in eternity with his 72 perpetual virgins and not a care in the world because he died as a "martyr". Whereas, if he died  of natural causes (or not during Jihad) he would have to be tortured in his grave until Judgement Day and then cross his fingers and hope his good deeds outweigh his bad. Meanwhile, on this Earth, his death would be celebrated, and would incite many more Muslims to join the cause and hate America for killing the Sheikh.

 

So please, go research Islam before you try to tell me what is "likely".

skepticdude wrote:

Seventh, FOIA requests for the government to do what it needs to do, to use this video as evidence in any future trial (i.e., document the chain of custody and explain the exact cirumstances under which it was obtained) have been answered in the negative.  Here's the video, it's Osama, and we can't authenticate it sufficiently to be used in court. 

The tapes have all been broadcast on Al Jazeera - that is where they got it from. BECAUSE they don't physically have Osama in their custody, nor was the original copies sent to them, etc..This does NOT prove that it is not Osama.

 

skepticdude wrote:

My guess is probably because they know the tape is only designed to convince YOU, the general public, whose standard of evidence is far lower than that required by a court of law.

No red herrings please. Also best idea is to stop guessing - you look foolish.

skepticdude wrote:

Really?  Cite your source. I'm guessing you have nothing but yet another video whose authenticity is questionable

So you say - but you have shown you are biased. Until you can present credible evidence that it is not Osama, then we have to go with the most likely - that it IS Osama, and not some computer generated/manipulated video.

skepticdude wrote:

Osama might not give a shit about Muslim religion, but continues to act the part to help America lie us into war and further erosion of basic human rights.

Can you please stop making baseless claims? As I said, I spent two years researching Islam - going to their own texts instead of relying on some internet article, or "I heard <such and such>". Until YOU can provide evidence that Osama is pretending to be a Muslim, then this is just another ludicrous claim. From what I know, Muhammad would be extremely proud of Osama and his actions - he is a Good Muslim (a terrorist).


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I will be back in a while,

I will be back in a while, since I am reading the entire NIST analysis of the global collapse (300 pages) and the fire analysis and structural/metallurgic analysis (470 pages) and the ASCE follow up analysis (20 pages).

EDIT. I am back.

Very well. I checked NISTs documentation, and found the piece in question. If you want to read the entire document, it is here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

So, in summation, this is what was tested:

-This was not a test of the central structural supports as was discussed in the above analysis. What is under discussion is the ability of the insulated systems from the trusses to withstand heat, and ability to take a load while insulated under heated conditions.

There is no need to “refute” NISTs analysis. It was perfectly sound. It’s data does not in any way dent the crush-down sequence as is accepted by NIST and ASCE and ASME. This precise sequence was described immediately after the paragraph you brought up. Indeed, the results of the experiment you just mentioned were taken into account. Does the fact that the floor trusses, when insulated, can sustain the design load during the heat of fires, constitute a flaw in the analysis of NIST in the manner in which the buildings came down? No. If you examine the NIST global analysis, followed by ASCE, you will note that they did include the insulation in their seven-part multifactorial analysis of the inward buckling. ASCE described the shearing of insulation in their rate equation in this document below. They also noted that if this had not been the case, the towers would not have fallen because the inward buckling would not have been sufficient for the crush-down to take effect, or at least for the fall of the upper part to be arrested (hence the GPE dissipation would be smaller and the KE would not be sufficient to take down the building). If you want to read the precise mathematics behind it, you can do so here (I sure hope you like third-order calculus):

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

To put it simply, you are, I trust, familiar with the concept of shearing? Take a piece of paper, and apply force parallel to its plane, considering it as a 2D planar object. When the force is applied in parallel to the plane of the paper, it becomes difficult to tear, because the force is being distributed among the length of the fibers. When you apply a perpendicular force, the force distribution, or pressure, sometimes called force density , is concentrated at the weakest point of the material, perpendicular to its plane. That’s essentially what happened to the insulation on 9/11. This is one of the seven factors listed, indicated, demonstrated (already indicated by me as well), together which were sufficient to take down the building, and all seven of which have a direct causal relationship with the aircraft colliding with the building.

You’ll note that the NIST global analysis is pretty identical to the scenario I indicated in the previous post. A much more thorough analysis is given by the ASCE 2007, in the link above.

You obviously ignored the fact entirely that ASCE took insulation into their analysis. I found out because I read both documents in their entirety. The fact that you would take a chunk of text out of context to support a proposition which the central body of the text clearly indicates that it does not support can indicate either of two possibilities.

1.       You read the document, but only chose to display this section by itself, to create a false impression. Which is deceitful.

