This outta generate some discussion

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 27, 2007, 9:12 am

Nick wrote:Am I missing something and everyone's being ironic or what?

Did you miss the 9/11 conspiracy-nut thread that Winnow started and spammed the hell out of before it was lost in the move? He's just posting the same arguments now.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » July 27, 2007, 1:04 pm

Nick wrote:Am I missing something and everyone's being ironic or what?

No irony from me. I think all of this conspiracy garbage is beyond retarded. I'm just pointing out that some conspiracy theories are dumber than others.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 27, 2007, 1:41 pm

It's difficult to call anyone questioning the official explanation of 911 a conspiracy nut. It's easier to call the people who believe what the government fed us as the official explanation morons.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 27, 2007, 1:49 pm

And so the war between the conspiracists and the aconspiracists began... you prove it! no, you prove it!

sadly there is no solace in the unprovable...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 27, 2007, 3:00 pm

My avatar is all the proof you need. Building 7 was clearly brought down by controlled demolition. Perhaps nothing will ever be proven as I'd assume people capable of undertaking something on this scale would be smart enough to cover any paper trail. The number of questionable explanations surrounding the WTC and Pentagon is massive, bordering or surpassing JFK's magic bullet theory.

Conspiracy: absolutely without a doubt
Reason for it and players behind it: mystery.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » July 27, 2007, 3:08 pm

Winnow wrote:My avatar is all the proof you need. Building 7 was clearly brought down by controlled demolition. Perhaps nothing will ever be proven as I'd assume people capable of undertaking something on this scale would be smart enough to cover any paper trail. The number of questionable explanations surrounding the WTC and Pentagon is massive, bordering or surpassing JFK's magic bullet theory.

Conspiracy: absolutely without a doubt
Reason for it and players behind it: mystery.

You just can't argue with reasoning err... idiocy like this. I'm not going to bother arguing against someone with an obviously defective brain.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 27, 2007, 3:10 pm

Winnow wrote:My avatar is all the proof you need. Building 7 was clearly brought down by controlled demolition. Perhaps nothing will ever be proven as I'd assume people capable of undertaking something on this scale would be smart enough to cover any paper trail. The number of questionable explanations surrounding the WTC and Pentagon is massive, bordering or surpassing JFK's magic bullet theory.

Conspiracy: absolutely without a doubt
Reason for it and players behind it: mystery.

I with you on this one Winnow. OMG, that means I'm against the Bush Administration. Gasp! That building coming down is all I need to see. Then add in all the little tid bits on information surrounding that building, it's just scary. Too much for me to buy coincedence.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » July 27, 2007, 3:50 pm

Winnow wrote:My avatar is all the proof you need. Building 7 was clearly brought down by controlled demolition. Perhaps nothing will ever be proven as I'd assume people capable of undertaking something on this scale would be smart enough to cover any paper trail. The number of questionable explanations surrounding the WTC and Pentagon is massive, bordering or surpassing JFK's magic bullet theory.

Conspiracy: absolutely without a doubt
Reason for it and players behind it: mystery.

The only way the current government would be able to hide any trail from anything as big as this, is if they have been pretending to be incompetent and idiotic since Bush was elected, JUST to pull that demolition off, and then go back to pretending to be incompetent and idiotic again.

I cant rule it out of course but i doubt it

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 27, 2007, 4:03 pm

I don't think it is plausable that the twin towers were planned and carried out by our own government. The W Admin is good at keeping secrets, but the kind of zealotry required to coordinate something on this scale without it comming out is a little too massive. Someone, somewhere, would crack.

