Originally posted by: scott
ntdz,
First, I was hoping you'd actually read the linked article instead of just kneejerking it
I said, I used to reject all those claims outright as you clearly do too, but lately I've been seeing very credible scientists, building and aviation experts saying things in the same vein as David Ray Griffin, himself an extremely credible person.
They support their assertions based on their fields of discipline, like physics, metallurgy, aviation, etc. strongly enough to warrant considering it seriously.
For example, nobody anymore believes a passenger airliner busted a 200 foot wide X 5 story tall hole into the pentagon, as The Washington Post reported, when photos show that little hole. Something's really way off.
President Bush has also been criticized for behaving somewhat bizarrely that day.
As he and the Secret Service got word that a second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center and that three planes had been hijacked, there could have been no possible doubt in their mind that the United States was under terrorist attack . . . The most horrendous attack the United States had ever suffered. And they would have had to assume that one or more of them were heading toward President Bush himself. And so upon learning about this, the Secret Service surely would have whisked him away immediately. In fact, one Secret Service agent on the scene said, ?We?re out of here.? But obviously he got overruled because President Bush stayed there. After Andrew Card reported the second crash on the World Trade Center, the president just nodded as if he understood and said, ?We?re going to go ahead with the reading lesson.? And he sat there another 15 minutes listening to the children read a story about a pet goat. This was a photo op and when it was over he lingered around talking to the children and talking to the teacher.
Bill Sammon, of the Washington Times, wrote a very pro-Bush book, yet he comments how casual and relaxed the president was given the fact he?d just learned the country was under attack. He said Bush took his own sweet time and in fact called him ?Our Dawdler in Chief.? And then the president went on national TV, going forward with an interview that had been planned and announced in advance . . . then they took their regularly scheduled motorcade back to the airport. In other words, [Bush and the Secret Service] showed no fear whatsoever that they would be targeted for attack, which strongly suggests they knew how many aircraft were being hijacked and what their targets were.
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: scott
ntdz,
First, I was hoping you'd actually read the linked article instead of just kneejerking it
I said, I used to reject all those claims outright as you clearly do too, but lately I've been seeing very credible scientists, building and aviation experts saying things in the same vein as David Ray Griffin, himself an extremely credible person.
They support their assertions based on their fields of discipline, like physics, metallurgy, aviation, etc. strongly enough to warrant considering it seriously.
For example, nobody anymore believes a passenger airliner busted a 200 foot wide X 5 story tall hole into the pentagon, as The Washington Post reported, when photos show that little hole. Something's really way off.
Ok, so explain where exactly that plane went? Did it just disappear? How about 9/11, did you see the size of the hole in the WTC? Did it look like it was 200 feet, or more about 20 feet? More about 20 feet.
Edit: And i did read most of the article, I've read the same theories before and they didn't have any proof then and certainly don't now.
Edit2: Now that I read closer, this article is riddled with logical fallacies. For example, the conclusion at the end of this:
President Bush has also been criticized for behaving somewhat bizarrely that day.
As he and the Secret Service got word that a second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center and that three planes had been hijacked, there could have been no possible doubt in their mind that the United States was under terrorist attack . . . The most horrendous attack the United States had ever suffered. And they would have had to assume that one or more of them were heading toward President Bush himself. And so upon learning about this, the Secret Service surely would have whisked him away immediately. In fact, one Secret Service agent on the scene said, ?We?re out of here.? But obviously he got overruled because President Bush stayed there. After Andrew Card reported the second crash on the World Trade Center, the president just nodded as if he understood and said, ?We?re going to go ahead with the reading lesson.? And he sat there another 15 minutes listening to the children read a story about a pet goat. This was a photo op and when it was over he lingered around talking to the children and talking to the teacher.
Bill Sammon, of the Washington Times, wrote a very pro-Bush book, yet he comments how casual and relaxed the president was given the fact he?d just learned the country was under attack. He said Bush took his own sweet time and in fact called him ?Our Dawdler in Chief.? And then the president went on national TV, going forward with an interview that had been planned and announced in advance . . . then they took their regularly scheduled motorcade back to the airport. In other words, [Bush and the Secret Service] showed no fear whatsoever that they would be targeted for attack, which strongly suggests they knew how many aircraft were being hijacked and what their targets were.
Originally posted by: scott
ntdz,
QUOTE
Ok, so explain where exactly that plane went? Did it just disappear? END QUOTE
Where Flight 77 and it's crew & passengers went is a complete mystery. Flight 77 became radar-invisible for a while near the Kentucky / Ohio border, so where did it and its people end up? Not at the Pentagon.