2.       More likely, you read this extracted piece from a website which took it. This is not so much deceitful as it is immensely foolish. If a chunk of text is quoted, especially from a source which attempts to make a point clearly in contradiction to the point being made by the person from whom the text was taken, it is a good bet that you should read the whole piece, because chances are, something important is omitted.

But, if you don't want to discuss physics, or indeed, even if you do, the best suggestion is the following. Study some physics and/or mechanical engineering. Thus far, you have taken quotes from reference material pertaining to subjects about which you lack knowledge. Given that this has been cleared up, we can now discuss the analysis on the previous page.  On the other hand, if you don’t understand the analysis on the previous page, then it is unlikely that you would comprehend the NIST or ASCE analyses. This in turn raises the question of why we are having this discussion at all. Like I said, what happened on 9/11 doesn’t matter to me as far as this discussion is concerned, only good physics does. If you can’t comment on the physics aspect, you should go back to something where you stand on more solid ground as far as knowledge is concerned. I don’t discuss things like the CIA’s history or the secret wars of NATO, because for me, that would constitute unfamiliar territory, thus there would be no way to meaningfully evaluate arguments on the matter. You find yourself in a similar position as far as physics is concerned.

Now I wish to evaluate the “controlled demolition” hypothesis. The tower, as we have seen, collapsed progressively from the top down, that is, once the top section fell through the ejected floor, the compaction and the rate of transfer of kinetic energy was sufficient for the building to collapse from the top down. As we have seen, this was caused by a multifactorial combination of thermally-induced expansion of steel columns, which decreased the yield and induced viscoplasicity, added to the shearing of insulation by the application of perpendicular force on the material by the impact, the severing, or severely weakening, of 60% of the columns by the impact on the floor, resulting in a load redistribution, the ejecting of a floor causing a dissipation of GPE, ensuring that the kinetic energy exceeded the elastic load capacity of the floor beneath it. If explosives had been planted at strategic points around the tower, with the aim of simulating these effects allowing for the accretion of mass to induce collapse, then this effect would not have been observed, primarily because (a) crush-down collapse results from a compressive force being applied from the upper part of the standing structure on the lower part and b) the application of force by ejecting a floor too low to the ground will not result in crush-down collapse. If multiple ejecta points were designated within the building itself, then instead of crush-down, more likely, it will result in the building falling over, which is dangerous in demolition work, and, obviously, not what happened on 9/11.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

skepticdude wrote:

Yes, because the law allows similar past actions to be brought up in court to help the prosecution build a case that the current charges are consistent with the defendant's past pattern of behavior. And the Law doesn't distinguish between circumstantial and direct evidence.  They would hardly allow that if these arbiters of justice held the simpleminded unrealistic viewpoint that you hold.  You are making no room whatsoever for acknowledging that a person's behavior patterns are significant, when in fact the FBI uses Forensic Profilers to exactly predict the future behavior of suspects, because the science is pretty solid.  This proves that your simple-minded "just because they broke the law in the past doesn't mean they did it now" bullshit is strictly reserved for internet chat forums and has no place whatsoever in the halls of justice where real evidential arguments are made.


 

Dude, YOUR views are scaring the shit out of me.

wow I never knew I was so significant.  Maybe you were just using rhetoric?

Quote:
Seriously, have fun getting pulled over for speeding everyday, since hey! they don't have to prove you did it if you sped before!

That's exactly correct.  When you get a speeding ticket, you have to prove to the court that you DIDN'T do it (guilty till proven innocent), and the judge always increases the fine, if you don't win, if you have a previous record of similar offenses.

Did you have a purpose in citing the big brother laws that govern traffic citations?


Quote:
Quote:

You used to be able to buy things anonymously with cash alone.  Now you have to fight with the clerk at Circuit City to justify refusing to give your name when trying to buy a radio with cash alone.

You used to clip coupons from the newspaper and get the savings at the grocery store, anonymously.  That's slowly being replaced with "savings cards" that you sign up for.  Swiping them not only gives you savings, it gives somebody else a record of where you were, what you bought, how much you bought, how that purchase compares to your previously documented pattern of food buying, with your name attached to it.   Most items now in such grocery stories are ridiculously higher priced than normal, but promise savings if the club card is used.  The use of the convenient "club card" appears everywhere, Starbuck's, Safeway, Circuit City, obviously
 

I couldn't purchase a printer last week from Circuit City, because I was using cash and refused to give my phone number or name to the cashier.  I got the same problem at Best Buy, but a manager was called up and authorized the nameless transation to go through.  Yes, we are correct, your money is becoming worthless, because it means less and less to vendors who demand that your name or other ID characteristic be attached to it.   Their cover story is "so we can mail you coupons" which is total bullshit, since it shouldn't take such a gargantuan effort to allow me to refuse coupons in the mail.  Attaching your name to your purchases is growing more and more important than just your simple offer of money to the vendor.

