Student Newspaper of Texas A&M...911 Truth continues to grow

[Twist_U_Up]

http://media.www.theeasttexan.com/media/storage/paper1164/news/2008/09/25/Opinion/911-Truth.Movement.Continues.To.Grow-3456344.shtml

There will be a test. All students and faculty will be tested over their research concerning this issue.

We have all been fooled. We have been duped concerning the truth surrounding the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Science does not lie, but the government does.

The evidence is unimpeachable, but the media censors. Thoroughly investigate "9/11 Truth." This is probably one of the most important issues of your life and your country. Don't muff it.

You had better ask yourself why you have not seen ALL of the videos and information surrounding the collapse of Building 7. Watch ALL the videos concerning Building 7, including: the BBC story which announced that the building had already collapsed 20 minutes prior to its actual collapse; the collapse angle shots; the many eyewitnesses who heard the countdown or knew that the building was about to "blow up" or heard explosions; the order from the owner of the building to "pull it"; the full Barry Jennings interview where he cites bombs going off in Building 7 prior to the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, and how the stairwell was blown-out beneath Barry's feet.

Coincidently, this 53-year-old key witness to explosions, an executive government official with security clearance, died just a month ago. He died just days prior to the release of the long-awaited NIST report about Building 7. NIST is the government agency charged with releasing an official explanation for the collapse of Building 7, which had been years overdue.

You had better ask yourself why there was absolutely no mention of Building 7 in the "9/11 Commission Report." The "9/11 Commission Report" states that it is supposed to be "a full and complete account…" You had better ask yourself why the government kept changing their story about Building 7, until finally admitting that Building 7 had no significant structural damage. Find out about the list of tenants in Building 7. Find out who were principles in the company managing security for the World Trade Center Complex.
More.........

[greyl]

1. Tom Theimer is a non-critical thinking bonehead.

The poll at the link is more scientific than Tom's little essay.
Interesting that about the same percentage of respondents believe it was not an inside job that disapprove of George W. Bush. (72%-70%)

Yeah, it's really growing.

[Twist_U_Up]

6. it's all true, the guvmint told me so

[SDuderstadt]

8. There's a lot of "non-guvmint" sources for what happened on 9/11, Twist...

maybe you should open your eyes.

[petgoat]

12. Maybe you should try supporting your assertions. nt

[SDuderstadt]

14. We DO support our assertions, PG...

it just seems the evidence is never good enough for you. For example, if 100+ witnesses saw AA77 hit the Pentagon, you "truthers" go into paroxysms, claiming that 100+ is not enough.

[petgoat]

18. You don't support the claim that collapse initiation equals total progressive collapse. nt

[SDuderstadt]

20. No one said it did, PG...

another one of your numerous red herrings.

[petgoat]

21. NIST says it did. Study 9/11. Learn to Think. nt

[SDuderstadt]

28. Please cite specifically where they claim that, PG...

Please be specific.

[petgoat]

35. Section 6.14.4, "Events Following Collapse Initiation," p 146 (196 of the pdf) nt

[William Seger]

2. 911 Truth continues to grow... moss

Seven years on, and still no convincing proof that the "official story" is incorrect. Seven years on, and still not enough evidence to even convince each other what "really" happened. Instead, all we get is evidence that falls into categories: evidence that would be convincing if it were valid, but the "movement" is unable to demonstrate that it is; and evidence that is solid but doesn't really prove a conspiracy because the "movement" is unable to rule out the simple and mundane explanations.

And until someone produces a true "smoking gun," that's where the "movement" will sit, growing moss, regardless of how many people get suckered into it.

[petgoat]

3. Oh come off it.

The fact of the coverup is convincing evidence.

Bush's footdragging on having an investigation at all.

The redacted pages in the Joint Inquiry.

The destruction of the steel at the WTC.

The silencing of the FDNY witnesses to explosions, and
the attempt to keep the oral histories secret.

The admission by Commissioners Hamilton and Kean that the
9/11 Commission was "set up to fail."

An incredibly dishonest NIST report on the twin towers that
provides no calculations or models to support its claim that
collapse initation equals total progressive collapse.