Now, I stand by my assertion that the towers were demolitioned after being hit, because its not exactly hard to mobilize some special forces guys in the same city, dress them up in fireman outfits, and sneak them in and out to plant some demo charges. There were tons of rescue workers there, none of whom were communicating with one another, and I am sure contingency plans of this nature have existed for a long time. It is also possible that someone in the know (Cheney, not Bush) knew this was comming and prepared for it, in advance, to take full advantage of it. Its certainly happened before in this country (FDR bending over for Pearl Harbor) and others (Churchil letting a city be bombed to protect code breaking), but again that would involve far too many people who could leak it. Cheney (or some hawk equally connected) ordering a few black ops guys already stationed in NY to demo a couple buildings is entirely in the realm of possibility and could have been executed very quickly. It is also far less likely to leak out than a sweeping consiracy, like Winnow is depicting, making it more plausable to me. Given the people who made money off of the Tower's destruction and bennefited from all the information lost, its pretty obvious why no one is asking the hard questions. Of course it is entirely possible that the buildings collapsed on their own, straight downward, but no credible architect is willing to back that horse.

WTC7 was deffinately demo-ed as an inside job, no question in my mind there. There were way too people who bennefited from its destruction to give that any bennefit of the doubt. The manner of its collapse is highly suspect, as well. I think anyone who takes that building's collapse at face value is being obtusely partisan.

The Pentegon is debatable. On the one hand, it hit a very specific area of the building and the wreckage is completely inconsitant with the type of plane and impact the official story says occured. On the other hand, no-one from Al Queda is refuting that they hit the Pentegon, though taking credit for it (false or not) is certainly good for recruitment. Given how easy it is for the Pentegon to shred its own secrets, I don't know as the govt would even need to so something like this, unless there was some sort of secret whistle blowing investigation going on in that wing of the building that needed quashing. I really have no opinion, either way, on whether the pentegon thing was an inside job or not.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 27, 2007, 4:40 pm

You fucking idiots need to stop dribbling on about Building 7. "Screw Loose Change" debunks this OMG BUILDING 7 WAS A DOMEALOTION stupidity in about 5 minutes.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » July 27, 2007, 5:02 pm

Nick wrote:You fucking idiots need to stop dribbling on about Building 7. "Screw Loose Change" debunks this OMG BUILDING 7 WAS A DOMEALOTION stupidity in about 5 minutes.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 27, 2007, 5:06 pm

http://www.wtc7.net/index.html has some interesting bits of information about WTC7.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » July 27, 2007, 5:07 pm

Jice Virago wrote:I think anyone who takes that building's collapse at face value is being obtusely partisan.

How can you even say that with a straight face. This isn't a partisan issue, it's a sanity issue. I can confidently say that I'm further left on the pinko commie continuum than you, but I don't buy this raving conspiracy garbage for a second. Is it possible, if not probable, that the government is withholding information regarding the events of 9/11? Certainly, but to then make the leap that our inept leadership were somehow in on things is just beyond silly.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 27, 2007, 5:31 pm

Xatrei wrote:
Jice Virago wrote:I think anyone who takes that building's collapse at face value is being obtusely partisan.
How can you even say that with a straight face. This isn't a partisan issue, it's a sanity issue. I can confidently say that I'm further left on the pinko commie continuum than you, but I don't buy this raving conspiracy garbage for a second. Is it possible, if not probable, that the government is withholding information regarding the events of 9/11? Certainly, but to then make the leap that our inept leadership were somehow in on things is just beyond silly.

Why do you think Bush would have a clue about something like this? The president is a stooge. Cheney perhaps.

People that are discounting a possible conspiracy because Bush isn't that bright are missing the point entirely. If elements of our government are corrupt (and we know very well they can be from the JFK assassination), there's no need for the president to know anything. He was talking to some school kids on 911.

No one here knows specifics and the theories are quite varied, but if there's solid evidence to debunk conspiracy theories, it's nowhere to be seen...and even hidden, as with the gas station video of the object hitting the Pentagon. The key frames aren't provided that would actually show the plane...if it was the airliner, all they need to do is show the full film. The Pentagon attack is highly suspect. Building 7 can't be any clearer to the naked eye that it didn't fall down due to damage. (look to your right or left and watch my avatar 100 times). Those are "tip of the iceberg" points that lead to further investigation.