Yep, 'cause the FBI gives a flying shit if you buy a printer or twinkies.

I could easily manipulate you if I owned all the stores in the mall, and I knew what sort of things you are likely to buy and not buy.  When you swipe your card at Safeway to get the savings, do you know where that information goes? 

http://archive.seattlepressonline.com/article-9719.html

Quote:
The population of America is 300 million, you really think they have time to sort through all that info? And the real question is: What are they going to do with it?

Safeway admits they track these things for marketing purposes.  Yes, they have the time to sort through all that info whenever they wish to capitalize on your likes and dislikes as evidenced by your past purchasing patterns.  The above article points out something you don't know; whether Safeway would sell such databases of customer patterns to the hightest bidder.  One thing you can be certain of, money changes and corrupts people.  Though I don't think it's really an issue of the government buying or not buying such customer purchasing pattern lists from Safeway, as it's far more likely the government always had access to that info anyway.

Here's your first clue.  Ever hear of genetically modified food?  Know why they do that?  MONEY.  Genetically modified food may very well hurt you in the long run, yet the major food markets eat up genetically modified food, and farmers do it because it makes food quicker and makes it look more visually appealing.  That proves that the government is more concerned to make money off of your, regardless of risk to you, than in restricting profits in the name of citizen safety.

Quote:
Quote:

I don't have to prove the NWO is coming, YOU have to prove it ISN'T.

Shifting the burden of proof. You're making the positive claim.

On the contrary, I disagree with you that a denial of the coming NWO should be the default position.  The erosion of privacy and constitutional rights is too obvious.  You may as well deny gravity and then ask quasi-skeptical questions of anybody who tries to prove it, then accuse them of shifting the burden of proof when they ask you to justify your skepticism of the obvious truth.

What did you learn from Bush Sr and his NWO speech, conveniently given on a September 11?  You talked earlier as if you'd never heard of that.

Anyway, I like to debate, not educate.  Until you actually start justifying your apparant belief that the erosion of constitutional rights and privacy does NOT imply a coming Big Brother world or a NWO, all I can do is suggest you examine the evidence.  Alex Jones has two excellent videos to introduce you to that evidence, "Martial Law: Rise of the Police State" and "Endgame".  I've got both they are about 700 megs each if you'd like to download them. 

Any Media Watchdog group can give you examples of falsely spinning news from CNN, and you yourself should already agree with me that Fox news's sole purpose of existence is defending Bush from anything and everything incriminating.  As such, you acknowledge that the government is depending on people simply going to work, coming home for dinner, kicking up their feet and watching the 6 o'clock news so they can stay "informed" about world events. 

Your extemely short answers to my responses make it appear that you are vastly uninformed about the specific evidence on my side.  Are you still in high school?  Were you serious when you mockingly stated the governement wouldn't give a shit whether you buy a printer or twinkies?  Are we debating, or am I doing your homework for your while yo continue disguising your ignorance with skepticism/cynicism?

Quote:

They did fake it.  They ran fire tests on the steel, the steel didn't fail within the time frame dicated by the actual wtc collapses, so they then refused to plug those unfriendly results into the computer models, motivating me to demand refund of the tax mony they used for fire tests that never became part of their final hypothesis.  The obvious connotation is that the fire tests on the steel showed the steel maintaining the known wtc structure without buckling for over 2 hours.  That obviously doesn't contribute to explaining the fall of the towers, which fell in less than 1 hour, so they simply chuck the fire tests and rely on computer models.  They could never answer the question 'if your testing facility could not replicate the wtc conditions of 911, what good did you hope to derive from tests that don't replicate the disaster you are trying to figure out?"

Of course when your expirements proof you wrong, the most rational thing would be to release it to the public and NOT fake the results, because everyone would rush to verify the claim.

First, that doesn't answer the question of why they chose to do the fire tests in the first place, having already admitted that their testing environment couldn't replicate the actual 911 WTC fire conditions.  The most rational thing is to request more money for better machinery to make sure the steel IS being subjected to as many known stresses as were known to exist in the WTC, not do tests that are guaranteed from the start to be inefficient.