An incredibly dishonest NOST report on WTC7 that exaggerates
the fires' duration and intensity, and expects us to believe
that a 47-story building can suffer a total internal collapse
with no indication on the perimeter except that the east
penthouse fell, and then the empty shell comes down at freefall
speed without distortion.


You guys obviously operate from deep emotional needs. Your
compulsion to come here and throw water on everything is based
on opinions completely at odds with the facts.

[William Seger]

4. Right, I have a "deep emotional need"

... for a 9/11 story that's both plausible and supported by credible evidence. Despite the limitations of that method, our legal system also requires that sort of thing when you go around accusing people of murder. It's not a coincidence that "truthers" attempt to understand the world using a completely different method. Good luck.

[petgoat]

10. You have a deep emotional need to believe that you have a 9/11 story that's both plausible

and supported by credible evidence.

The only way you can support your delusion that this is the case, is by unreasonably
pouring cold water on all dissenters here.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Oh, bullshit, PG....

Pointing out your lack of concrete evidence is called "debate". Maybe you should try it.

[William Seger]

15. Don't give up your day job, PG

As an amateur psychologist, you aren't competent. I've been doing what I can to prevent the spread of bullshit on a wide variety of subjects for over 30 years. Unchallenged bullshit doesn't just disappear; just look how long astrology has been around. Just look at how many people today are getting very rich by pretending to talk to dead people. Just look at how much money is spent on "homeopathic medicine" (a.k.a. distilled water). 9/11 is simply one more area in which bullshit doesn't do anyone any good. Bush's handling of the terrorist threats is criminally incompetent, in my opinion, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the threat. The WTC was attacked before, in 1993. Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. and attacked two U.S. embassies and a Navy ship before 9/11. Suicide bombers murder people on a weekly basis in the M.E., and very damn little prevents them from doing the same thing here. People have been successfully hijacking airliners for decades. I have given the "truth movement" every opportunity to convince me that they're on to something other than paranoid delusions, and to say that they've come up short would be a vast understatement. Whether you believe me or not, PG, I'm simply doing the best I can to deal with the real world.

[petgoat]

16. If you've been debunking bs for 30 years why are you so bad at it? nt

[William Seger]

17. Actually, I'm pretty good at it

Nyah, nyah, nyah.

[petgoat]

19. In your own mind you're good at it. You're not convincing anyone here. nt

[William Seger]

22. LOL, how would you know that?

One thing I've learned in 30 years is that "true believers" are seldom convinced by reason that they are wrong, because as Jonathan Swift said, "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." I have a much more modest objective: to alert the unwary that the "truth movement" is spoon-feeding them bullshit, and hopefully convince them to at least check it out for themselves and to really think about it before joining that cult. I can't close the road, but I can put up a "Bridge Out" sign. Sorry, but I don't think you're really in a position to judge how well that's going. Neither am I, but I'm OK with that.

[petgoat]

23. Your belief that the Truth movement is a cult of "true believers" is self deceiving

You fail to convince because your arguments don't add up.

You deny there's evidence when there's plenty of evidence.

You demand proof, saying evidence isn't good enough.

Your arguments are weak, and often ignorant.

You decided from the start that that the truth movement
was a cult in need of your expert debunking services, and
you've been operating under that deluded assumption ever
since.

I came to the Truth movement very slowly and reluctantly,
based on my growing understanding of the facts. Actually
my beginning was my attempt to restore the complacency that
Fahrenheit 9/11 shook up. I wanted to prove it was lies.
I couldn't. It wasn't.

[AZCat]

24. Bullshit, petgoat.

If there's anything growing here, it's the pile of crap you've slung in defense of your willful ignorance of the facts.

[petgoat]

25. Your gang of mosquitos buzzing around hasn't a leg to stand on. nt

[AZCat]

26. It that's your way of saying you don't know what the fuck you're talking about...

then yes, I agree.

[petgoat]

32. "bzzzzzzzz" says the self-styled engineer who never demonstrates his claimed expertise

all you ever do is grumble ad hominems

[SDuderstadt]

33. Unfuckingbelievable....

and this from a poster who called me an "a-hole". You're the king of ad hominems, PG.


Oh, and "Jesus Christ". There...I said it again.