QUOTE
did you see the size of the hole in the WTC? Did it look like it was 200 feet, or more about 20 feet? More about 20 feet. END QUOTE
Radio news at the time reported that Flight 77 gouged into the lawn then rolled forward into the Pentagon. However, photos show no airliner touched the lawn. Not even maybe. The radio news report was false.
Newspapers and TV news reported Flight 77 smashed a 200ft X 5 story tall hole into the Pentagon. However, photos show a small hole, glass in adjacent windows unbroken, no airliner wreckage. No airliner hit our Pentagon. Where are the missing people of Flight 77 ?
Look I'm no conspiracy kook. The fact is that quite a few really credible people are raising valid questions with supporting justification strong enough to warrant considering what they say, instead of just tossing it out like all of us otherwise probably would, me first. Please Browse First Page Here
Originally posted by: scott
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Show me proof, not conjecture. OK, some weird sh!t went down that we weren't told; so why not? And what do we need to know? And why didn't this stuff show up in the 9/11 Commision Report?
until then, I don't care.
edit: hey, 3000 posts. =)
I don't have proof. My point is, there are good questions having some really scarry implications that are, surprisingly, worth considering.
All of us rational people would normally dismiss as ridiculous tabloid bunk the types of questions that some really serious, credible, worthy-of-listening-to scientists & specialists are asking in a most reasonable way.
I've become convinced we should take the questions seriously. And I'm out of a scientific environment where skepticism and rigor are valued.
Everybody understands the 9/11 Commision Report as a standard political non-credible whitewash.
"Stop now what's that sound everybody look what's going down."
Oh, congrats on your 3,000 post count.
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: scott
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Show me proof, not conjecture. OK, some weird sh!t went down that we weren't told; so why not? And what do we need to know? And why didn't this stuff show up in the 9/11 Commision Report?
until then, I don't care.
edit: hey, 3000 posts. =)
I don't have proof. My point is, there are good questions having some really scarry implications that are, surprisingly, worth considering.
All of us rational people would normally dismiss as ridiculous tabloid bunk the types of questions that some really serious, credible, worthy-of-listening-to scientists & specialists are asking in a most reasonable way.
I've become convinced we should take the questions seriously. And I'm out of a scientific environment where skepticism and rigor are valued.
Everybody understands the 9/11 Commision Report as a standard political non-credible whitewash.
"Stop now what's that sound everybody look what's going down."
Oh, congrats on your 3,000 post count.
You're out of a scientific environment? Does science tell you to believe theories that have no proof (as you freely admit)? You're more of a religious type, believing in something even though you know there is no evidence of it.
Originally posted by: GamingGuy246
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: scott
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Show me proof, not conjecture. OK, some weird sh!t went down that we weren't told; so why not? And what do we need to know? And why didn't this stuff show up in the 9/11 Commision Report?
until then, I don't care.
edit: hey, 3000 posts. =)
I don't have proof. My point is, there are good questions having some really scarry implications that are, surprisingly, worth considering.
All of us rational people would normally dismiss as ridiculous tabloid bunk the types of questions that some really serious, credible, worthy-of-listening-to scientists & specialists are asking in a most reasonable way.
I've become convinced we should take the questions seriously. And I'm out of a scientific environment where skepticism and rigor are valued.
Everybody understands the 9/11 Commision Report as a standard political non-credible whitewash.
"Stop now what's that sound everybody look what's going down."
Oh, congrats on your 3,000 post count.
You're out of a scientific environment? Does science tell you to believe theories that have no proof (as you freely admit)? You're more of a religious type, believing in something even though you know there is no evidence of it.
Wow, there is plently of evidence to support the theory, you are unwilling to accept it because of your own personal views, jesus man, grow up.
Originally posted by: jrenz
Those videos are just as ridiculous as the conspiracy theories themselves. Their "scientific analysis" is nothing but supposition and conjecture, with countless logical fallacies.
If you don't approve of the administration and its policies, that's fine by me, but this is worse than claiming that the moon landing didn't happen.
Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion
Originally posted by: jrenz
Those videos are just as ridiculous as the conspiracy theories themselves. Their "scientific analysis" is nothing but supposition and conjecture, with countless logical fallacies.
If you don't approve of the administration and its policies, that's fine by me, but this is worse than claiming that the moon landing didn't happen.
You just missed my last message! You can download this video of a scientist analyzing the collapse of the WTC buildings. It will be much more difficult to criticize. But I want to hear what you have to say about it. After you have watched it, of course.