Second, nobody ever said they faked their results, they knew perfectly well the scientific community would rush to review and critique their resulting hypothesis.  NIST's actions are perfectly consistent with my theory that they suppressed and distorted truths to make the fire-collapse theory more plausible.  Any blunt fakery would immediately be exposed.  Again, NIST was expected to do fire testing, so they were forced to deal with that issue.  NIST honestly admitted their fire-test results were not used in their final hypothesis, and this truth now causes them scorn and derision by the tax-payers.  I haven't simply claimed NIST lied.  I've also claimed that their truthful admissions cast doubt upon their work and on the official fire-collapse theory.

NIST would be less believable with any blunt fakery, so they were forced to honestly reveal genuinely problematic truths.

Third, NIST's Chief Engineer John Gross bluntly admitted to a questioner that he'd never heard of the molten metal claims made by the ground zero workers, in a Univerty of Austin Texas lecture on the collapse of the towers.  He specifically denied ALL knowledge of molten steel.  The questioner brought up the subject of NASA's themo-images which showed temperatures near 2000 degrees.  NIST also didn't know about those.  Gross asked the man to send those images to him.  Mr. Gross later refused to give any contact information to that questioner for reception of the molten-metal claim evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lihj-Kz9wjY

And no, the supposition that scientists would prematurely sign their names to unscientific studies so the rich product-manufacturer can successfully sell the product quicker, is nothing new. The authors of the "studies" drug manufacturer's play up in their advertisements, very often have financial ties to the company making the drug! The below link goes to a summary article, and it's own link to the New York Times article is still working:

http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoking/TOJKKMKRB3MH88HMD

Are you now convinced that a government funded scientist might only support the government's position because of desire for financial gain, not straight science?

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.


skepticdude
Posts: 85
Joined: 2008-06-09
User is offlineOffline
Sanitarium wrote:skepticdude

Sanitarium wrote:

skepticdude wrote:

For about $300 worth of software and one $500 laptop, I can manipulate video and audio of you to show you walking around at the north pole and saying how much you love getting butt fucked by Dick Cheney. I can then manually degrade the video and add noise to the audio to make sure anybody who tries to analyse it will have a much harder time proving it's fake.

Red herring. We are not discussing video/audio manipulation. It has not been suggested by experts/FBI etc..,

Begging the question.  The use of fake video obviously wouldn't be admitted by the agencies accused of producing it.  If they did fake video, you have no rational right to expect them to admit it, so their failure to admit to something would not count as evidence that the videos are real.  You wil have to ditch that objection and find another reason to reject the very valid and possible prospect of faked videos.

Quote:
nor has any evidence been presented that the video we see is computer generated.

Well DUH!  Did you not read what I just wrote?  The technology to make a very realistic video and then degrade it sufficiently to decrease liklihood of proving fakery, exist today.   If it can be done for less than a $1000 by me, the government can damn sure create more believable video than this.

Quote:
Since you have yet to present anything suspicious (in which one may think it may not be Osama) then we have to take it at face value until such evidence is presented.

Fine....suppose a woman friend of yours says you admitted stealing her $15,000 gold collection, and you did this crime at a time when you were alone and nobody can verify what you were doing.  She gives an audio recording to the prosecutor which clearly has YOU admitting the crime to her in some obviously public place, preventing defense by appeal to privacy.  You know damn well you never said such a thing, she must have taken other recordings of you and spliced together key phrases.  And darn it anyway, that really old tape recorder her grandma gave her was accidently thrown out last month after being damaged, and she doesn't remember what make or model it was.  She waited, because she didn't want to ruin your career or family.  With tears she gave in, because that gold collection contains heirlooms within the family.

Ufortunately for your defense attorney, there is a lot of background noise, which while clear enough to match your own voice exactly, yet has made it impossible to debunk it's authenticity, especially during the silence between your key words, where you'd first expect to hear signs of manipulation.

Are you still interested in your "we have to take it at face value until fakery is proved" logic?

Or you do put the cuffs on yourself and volunteer yourself at the local prison because fakery couldn't be proven?

The jury would be completely rational, in light of voice-morphing technology today that can be done with free downloadable audio editors, to consider the "confession" very weak and therefore look into your background to see whether you've got a history of theft and what other witnesses say about your general credibility.

That's exactly what I'm doing.  I don't find the 2001 Osama tape convincing, so I'm looking at the history of the Bush administration and high government in general to determine whether it's more likely or less likely that our government would lie and use false evidence to prop up it's illegal war.