[petgoat]

34. Criticism of the lack of substance of someone's posts is not an ad hominem. nt

[SDuderstadt]

40. Unfuckingbelievable...

you don't think calling someone an "a-hole" is an ad hominem? Really?

[AZCat]

39. It would be nice if you actually understood what an "ad hominem" was.

But then, I've grown to expect such things from you. How's the chair-breaking going? Got any more "diagrams" for us? Or perhaps you'd like to make another great analogy like the soda cracker one.

[petgoat]

42. I only broke one chair, and absorbed the lesson when I was five.

I know what an ad hominem is. The post to which I am responding is a
substanceless ad hominem. The five of you are disrupting this forum by
spamming threads with substanceless FUD.

It is not sufficient to claim to be an engineer and imply (without actually
saying so) that the soda cracker analogy is inept. This is the 9/11 forum,
not the Petgoat gossip forum.

Let's talk about 9/11, let's talk about the twin towers, let's talk about
the air and the powdered concrete. Let's talk about why the soda cracker
is or is not a good analogy.

That's too tough for you and your squadron of bullshitshit-spraying fly-by
cropdusters?

[SDuderstadt]

45. We're calling you on your bullshit, PG

It's called debate. You seem to think debate is only like-minded people agreeing with each other. Why don't you start your own website and you can ban anyone who doesn't play by your rules?

[AZCat]

46. You're numbering us now, huh?

For us, there's no point. The willfully ignorant have always been far too numerous to bother counting. (except that I'm sure there were, as of November 2004, at least 50 million of them in the U.S.)

The failure of the soda cracker analogy is obvious to anyone with a modicum of mechanical reasoning. Sorry, petgoat - this excludes you.

[petgoat]

47. If the failure of the soda cracker analogy is obvious, please explain what's wrong with it

oh Mr. Expert Man, oh will you pretty please?

Do we have to beg you to support your assertions?

The soda cracker analogy perfectly demonstrates the
disconnect between the engine of air expulsion (falling floors)
and the engine of pulverization (impacting floors).

[AZCat]

48. I'm not responsible for correcting your idiotic notions.

That would be a full-time job, and I'm already gainfully employed.

[petgoat]

49. If you're not responsible for supporting your assertions, you're irresponsible. nt

[AZCat]

50. Uh - that's YOUR assertion, petgoat.

And it sucks. Get a clue, and a life, for Christ's sake.

[petgoat]

52. It's your assertion that the soda cracker analogy sucks.

Since the analogy is an attempt to clarify the issues of expulsion of air and
pulverization of concrete, your explanation of how the analogy is wrong would
help us to better understand these issues. Perhaps we could then devise a
better analogy.

But no, you don't do explanation. You just fart empty wind reflecting your
sexual hangups.

[SDuderstadt]

53. I thought you objected to...

ad hominem arguments.

[AZCat]

54. Now why would you say a thing like that?

Now you had to get all personal. Just because I have a flatulence problem doesn't mean you have to bring it up all the time.

[petgoat]

56. It's you that brings it up with your substanceless, unpleasant, disruptive posts.

You guys are wasting everyone's time and driving people away from this forum,
making it useless.

[AZCat]

57. I'm hurt, petgoat.

After all I've done for you, it comes down to personal insults.

[petgoat]

58. Truth hurts. Grow up. Post with substance. Stop wasting everyone's time. nt

[AZCat]

59. It would be nice if you weren't such a hypocrite.

Please mind the beam in your own eye before commenting on the mote in mine.



On Edit: beam, log - what's the difference?

[petgoat]

60. More engineering wisdom from AZ. nt

[AZCat]

61. I think we are using different engineering reference materials.

Maybe that's your problem, petgoat - the bible isn't a very good source for engineering knowledge. Maybe you should try something like Meriam Kraige or Reynolds Perkins - they actually address engineering topics.

[petgoat]

62. I don't claim to be an engineer. I do claim to be a builder with a lot of practical

understanding of physics, design and building practices, the properties of
materials, and the reactions of materials and components to tension, compression,
and shear.

I initially accepted the zipper-pancake theory after reading about it in the
early spring of 2002. I squelched my instinctive skepticism, saying to myself
"That seems pretty far-fetched, but if MIT says it, it must be so." I regarded
an interest in 9/11 as morbid and prurient, and I didn't think about it for two
years.