Now...actual conspiracy type ideas would be guessing the reasons behind it, after finding enough holes to remove the official explanation contention. That's where the wild speculation takes place. The issues with wreckage, damage pattern, and bodies etc with the Pentagon along with Building 7 are plenty to convince my that much more work needs to be done by the government to prove that the airliner they claim hit that Pentagon actually did and that Building 7 wasnt' brought down by controlled demolition.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » July 27, 2007, 5:41 pm

Could you direct my attention to the point where I mentioned anything about Bush? Any president, weak or strong, is but one element of this country's leadership structure.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 27, 2007, 5:45 pm

Xatrei wrote:Could you direct my attention to the point where I mentioned anything about Bush? Any president, weak or strong, is but one element of this country's leadership structure.

our inept leadership

= Bush

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 27, 2007, 6:00 pm

I still have "An Analysis of the 911 Attack" on my server.

http://winnowill.com/open/AnAnalysisofthe911Attack.zip

If you listen to what the guy says and ignore the incredibly bad added text and graphics, along with this conclusions at the end, it's worth watching. It's easy to get sidetracked by the guy's annoying voice and ridiculous low budget production values but rise above that and give it a watch. 1st half is about the Pentagon attack and the second half deals with the WTC attack. (I think the video is ~380mb and is two hours so the quality is low)

As with anything regarding 911, don't discount the entire thing because you don't agree with a particular part. This isn't a trial. It's presenting many separate pieces and bringing up questions. If he's wrong about 90% but right about 10%, he's still made an impact or should at least make you think about it some more. I shouldn't have to remind people of this but it seems people are morons and single out one point, ignoring the rest...(not me!

)

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » July 27, 2007, 7:23 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
our inept leadership
= Bush

Inept leadership == our entire government.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 27, 2007, 8:47 pm

Can we just end this discussion?

Winnow and Mid and your ilk, you sound like the kind of Creationist zealots we have little time for here on the vault, except you're all about the !WTC "Truth!".

The evidence is out there to completely and utterly disprove your stupid rantings, it's not our fault if you haven't bothered your fucking holes to look beyond Loose Change (seriously, Loose fucking change? I expected better here.).

If this is just a retarded hobby that's fine I guess, but do not expect to be taken seriously here, or anywhere else that has a few members with brains, when you spew this uninformed lazy shit.

Your theories have as much weight as some fucking moron waxing lyrical about the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » July 27, 2007, 9:54 pm

Nick wrote:Can we just end this discussion?

Winnow and Mid and your ilk, you sound like the kind of Creationist zealots we have little time for here on the vault, except you're all about the !WTC "Truth!".

The evidence is out there to completely and utterly disprove your stupid rantings, it's not our fault if you haven't bothered your fucking holes to look beyond Loose Change (seriously, Loose fucking change? I expected better here.).

If this is just a retarded hobby that's fine I guess, but do not expect to be taken seriously here, or anywhere else that has a few members with brains, when you spew this uninformed lazy shit.

Your theories have as much weight as some fucking moron waxing lyrical about the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

You raise a very good analogy. Problem is you have it reversed. There is plenty of evidence suggesting it was a planned demolition of WTC7. You're the zealot believing what the government tells you and calling anyone who raises questions an outcast and a freak. Think about it a second.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 27, 2007, 10:19 pm

Nick wrote:Yeah that HUGE GASH IN THE FUCKING FRONT OF THE BUILDING (Not seen in Winnow's picture, because (SHOCKINGLY!) it's on the other side of the building - and there are PICS TO SHOW THIS in the videos mentioned, had absolutely NOTHING to do with Building 7 collapsing. It was obviously a conspiraxy.

These conspiracy fetishists really are an embarrasment and an insult to the events of that day.

The gash is the result of the mysterious explosions taking place before the collapse of the South Tower.