Only people who already trust the governement, take something as controversial as a politically well-timed convenient "discovery" of an Osama confession tape as authentic.  Other people who recognize that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and keep Bush's clear lies and false evidence for the War in mind, disagree with you and insist that the government's self-serving evidences should be first doubted until their authenticity is established.  Technology has removed your "innocent 'til proven guilty" basis to trust the evidence first until proof of fakery is given.   It can be a good enough fake that a solid disproof of it's authenticity is impossible, which puts you in the position of a juror who must decide guilty or innocence based on conflicting evidence.

Not all fake proof contains signs of fakery.  Which means you have to look at how the government would be benefitted by such a tape, to discern whether they'd lie to the American public for political reasons.

I guess I lost this point, because the government has never lied to Americans for political reasons so we have no reason to think they'd put their higher technologies to use to create convincing false evidence.  Maybe those 5 frames of Pentagon 911 footage from 2002 just accidently fell through the cracks of the world's most sophisticated information protection system of the Pentagon.

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

Is the burden of proof on me to prove it's not Osama?

YES!!! The man in the vid is identified as Osama

Quote:

Oh I'm sorry, I should have guessed that assuming your own viewpoint with the fallacy of begging the question shot my position out of the sky.

Quote:
and in each video/audio exhibits behaviour that is decidedly osama-esque,
Quote:

Fallacy of begging the question.  It's obvious that anybody who wants to fake an Osama video and have it taken seriously, would be sure to use footage of Osama acting like Osama.  You are wrong anyway, the FBI says Osama is lefthanded, but in the 2001 video he writes with his right hand.

What's next boss?  Ambidextrious Terrorists?  How much "incompetence" must you see in America's defense system, before you start suspecting deliberation?

Quote:
he looks like Osama,

That's not an objection.  A fake video meant to be taken seriously would make the person look like Osama, or else use earlier authentic Osama footage spliced with incriminating audio from a differnt time.

Quote:
speaks with the same dialect,etc

Los Alamos Voice Morphing technology, combined with your own admission that the Bush administration will fake evidence leading to the death of innocent people, in order to lie to America, still gives me rational warrant to suspect this conveniently politically timed "discovery".

Quote:
.... Since YOU are claiming it is NOT him, then YOU need to present evidence to support your claim!

We'll review your analysis of my case below.

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

Or is the burden of proof on you to prove it is Osama?  Unfortunately for you, technology has made it possible to make convincing video and audio of a person making incriminating statements, when in fact they never did.  So don't act like you live in the dark ages, and ask me to disprove the tape.  With today's technology in mind along with the unforgivable lies of Bush he's willing to make Americans die for, there is rational warrant to believe the government is manufacturing false evidence to beef up their Osama claims every bit as much as they did regarding the Niger-Yellowcake claims.

Red herrings ignored. The burden of proof is on you here.

Strawman, what red herring?  I did not deliberately change the subject, which is what a red herring is, and I did exactly what juries are permitted to do by all judges; consider the past pattern of similar illegal behavior of the defendant as admitted in trial, whether it suggests they are guilty of the current charges.  Our government has indeed tried to use obviously fake evidence to justify the war on terror, so that's a major red flag given that their next evidence relating to Osama is the sort that can be easily faked with their high technology, video and audio.

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

Or do you now agree that uncorroborated single grainy degraded videos with lots of audio noise, which America's top Bin Laden expert says are bullshit, probably isn't what you should be resting your defense of the official theory on?

This is HILARIOUS! Here is what you are saying:

(a) The Government is lying to us! They did 9/11!!

And the government has no history of lying to make people suspicious of it's self-serving "discoveries", yeah what a laughable mistake of mine.

Quote:
(b) The Government's OWN bin laden experts claim the video is fake!!!

Strawman, Bruce Lawrence, the Osama-expert I cited,  is not a government employee.

Quote:
(c)I KNOW they're lying on (a) but I completely believe them for (b); furthermore, I am using their (b) statements to further PROVE my theory that they are LIARS!!!!

I must be rattling your cage pretty good, the increase in your exclamation marks suggests heightened stress levels in your attempted rebuttal.  Quit kicking like a baby and be rational, I never set forth my view as completely obvious, only rationally warranted.

Quote:
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Which is it? (other ramblings ignored btw as I told you I am only interested in your claims re: bin laden).

unfortunately for you, it is not clear what you think constitutes my "rambling", which makes me suspicious that you are attempting to avoid certain points that you are afraid to address.

I disagree with your viewpoint that I was rambling in the comments you refused to respond to.  I now include them again and request you directly interact with them:

Quote:
If I can turn you into a homosexual republican polar bear with less than $1000 of commerically avaiable equipment, what do you think I could do if Congress got all pissed off about 911 and so handed me $80 Billion dollars to support my war against Osama?