Richard Clarke's revelations that he tried to warn of the upcoming attacks
troubled me, and then I tried to debunk Fahrenheit 9/11 and couldn't. Then
I read Griffin. And then one day walking I realized that the zipper-pancake
theory was impossible because it supposed that the floors unzipped from weak
perimeter clips, but they held so strongly to the core side that falling
floors tore the cores down.

NIST's rejection of the zipper-pancake theory validated my concerns about it,
and I wondered then why the engineering community had not spoken up about its
obvious absurdity. The media coverup of the stolen elections and the crooked
voting machines was pretty obvious too, and I realized this country was in big
trouble.

I have studied physics in college and I have a degree in science from one of the
finest universities in the world. I believe that the quality of my posts
demonstrates my qualifications.

You don't demonstrate any engineering knowledge whatsoever. All you do is
wave the titles of big fat books. You never show any indication you read them.
You are wasting everyone's time. All you do is claim an illegitimate authority
for your one-liner ad hominems.

[AZCat]

63. You also claimed to score in the 99th percentile in mechanical reasoning.

None of your claims are backed up by the content of your posts here. You claim to have studied heat transfer yet can't comprehend a simple problem. You claim to have studied physics yet produce drawings that showcase a mind-boggling ignorance of the laws of physics. It is obvious you are woefully unaware of engineering concepts that are fundamental to any engineering program yet you think (somehow) you grasp these issues better than those with far more years of education and experience than you. When confronted with this discontinuity in your worldview, you accuse everyone else of being liars, cheats, or shills.

Why in the world would I be interested in engaging in a technical discussion with such a person?

[petgoat]

64. Spatial reasoning. An engineer would know the difference. YOU'RE BUSTED, AZ.

I have studied heat transfer. There's not much to conduction
and radiation, which was what we were talking about. There was
no reason for you to bring up convection except to try to
obfuscate.

I knew there was a reason I was hanging out in this wasteland forum
(that you mosquitos have made a wasteland) wasting time.

I love the smell of burning bullshit artists.

[AZCat]

65. That's a fucking stupid thing to say.

Just another reason why it's not worth engaging in a technical discussion with you.

[AZCat]

66. I'm curious - if you're a builder, what's your area?

Do you do residential? Commercial? Industrial? Institutional? Are you a general or a sub? What's your specialty? Do you work stateside or are you international?

[BeachBaby]

68. Why waste your precious time, pg?

You're arguing with a VERY small group of people who simply don't want to think that the US government is capable of such an atrocity. It scares them, pg. They have to feel safe when they snuggle up in their beds every night - believing that their govt has their safety and welfare on the top of its priority list.

I am an agnostic who was raised in a fundie Baptist home. The reactions you are getting here are eerily similar to the reactions I get from the fundies in my life, when I say anything or question anything that goes against their indoctrination/beliefs. It's a combination of disbelief, condescension, ridicule, and ad hom - because they have nothing else to go on but their Holy Bible.

See the similarities?

Fundamental born-again Christians use the Holy Bible to argue/attack.
OCTers use the 9/11 CR and NIST report (aka 9/11 Holy Bible) to argue/attack.

Even more ironic is that these same people will most likely swear to you that they are born skeptics.

Look at it this way, pg....I posted in here awhile back with regard to my x-husband's reaction to the collapse of the towers. I was married to him at the time - and so I got to hear him discuss the event with many colleagues over the course of several months.

My x-husband is a structural engineer whose specialty is commercial high rises. And when I mentioned that here, in the 9/11 forum, awhile back, I received very much the same type of reply that you're receiving now. Someone had asked me if I could post my x-husband's "quantitative analysis" - you know, because he had nothing better to do than spend hundreds of hours drawing that up. See for yourself:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x220177#220497

I used to post fairly frequently in this forum, but having to deal with a whole new set of Bible-thumpers was just too nauseating and time-consuming to deal with; so I just come in here, from time to time, to see if there are any new, independent findings on the subject.

FWIW, I appreciate the information you post. Thank you. :)

[SDuderstadt]

71. That's funny...it's the 9/11 CT's that are "faith-based"....

The hard evidence is on the other side and I've never claimed the Bush administration could not possibly be guilty of LIHOP/MIHOP. It's just that there's no evidence for it.