At least two television networks made premature announcements of the collapse of WTC 7. The BBC unequivocally announced the collapse about 23 minutes before the fact, and even featured a New York correspondent speaking of the collapse in past tense with the still-erect skyscraper standing behind her.

Some more stuff to read over:

http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/collapse.html

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 27, 2007, 10:35 pm

Just watch Screw Loose Change and shut the fuck up you idiots.

miir · Post by **miir** » July 28, 2007, 12:47 am

Nick wrote:Just watch Screw Loose Change and shut the fuck up you idiots.

I've seen it and it's about as credible as many of these other theories.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » August 2, 2007, 7:13 pm

Funkmasterr is right (how many times in my life do I get the opportunity to say that?). I'm taking the 9-11 talk here from the Minneapolis bridge collapse thread...

Winnow wrote:
Xatrei wrote:There's no point in trying to convince someone that's bought into the conspiracy theories that they're wrong. As I've said elsewhere, those who have accepted that line of thinking do not accept any facts that rebut their opinions because they believe that such evidence is merely part of the cover-up. All that's left to do is to mock them for their gullibility.

Huh? You sure like to generalize about conspiracy theories. How does investigating an alternate theory make one close minded or unable to consider multiple possibilities? You're out of your fucking mind on this one. These "facts" you refer to certainly aren't proof positive of anything but are to be considered along with everything else.

Perhaps you need to read more than the front page of CNN. And better yet, think a little for yourself.

Jice is out of his fucking mind (paint fumes) as well if he thinks a Delta Force Team ran up into the WTC's and set explosives in the short time between when the planes hit and the towers collapsed, but I took the time to consider it and can't completely discount it.

Care to give me your explanation of the JFK assassination? Do you know exactly what happen and why? Should I just read the official report issued by the government on that one? I'm curious. I can't wait for your golden answer that the world has been waiting for all of these years.

First of all, I'm addressing the specific conspiracy theories related to 9-11. I'm not lumping all conspiracies into one giant heap. I'm open to the possibility that there's more to the JFK situation that the government claims, for example, but I'm not all that worried about that. It's interesting that you implore me to think for myself. That's exactly what I have done. When the conspiracy theories first started surfacing, I took a mild bit of (highly skeptical) interest in them. I've read much of the information out there and I've seen many of the same presentations and documentaries that you, no doubt, have also seen. I've read through most of what's been officially released by NIST and other agencies, and have drawn my own conclusions. I'm sorry that you've managed to come to another conclusion, because I truly believe that - on this matter - the conspiracy fringe is just deranged.

I'd wager that I read far more on a wider variety of topics from a more broad set of sources than you do between your comic book porn and Xbox-inspired masturbation marathons. I'll put my own critical thinking skills against yours any time.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 2, 2007, 7:45 pm

Xatrei wrote: I'd wager that I read far more on a wider variety of topics from a more broad set of sources than you do between your comic book porn and Xbox-inspired masturbation marathons. I'll put my own critical thinking skills against yours any time.

You're already showing your limited capacity to expand your thinking beyond what you see in front of you if you judge members of VV only by the topics posted on VV. You sound like a conspiracy nut speculating like that! If I were to think that way, I'd picture you ass deep in Linux manuals, stopping only once a year to listen to the State of the Union address.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » August 2, 2007, 7:54 pm

The difference is that Linux is a topic that's come up in maybe 1% of threads in which I've posted, whereas comics and Xbox are a comparatively enormous portion of your posting activities. Judging from the enormous amount of time you devote to the subjects here, it's reasonable to infer that it takes up a large slice of your RL free time. Nice attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that I refuted your assertion that I haven't looked into the information from a wide variety of sources, and while thinking for myself, concluded that the conspiracy theories you irrationally cling to are bunk.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 2, 2007, 8:52 pm

Xatrei wrote:The difference is that Linux is a topic that's come up in maybe 1% of threads in which I've posted, whereas comics and Xbox are a comparatively enormous portion of your posting activities.