Very solid point, I can understand why you'd ignore it: the technology is sufficiently advanced that disproving a video fake would be extremely difficult.   The video could easily be authentic footage of Osama with morphed voice causing him to make incriminating statements.

Quote:
Go familiarize yourself with the level of today's video technology available in the public markets, then ask yourself how much more sophisticated than commerically available stuff the government's own video equipment could be, bear in mind that America has a consistent history of perpetrating false flag terrorism, keep in mind that Bush has already demonstrated in the Iraq war that he is willing to sacrfice American lives for a cause that is completely corrupt, fraudulent and a lie, then you come back and assure me it's really Osama,  and that the burden of proof is on yellow bellied liberals to prove that the timing of this convenient find, so soon after 911 does nothing to advance the lies of the Bush Administration.

Do you never grow weary of the conveniently "lucky" discoveries that miraculously support the official story?  How about the more recent bin laden video, which freezes exactly when the audio has the most incriminating statements?

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

First, I claim the Osama confession videos are fake.  Therefore you cannot uncritically cite them against my claim, that's called begging the question.  I cannot be wrong just because the tape are authentic, their authenticity is exactly the question.

I'm ASKING you to give some EVIDENCE!!!!

Which proves you just don't appreciate how advanced video and audio technology really are.  You mysteriously fail to connect Hollywood's ability to make supremely convincing monsters, etc, with the government's ability to make video, which can only be better.  Anybody who knew such things would first doubt the government's self-serving and politically conveniently timed "Osama" videos, asking for evidence of their authenticity be first shown.

Quote:
You're the one saying "the vids are computer generated/manipulated."

No, I'm saying the technology obviously exists to fake it, and that you are incorrect to first trust the government's self-serving claims and ask for proof of fakery, when in fact the "rational response" is to do what courts of law do, demand the chain of custody be demonstrated, which Bush failed to do with the 2001 Osama tape.  If you still accept the tape in spite of this lack of chain of custody, you are not applying rules of evidence the way a court of law would.

Quote:
I am asking for actual evidence, not more crackpot conspiracy theories. So, unless you can provide some (actual evidence) then I am not yet convinced.

I don't need to convince you.  All I need to do is demonstrate that my postion is rational.  It is, because it comports with criminal court laws on chains of custody, and takes into account the ability to fake video/audio and the past pattern of lies and manufactured evidence and plots to manufacture evidence within the US government generally  and the Bush administration in particular.

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

Second, the FBI said Osama is left-handed, but he writes with his right hand in the 2001 video. 

Perhaps he is ambidextrous?

Where did the FBI get this information? Did Osama fill out some form that said he had to state whether he was left handed or right handed?

Oh gee, is this the part where you abandon your past trust in the government's official story and feel it necessary to question their methods and intelligence?

Do you not know that Osama and the U.S. were friends aback in the 1980's, Us using him as a buffer against the Soviets in Afghanistan?  How do you figure anybody in government could MISTAKE which hand Osama writes with?

Quote:
Let me tell you about a pecularity about Islam, okay? In Islam, Muslims follow Muhammad's example (if Muhammad did it, they do it, right?). Muhammad had this whole OCD thing going on; and a part of this was that he had this obsessive belief that the right side of one's body was "good" and the left side was "bad". Thus he introduced a lot of rules about what can be done with the right hand/foot/side/ etc.. and what MUST be done with the left. ie. eating, washing, greeting, stepping out of the toilet, into a mosque, etc... ALL to be done with the right hand. ie. going to the toilet, wiping ones self etc... with the left hand. You will see in many Islamic societies that the left hand is considered dirty (najis) and thus "right handed is better." Using the right hand for all "non dirty" things is considered Muhammad-emulating, and thus, closer to Allah. So, continuing this, IF Osama was observed writing with opposite hands, it can mean he is ambidextrous. Of course, the FBI could be mistaken?

Your problem is that it is not likely that the FBI, knowing at least as much about these Muslimisms as you, would attribute left-handedness to a devout Muslim Extremeist, without solid evidence of such, unless they were deliberately lying.  You don't have the option that they might simply be wrong.  They are either correct to ascribe left-handedness to Osama or they are lying.  You know far less about Osama than the FBI, so who is more likely correct on the matter, short of the FBI lying?

>AGAIN, you're calling the Government liars about 9/11 but AT THE SAME TIME using their evidences as "truth!" to (attempt to) indict them.