[AZCat]

72. Oh for fuck's sake - spare us the armchair psychology.

Spare us the armchair engineering while your at it.

Claiming we're like a bunch of bible-thumpers is a fucking stupid claim. If it makes you feel better to frame us in such a manner, then I feel sorry for you. We have gone over this a number of times here, and none of the resident "skeptics" feel either the 9/11 Commission Report or the work done by the NIST report are without flaws. Maybe if you actually read this forum you'd have seen that.

[Realityhack]

69. You would not even have graduated based on the quality of your posts. n/t

[William Seger]

27. I've seen your list of "smoking guns"

... and all it proves is that you don't understand what the term means. Worse, it seems you don't really understand why you need one. Yes, rational people will demand convincing evidence when someone is proposing a ridiculously implausible hypothesis like a hoaxed building collapse. Where is it? If you really had any, convincing me would be totally irrelevant, anyway. I give you every opportunity to demonstrate your "growing understanding of the facts" and demonstrate that my arguments are "weak, and often ignorant." Actually doing so would be a lot more impressive (and more productive for you cause) than rationalizing about my motives.

[petgoat]

29. molten iron, freefall speed, symmetry, squibs, witnesses to explosions, microspheres, pulverization

[SDuderstadt]

30. Here we go again...

anyone can look at a video of the collapse of WTC 1 or 2 and see that debris is falling faster than the rest of the building, Unless you're claiming that the debris is falling faster than free-fall speed, your whole claim falls apart.

[petgoat]

31. NIST says free fall. Deal with it. Lots of other stuff on the list nt

[SDuderstadt]

41. Bullshit, PG....

They said it was "close to freefall", not "freefall".

[petgoat]

43. They said "essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." Please be truthful.

You are wasting everyone's time.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Wtf do you think "essentially" means, PG?

Why insert the qualifier if it was actually in free fall?

[petgoat]

55. "Essentially" means "by its nature". Learn to read dictionaries. What's your point? nt

[Realityhack]

70. LOL. n/t

[William Seger]

36. Yes, that's a concise list of the bullshit I'm talking about

... and it's not going to get better by repeating it over and over regardless of how many times it's explained to you what's wrong with every one of them.

[petgoat]

37. That's what I'm talking about--your denial of obvious facts.

molten iron, freefall speed, symmetry, squibs, witnesses to explosions, microspheres, pulverization

You obviously have a deep emotional need to embrace the government bullshit.

[William Seger]

38. And that's what I'M talking about -- your denial of obvious explanations

... for the real evidence, and claiming things that are clearly not in evidence as "facts." That's bullshit, and it reveals the lie in your claim to have been persuaded by a "growing body of facts" that there was conspiracy. Your list shows a determined effort to cobble together evidence to support your conspiracy speculations, and your abject refusal to see the obvious problems with both your evidence and your reasoning reveals your determination to not allow rational thought to spoil your story.

[petgoat]

44. No obvious explanation is given by officials for any of the facts I cite:

near freefall speed
symmetry of collapse
pulverized concrete
molten iron
sudden initiation

Your denial that the above are facts borders is a case of
hysterical blindness.

The obvious explanation is the use of thermite and explosives.

[Twist_U_Up]

5. You seem to have plenty of time to waste making posts that don't answer other posters questions

Always plenty of time to post insults and childish abuse, and plenty of time to repeat the same old arguments over and over and over and over without adding anything new to the discussions here.

Yet again you show that what you REALLY cant stand is anyone bursting your bubble of delusion

[SDuderstadt]

7. You should look in the mirror,Twist...

the main thrust of your "posts" is that anyone who disagrees with you on the evidence must be a "guvmint" shill.

[William Seger]

9. LMAO, that's priceless

My irony meter just a-sploded.

[petgoat]

11. You guys are getting very repetitive. nt

[defendandprotect]

67. Rodriguez is also a great threat to them and I'm sure scheduled

to be pushed aside anyway they have to do it --

Seismic reports also indicate these basement explosions occurred first --

Also WTC LOBBY testifies to this reality --

The corp-media are still trying to deny coup on JFK/American government in '63 ...

So anything "truth-y" that may be rolling around media will be squashed --