Here's a hint. Those two topics have forums dedicated to them and I'm the moderator of one of them. That might be why you see a lot of posts from me on those subjects. Are the mods of other forums to be pigeonholed as well?

My Phoenix Suns posts trump every other topic I post about yet you completely missed those. What kind of research do you do before making these claims? How can I take your "well researched" opinions seriously if you can't even accurately identify my most popular topic on VV?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 2, 2007, 9:19 pm

Winnow wrote:
Xatrei wrote:The difference is that Linux is a topic that's come up in maybe 1% of threads in which I've posted, whereas comics and Xbox are a comparatively enormous portion of your posting activities.
Here's a hint. Those two topics have forums dedicated to them and I'm the moderator of one of them. That might be why you see a lot of posts from me on those subjects. Are the mods of other forums to be pigeonholed as well?

My Phoenix Suns posts trump every other topic I post about yet you completely missed those. What kind of research do you do before making these claims? How can I take your "well researched" opinions seriously if you can't even accurately identify my most popular topic on VV?

LOL

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » August 2, 2007, 10:30 pm

Winnow wrote:
Xatrei wrote:The difference is that Linux is a topic that's come up in maybe 1% of threads in which I've posted, whereas comics and Xbox are a comparatively enormous portion of your posting activities.
Here's a hint. Those two topics have forums dedicated to them and I'm the moderator of one of them. That might be why you see a lot of posts from me on those subjects. Are the mods of other forums to be pigeonholed as well?

My Phoenix Suns posts trump every other topic I post about yet you completely missed those. What kind of research do you do before making these claims? How can I take your "well researched" opinions seriously if you can't even accurately identify my most popular topic on VV?

I did a search for Winnow and each of the following terms: Xbox = 382, Comic = 465, Suns = 338. Obviously these don't represent all of your posts on these subjects, as you can discuss these things without actually mentioning those terms explicitly. This does, however, serve to give reasonable support to my claim that Xbox & Comics dominate your posting, cumulatively outpacing your beloved Suns by over 2 to 1.

So, are a large percentage of your nearly 14,000 posts (!) related to comics & video games or not? I don't give a fuck which forums you moderate. You have enough free time in your life to a) accumulate nearly 14k posts on just one message board, of which a large number are related to comics & video games, b) spend a large amount of your free time playing Xbox and downloading / reading comic books and being a Suns fan. I'm not making any judgments about your choice of hobbies - to each his own - but it's very apparent to even the most casual observer here that these subjects occupy a large portion of your time. To claim otherwise is just foolish. I stand by the fact that it's completely reasonable to infer from your posting habits here that these things take up a lot of your free time - are you denying that?

The entire point that I was making in the first place, which seems to have been lost on you, is that I'm confident that I spend more of my time reading about a wide variety of subjects from a broad range of perspectives than you. If you're telling me that you can manage to keep up with much of anything important during the brief periods of time that you're not obsessing over comics, xbox or the Suns. You haven't disputed that, so should I take that to mean that you concede that point?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 2, 2007, 11:11 pm

Xatrei wrote: The entire point that I was making in the first place, which seems to have been lost on you, is that I'm confident that I spend more of my time reading about a wide variety of subjects from a broad range of perspectives than you. If you're telling me that you can manage to keep up with much of anything important during the brief periods of time that you're not obsessing over comics, xbox or the Suns. You haven't disputed that, so should I take that to mean that you concede that point?

You're still trying to take the focus of my posts on VV and expand them proportionally to my entire life interests. I can say you may be semi accurate if you take my free time at work and apply it to those areas of interest but nowhere near completely as my interests jump around. I haven't played my 360 or PS3 in weeks, and usually only when I have company except on the rare occasion a good RPG (like FFXII) is released. As for comics, it takes me about 1 minute to download the headers, and ten minutes to download all of the comics each week. After scanning though them, I'll post the ones that look interesting in the comics forum. Multitask. Linux can do that can't it? Head to the "what book are you reading" thread and see what I posted. It has nothing to do with Comics, Suns or Xbox.