I distrust the government's case for 911, that doesn't mean that I deny every single individual factoid they present to the public.  The better lies are those that are mixed with the truth, making it harder to separate them.  The FBI said Osama is left-handed, and I have no reason to think this too is a lie.  But I proved earlier it's either a lie or correct, as it is not very likely the FBI would innocently mess up something like that.

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

Third, he suspiciously wears a US Army coat, when in fact a determined Muslim extremist with thousands of supports and leader of his own private anti-American army, who hates all things Western, most likely would have sufficient Muslim clothing that he doesn't need to wear American Military clothing. 

Again with the likely's and maybe's huh?

Quote:

Yeah, exactly what a jury must consider when the evidence can roughly be interpreted as proof of guilt or not sufficient to prove guilt.  I'm perfectly rational.

Quote:
I have not seen the picture/video you are referring to, so I can't comment on this. Can you provide me with this evidence?

What, you haven't seen the 2001 video we've been discussing the whole time?  No, I won't do your homework for you when 5 seconds on Google will demonstrate what I say on this point.

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

Fourth, his being overweight still maintains a claim for inauthenticity, because you don't have any other photos of Osama in late 2001 or early 2002 showing him to be overweight like that.  Osama is a consistently thin guy according to all evidence outside the disputed video, and you are just committing the fallacy of begging the question at issue to assume the overweight guy in the 2001 video surely is Osama.  What's the liklihood that Osama GAINED weight by the date of this video (late 2001), when he was allegedly put on the run even faster after 911, with many of his supporters getting killed?

I'd say the evidence is pretty good, depending on what part of the year the video's were actually taken.

Which you will never do, because FOIA requests for documentation of the chain of custody for this video have been denied.  The government hopes you are dumber than a court of law, which requires that evidence have a chain of custody or else be declared in admissible for trial.

Quote:
Muslims are required by Muhammad's example to observe the 30-day fast of Ramadan, in which they eat NOTHING or drink NOTHING from first prayer to last (sun up to sun down). They do this for 30 days straight. They eat at night - and as a consequence of going without food for half the day, they tend to eat more - and many gain weight during this time.

Fine, go file a FOIA request for the chain of custody for this video so you can figure out when this video was taken.  Such has already failed, maybe you'll get lucky?  

Quote:
Of course, there are at least 4 other OPTIONAL fasts - but these are not obligatory - but only for those who wish to do it -the pious in other words. Therefore, unless you can show me with certainty that you KNOW Osama isn't fasting during the day for a lot of the year; I feel I have presented a valid alternate theory as to why Osama may gain/lose weight.

Again, the government has refused to document this video's chain of custody, so you should be a fair and impartial judge and declare it inadmissible for this trial.

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

Fifth, America’s top academic Bin Laden expert, Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program, has gone on official record denouncing the video as a fake.  That doesn't prove it's a fake, but the agreement of an expert on my side forbids you from saying my position is crazy, retarded, totally uninformed, or other similar epithet. 

You ARE totally uninformed. You feel you can tell ME all about Osama bin Laden, yet you CANNOT because you don't understand Islam - thus you have made many mistakes already (detailed above).  Also note AGAIN that you are selectively accepting evidence from those you claim are liars and not to be trusted.

The claims of one so called expert don't FORBID me from claiming any such thing. You put your stock in the opinion of this one guy? Is he one of the non-liars? What is the criteria for telling them apart?

First, you again fail to realize what is proven with expert testimony.  When you have a properly qualified scholar who supports your viewpoint, that counts for something, even if it isn't final proof of correctness.  Yet all you do is poo-poo this otherwise honest teaching professor and continue falsely exclaiming how we should first trust the lying Bush administration even when their evidence wouldn't be admitted for trial in a court of law.

I generally trust people until they give me a reason to suspect their honesty.  If I compare the level of known deciet in Bruce Lawrence's past, and compare it to Bush's documented deciet and lies, who do you think emerges as worthy of more trust?

That professor could easily lose his teaching position if his bosses felt he was setting forth a completely ridiculous theory.  It stands to reason that Osama expert sincerely believes the videos are fakes, and thus is not lying.

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

His position is the same as mine

OHHHH THAT criteria!! gotcha. If they agree with you then they're not part of the conspiracy.

You already agree Bush has lied to us extensively, so I don't trust him.  You got any similar proof that Bruce Lawrence is a liar or deciever?  No you don't, so you lose that point.

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

, that the videos are bogus, but that even if the man really is Osama, it's more likely older video footage mixed with different audio. 

HAHAHA make up your mind! First you say its a complete fake, made with computers, then you say "this expert agrees" and NOW you say its a clipshow of the "real" Osama? Stop hedging your bets mate.