Know your audience. Well, that's only part of it. Know your audience and the environment within which you post. VV, to me at least, represents a community forum roughly comprised of ex EQ players that read the forums for entertainment from work. Being that this forum is mostly to pass the day, with a limited time given to each visit, I really don't plan on diving into anything deep beyond tech reviews. Sueven wants to take the CE forums a little more seriously but I don't think it will ever get to the point where there will be intense debates for any length of time.

Unlike you, I'm not deducing from my limited VV info on each member, that they are shallow or only interested in the topics they post here. I understand that this forum is here for light entertainment first and foremost, with a secondary goal of keeping people in touch with one another after EQ died down.

Ancient History or Linux will put most people to sleep on VV. Screenshots from Second Life are more entertaining.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » August 3, 2007, 12:05 am

I never said that comics and xbox are all that you do, only that they seem to be things to which you devote a fair amount of time. In fact, you've made more of an issue about it than was necessary. My mention of them was merely a bit of added pithiness to emphasize a point. I do feel that what one spends a great deal of time jabbering about on a message board is a reasonably good indicator of how one spends a lot of their free time. Regardless of how you spend your time, I'm entirely comfortable in believing that I spend more of my time seeking out information on a wide variety of issues from diverse sources and perspectives than you do. This was the point of my previous post, which you've chosen to ignore in favor of defending how you spend your time. You made the baseless claim that I based my opinions about 9-11 conspiracies without bothering to research anything. I disagreed and pointed out the fact that I formed my opinion on the subject only after reviewing a great deal of information from a variety of sources. This is the case with anything for which I harbor strong opinions. I seek out information from all sides of the argument and arrive at my own conclusions, which is what anyone should do.

I stand by my belief that the vast majority of 9-11 conspiracy theorists cannot be reasoned with. Any evidence that helps refute their position is dismissed as being a part of the conspiracy. The results of the NIST investigation will not be trusted because they're a government agency and thus in on the scam. From my experiences with 9-11 conspiracy people, I generally don't think it's worth arguing about. In any other arena, I probably wouldn't bother, but as you point out, what else is VV for than to argue?

BTW - what's your fixation on Linux? The handful of threads in which I've mentioned Linux over the course of 5 years can be counted on one hand - including this one. Three threads were merely casual mentions, not in depth discussions. The only two in depth discussions were YOUR threads. /boggle

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 3, 2007, 2:16 am

you guys sure can talk a lot about nothing...

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 3, 2007, 3:06 am

Xatrei wrote:I'm entirely comfortable in believing that I spend more of my time seeking out information on a wide variety of issues from diverse sources and perspectives than you do.

Based on your "jump to conclusion" assumptions about my spare time, I'll assume your diverse sources are Wikipedia and Encyclodepia Brown for most things. I spend more time sitting on the can than you spend doing real research, and I'm not a lingerer.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » August 3, 2007, 3:38 am

My "jump to conclusion assumption" is based simply on your posting history. If someone makes hundreds or thousands of posts on a given subject, it's reasonable to infer that they devote a fair amount of their time to that subject. If you met someone that talked extensively (and expertly for the most part) about rodent husbandry, you'd be pretty fucking safe in concluding that they have dedicated a significant amount of their time to such pursuits. I'm almost shocked that you can't get your thick head around that, but sadly you've proven yourself to be thoroughly thickheaded plenty of times previously. How do you not get this?

Believe whatever you want, but my reading material includes everything from those old fashioned things called books, magazines, print journals, online journals, news papers, blogs, news web sites and the like. I read left-leaning, right-leaning and all things in between. By now you should have a hemorrhoid the size of New Jersey hanging off your sphincter from all that squatting time.

You're still more worried about defending your hobbies and the amount of time that you may or may not devote to them than the original issue. Why is that?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 3, 2007, 5:33 am

Xatrei wrote: You're still more worried about defending your hobbies and the amount of time that you may or may not devote to them than the original issue. Why is that?

You, parroting on and on, as if you were auditioning for the part of John from Cincinnati, about your smug attitude toward those that would consider alternatives to an obviously flawed explanation from our government concerning 911 is what caused this hoo hah.

Xatrei wrote:Believe whatever you want, but my reading material includes everything from those old fashioned things called books, magazines

I could wipe my ass with those and get more out of them than you have, if we're basing it off posts on VV.

You infer too much and incorrectly!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 3, 2007, 8:55 am

Don't you be talking bad about Encyclopedia Brown there tinfoil boy.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 3, 2007, 11:02 am

hay guyz 911 was a conspiracy amirite?!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 3, 2007, 11:12 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Don't you be talking bad about Encyclopedia Brown there tinfoil boy.

I was just about to say that. Why the EB hate!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 3, 2007, 12:07 pm

EB was a very important part of my childhood. I read every single one of them. I thought for sure I was going to grow up to be a Private Investigator.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 3, 2007, 12:20 pm

No real hate for Encyclopedia Brown here. I was a little disgruntled my first experience with EB though. I was really young and at some sort of Christmas Gift exchange. I was hoping for a nice Hot Wheel car or something else I could get immediate gratification from but received a gift set of five or ten Encyclopedia Brown books. Probably these:

1. Encyclopedia Brown, Boy Detective
2. Encyclopedia Brown Strikes Again
3. Encyclopedia Brown Finds the Clues
4. Encyclopedia Brown Gets His Man
5. Encyclopedia Brown Solves Them All
6. Encyclopedia Brown Keeps The Peace
7. Encyclopedia Brown Saves the Day
8. Encyclopedia Brown Tracks Them Down
9. Encyclopedia Brown Shows the Way
10. Encyclopedia Brown Takes the Case

I enjoyed them but at that age, I was still disappointed initially that I had nothing to play with at the boring Xmas party. Sally Kimball was pretty cool.

I didn't think anyone would get my EB reference! You old farts!

Some of the stories were adapted into a TV series on HBO in 1989.

Were these any good?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 3, 2007, 1:18 pm

Back on track a little bit:

Xatrei wrote:I stand by my belief that the vast majority of 9-11 conspiracy theorists cannot be reasoned with. Any evidence that helps refute their position is dismissed as being a part of the conspiracy. The results of the NIST investigation will not be trusted because they're a government agency and thus in on the scam.

This is a good point. It is very true that most conspiracy theorists will discount any research conducted by the government because it was conducted by the government. And this is somewhat reasonable. There's a problem, though: If government agencies are intentionally producing flawed output in order to perpetuate a cover-up, those responsible for producing the output must be at least somewhat aware of their deception. These people are engineers, analysts, etc-- normal people. They're not shadowy, high-level intelligence agency figures. The fact that entire cadres of civil servants would have to be clued in to a conspiracy makes the idea of our government successfully concealing it even more laughably absurd.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 10, 2007, 7:33 pm

Edit: Links for the Loose Changers in my next post.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 10, 2007, 8:02 pm

Nick wrote:First post at the top of this link - for all the self professed open minded intellectuals who TOTALLY KNOW TEH TRUTH. It's interesting, in so far as interesting means debunking the lunacy of the 911 truth movement.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showth ... genumber=2

I'm not signing up just to read some garbage. Quote it.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 10, 2007, 8:12 pm

These essays and studies shouldn't be hard to find on Google, and EPnet.com houses most of them.(requires sign in)

"Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact", Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22.

"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis", Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings", Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers, HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors", Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster", Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses", Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation", JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.

"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center", The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons", Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering", JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations", Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?", Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

"Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center", National Instititue of Standards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs. Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site", Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).