I did not tell you I think it is Osama.  I was showing that even if you prove me wrong and it IS Osama, you still haven't justified your ridiculous push to trust the Bush administration on the matter, because the authentic video/audio of Osama can still be faked by being manipulated to appear to be something other than what it originally was.

I still believe the person in the video is not Osama.  My point was gain nothing even if you win this debate.  If it is Osama, that doesn't prove the audio, the most easily faked part, is correct.

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

Sixth, the date and place the US assigns to this video (Jallalbad, November 2001) is also the date and place where US forces were placing Al-Qaeda under heavy fire, Osama taking heavy losses.  I don't find it very likely that Osama, trained military leader and graduate from college would be as relaxed as the fat man in the video, while there is utter chaos and crises going on all around them. If it's really him, then the defense department is more likely lying about the date of the video and the place it was found, this being video of Osama at some other time when tensions weren't as high.

Ohhh you "don't find it likely" uh? Well there you go again.... you don't understand Islam. Muhammad taught his followers to value the next life over this one. I believe Osama himself said "you [americans] love life, while we Muslims love death." Why would he be upset? As far as Islam is concerned, if he WAS killed by US forces, then he would go straight to Jannat - heaven - to live in eternity with his 72 perpetual virgins and not a care in the world because he died as a "martyr". Whereas, if he died  of natural causes (or not during Jihad) he would have to be tortured in his grave until Judgement Day and then cross his fingers and hope his good deeds outweigh his bad. Meanwhile, on this Earth, his death would be celebrated, and would incite many more Muslims to join the cause and hate America for killing the Sheikh.

So please, go research Islam before you try to tell me what is "likely".

If the DOD is correct about where this tape was found, your understanding of Isalm would predict that Osama would be openly fighting  U.S. forces, hoping for martyrdom.   He graciously accepted copious amounts of weapons and other U.S. support during the Afghanistan war in the early 80's, apparantly he doesn't hate American's as much as your American News Media insists?

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

Seventh, FOIA requests for the government to do what it needs to do, to use this video as evidence in any future trial (i.e., document the chain of custody and explain the exact cirumstances under which it was obtained) have been answered in the negative.  Here's the video, it's Osama, and we can't authenticate it sufficiently to be used in court. 

The tapes have all been broadcast on Al Jazeera - that is where they got it from. BECAUSE they don't physically have Osama in their custody, nor was the original copies sent to them, etc..This does NOT prove that it is not Osama.

Of course it doesn't prove fakery.  It proves a court of Law in America disagrees with you about the admissibility of that video evidence for trial.   Do we need to revise criminal laws now to conform with Bush's "evidence"?  Or are you trying to authenticate a video that a court of law would immediately have thrown out before trial?  Why aren't YOU willing to likewise ditch the video, when American courts damn sure would?

[quote

skepticdude wrote:

My guess is probably because they know the tape is only designed to convince YOU, the general public, whose standard of evidence is far lower than that required by a court of law.

No red herrings please. Also best idea is to stop guessing - you look foolish.

Then maybe you can explain why you disagree with the rules of evidence as applied in a criminal case in court?  If it's so obvious that it is Osama, why shouldn't the courts waive the problem of documentation of chain of custody and allow that tape?

Or maybe you are starting to become educated on why the failure to document a chain of custody is always a death-blow to the evidence in question?

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

Really?  Cite your source. I'm guessing you have nothing but yet another video whose authenticity is questionable

So you say - but you have shown you are biased. Until you can present credible evidence that it is not Osama, then we have to go with the most likely - that it IS Osama, and not some computer generated/manipulated video.

now wait just a second...you asserted "1. He admitted later on that he did it."

I would like you to support that assertion with argument/evidence.

Quote:
skepticdude wrote:

Osama might not give a shit about Muslim religion, but continues to act the part to help America lie us into war and further erosion of basic human rights.

Can you please stop making baseless claims? As I said, I spent two years researching Islam - going to their own texts instead of relying on some internet article, or "I heard <such and such>". Until YOU can provide evidence that Osama is pretending to be a Muslim, then this is just another ludicrous claim. From what I know, Muhammad would be extremely proud of Osama and his actions - he is a Good Muslim (a terrorist).

Then you obviously know very little about Muslims.  Immediately after 911, there were many reports about how Osama's viewpoint doesn't represent the viewpoints of other Muslims who live in the U.S.  Some of them were attacked, and many went on record denouncing Osama and saying the true Muslim faith is not presented by Osama's beliefs.

Faith does not have the power to move mountains. However, it does have the power to make you think a mountain has moved.