Why the Towers Fell, A Companion Website to the Television Documentary. NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report", ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing", ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects, The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives", ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12. The Towers Lost and Beyond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0529/news_3-1.html

http://enr.construction.com/news/buildi ... 040119.asp
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-W ... -06%20.pdf
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... 27842.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... 0&colID=13
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 29,00.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... 11/1345203
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4990686.stm
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/200 ... ex_np.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gree ... hange.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/pentagon.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/g ... /frame.htm

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 10, 2007, 9:33 pm

You know the problem here... the conspiracy nuts go way too far. There's some definite problems, but some of their theories are just so not founded in reality. I'm not sure if they're going for LCD or just good theatre, or if the meta-conspiracy is pushing stupid ideas out there to make the questions that should be answered seem irrelevant.

However, if you're going to tell me this is any less stupid than the conspiracy explanations:

The Guardian wrote:Read some conflicting accounts, and Loose Change's case crumbles faster than the twin towers. Hundreds of people saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Because it collided with one of the world's best-defended buildings at full speed, the plane was pulverised - even so, plane parts and body parts were in fact recovered. The wings and tail disintegrated when they hit the wall, which is why the holes weren't bigger.

you're full of shit.

Turbo fan engines do not "disintegrate" when they hit a wall, without even leaving a smear.

As to "hundreds of people saw", what hundreds? How fast does this shit happen really, and how likely do you think it is that people that have been hearing all morning about planes hitting the WTC might "see" a passenger plane hit the Pentagon regardless of what happened.

I don't believe in the cast of thousands conspiracy "theories", but something definitely stinks about the whole 9/11 festival of shite. Nothing will ever happen though, because people are too a) apathetic, b) distracted by patently ludicrous hypothesis. Calling them theories is an overstatement

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 10, 2007, 11:16 pm

I don't think its particularly fair to brand me "full of shit" because you see a single paragraph in the Guardian's short review of 9/11 out of the thousands of paragraphs of links I just gave.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 11, 2007, 12:37 am

Nick wrote:I don't think its particularly fair to brand me "full of shit" because you see a single paragraph in the Guardian's short review of 9/11 out of the thousands of paragraphs of links I just gave.

if you're going to tell me this is any less stupid than the conspiracy explanations:

So that's a conditional statement: If you agree with his explanation of evaporating aircraft, then you're full of shit.

If however you pick and choose bits of debunking commentary, then you should also understand that most of us pick and choose the bits of a consipracy hypothesis we agree with, hence there's a middle ground..

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 11, 2007, 12:41 am

Yes but is the conspiracy conjecture based on anything other than belief, or hope that it is true, rather than rationality and logic, based on forensic evidence, engineering expertise or simple common sense? If the former, why would those views ever deserve to be taken seriously or their supporters assume their theories deserve equal validity?

A middle ground only applies when the two opposing arguments have equal validity.

If there was a single shred of proof to suggest the accusations of the Loose Changers then I would be the first to acknowledge it. But, there isn't. You don't think I'd be the first to jump on something to imprisoned members of the Bush Administration?

Personally, I have no fucking clue whether engines explode into nothing upon impact with walls as thick as the Pentagons, although after seeing videos such as this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0) I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the engines atomised, it would be far from the first time thats ever happened. I know its a Jet rather than a normal 757 or something, but as I say, I'm no expert.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 11, 2007, 4:07 am

Nick wrote: Personally, I have no fucking clue whether engines explode into nothing upon impact with walls as thick as the Pentagons, although after seeing videos such as this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0) I wouldn't be particularly surprised if the engines atomised, it would be far from the first time thats ever happened. I know its a Jet rather than a normal 757 or something, but as I say, I'm no expert.

yOU'RE iNSANE

Anyone that thinks an airliner his the pentagon is out of their fucking minds.

Where are all of these videos mentioned below Nick? WHERE!? Any one of them could prove or disprove what hit the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WgYP3NTr7s

Where is it????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Om9_Lbco6A

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 11, 2007, 9:07 am

Many of Nicks links say they are just theories. They state fact on WTC 1 and 2, but when it comes to 7, they back off. So thanks for posting those links that back up Winnows assertion.