- This topic has 245 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
MODS
If you can’t see what Clark is doing to this thread you shouldn’t be a MOD. You wouldn’t let him behave like this on the main thread. So it’s your call. You can continue to tell us what rules there aren’t while ignoring the ones he’s breaking, or you can moderate this thread and allow it to be a valuable resource. It’s good for fuck all if you let it continue like this.BTW, I made no effort to hide my IP address because I wanted to give you more options on how to deal with this.
There is little prospect of anyone being prosecuted for 9/11 because it was government policy to facilitate the attack for purposes similar to Pearl Harbour.
I agree. However they are running out of little boys to stick fingers in holes in dykes. Now that the U.S. Attorney has agreed to “present to a Special Grand Jury extensive evidence of federal crimes relating to the destruction by explosive demolition of three World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001 that resulted in extensive loss of life,” a course of action has begun which will require some very heavy-handed hushing up. I don’t see how they can stop the evidence going before the jury, so damage control will need to be along the lines of limiting the publicity it receives (ineffective) or throwing some low-level scapegoats to the lions (dangerous tactic, giving us a taste of blood).
I agree which is why the truth has become a “hate crime”.
– “The actual point is that an intelligent well-informed person, personally known to and respected by someone we both know and respect, chose to support such an event…”
You haven’t shown that Binney supports Twin Tower demolition theory (though you seem to be making the usual Truther effort to make it look that way); Binney may have spoken to try to guide them towards more realistic issues, of which there are many, as you would see if you were to overcome your self-advertised tunnel vision.
– ” …in the full knowledge that his support would be scrutinised.”
OK, help us scrutinise it then. Got a link for a video of Binney’s speech?
Dave, you seem to have a very odd idea of what “government policy” is. Please show me the debates and votes that led to the 9/11 attacks being adopted as US government policy.
“valuable resource” = place where everyone promotes Twin Tower demolition theory, and no one ever questions anyone else.
“It’s good for fuck all if you let it continue like this” = Twin Tower demolition theory cannot withstand scrutiny, therefore scrutiny must be suppressed.
If Gerry is your “big hitter”, well, he misconstrued every point I made, and then apparently ran off when he saw that I would counter such devious tactics. And much to my disappointment Chandler never turned up; I expect that Gerry changed his mind about contacting him, because scrutiny is to be avoided in Twin Tower demolition circles.
I seem to remember looking at the Lawyers’ Committee website, probably when it was mentioned on the 9/11 Post, so probably about a couple of years ago. I seem to remember that it was far more broad, raising dozens of issues, rather than banging on exclusively about demolition – though I may be confusing it with “9/11 Consensus”.
I expect Binney is more concerned about Sibel Edmonds, Coleen Rowley and Michael Springmann than he is about demolition theory.
Of course, most Truthers dismiss the three whistleblowers above as mere “controlled opposition” promoting a “limited hangout”.
A rather naïve question as it wasn’t official government policy, but as the esteemed Christopher Bollyn said the villains are identified by the cover-up, such as a belated 9/11 Commission investigation “set-up to fail”.
– “You can continue to tell us what rules there aren’t while ignoring the ones he’s breaking”
Look through the thread Node; I countered abuse, from Dave. I did not initiate it. I expect you not to complain about Dave’s abuse, because he supports demolition theory; it really does seem as simple as that.
I apologise for your feeling that your description of the “official story” displayed “stunning ignorance”. I’m not really responsible for your emotional reactions, but I apologise anyway; I suppose I could have worded it more gently.
Well I don’t know what “unofficial” government policy is. Maybe they have secret sessions of the House of Representatives, but I haven’t seen a load of corpses of the ones that voted against the attacks.
I think that Bollyn has little to offer. He does point out some Mossad/Israeli cooperation with and even infiltration of Islamist groups, but that’s from the 1970s / 1980s I think; nothing contemporaneous with 9/11. I’m not saying that didn’t happen regarding 9/11; I’m saying that Bollyn presents no evidence of it relevant to 9/11. He also points out a lot of wealthy US Zionists favouring each other, but that’s hardly news. He seems fond of slow, dramatic zooms onto an oversized still of Larry Silverstein’s face, but that isn’t evidence either.
Well for example government policy could be for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbour to provide a pretext for America to enter WWII against Germany, but as you say there wasn’t an official vote in Congress asking them to attack.
However the American oil embargo imposed on Japan with an ultimatum to leave Manchuria would raise the prospect of this happening, but the Pearl Harbour commanders weren’t informed of the worsening diplomatic situation.
If they had been they could have prepared defensively, but this would have forestalled the Japanese attack which was a dependent on surprise. Roosevelt declared a day of infamy, for which he was responsible, by omission.
The evidence became the cover-up as the commanders weren’t court martialled to avoid the truth being told, but job done, as America marched into war.
But Node, you have looked ahead along only your pre-decided path, so what happens if you’re wrong? What if the Twin Towers weren’t pre-rigged on every floor with explosives? What if the Lawyers’ Committee are risking all their eggs on a basket that doesn’t exist? Their efforts will be worse than wasted; they’ll have helped to discredit the cause itself – see my second paragraph in my comment above.
For all you try to have me silenced I’m actually trying to help. Rule out Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration” because it is wrong. Then reassess your case.
To me that looks less like government policy, and more like manipulation of government by the Administration and possibly the State Department. The same would apply to 9/11. Another parallel, not quite so close, would be 2003, Blair’s administration and the devastation of Iraq.
You haven’t shown that Binney supports Twin Tower demolition theory
No, because I didn’t say he supported Twin Tower demolition theory. I said that he supported an event which supported Twin Tower demolition theory. And that is significant for the reasons I explained. So how about addressing what I DID say rather than what I didn’t?
All completely irrelevant to the point you are replying to. You don’t have to reply to every post, just when you have something relevant to say.
You have mentioned Chandler 22 times on this page. Nobody else has mentioned him at all, except Gerry offering to get him to personally explain to you why you don’t understand what he is saying. If Chandler was so crucial to the demolition theory, we would reference him all the time. But we don’t because there is abundant other evidence that the 3 Towers were explosively demolished. Repeating a straw horse 22 times does not make it any less strawy.
The Administration and State Department et al is the government, I think you are splitting the hairs as usual. Parliament voted for the Iraq war.
But I do understand Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration”, and why it doesn’t apply to the collapses of the Twin Towers – which is probably why the Truthers aren’t mentioning it.
Don’t claim it isn’t important. It is the reason Truthers continually repeat the fallacy that the collapses “break Newton’s laws” (a phrase you have used yourself, and never retracted) unless some external destructive process (eg. explosives) were being applied. It is the only argument for demolition that is specific to the Twin Towers, eg. residues of explosives (if such there were) could have come from anywhere.
If it were so unimportant you could have denounced it right there. Instead you claimed that I didn’t understand it. That was silly, because there are plenty of others who also understand, and you thereby discredit yourself with them.
Yes, the UK government voted for the Iraq war on the basis of Blair’s deception; that’s how the war became government policy. Likewise, the US government and NATO agreed to invade Afghanistan on the basis of 9/11.
I’m not splitting hairs; this is the method by which any false-flag or similar works. The deception is devised to determine policy.
Did Binney address the Lawyers’ Committee to support Twin Tower demolition theory?
No, he was there to deliver his own lecture:
– “Constitutional violations: 9/11 could have been prevented.”
The constitutional violations he refers to concern detection of the hijackers, and not prevention of any supposed demolition. But the Lawyers’ Committee seems to have become obsessed with barking up the non-existent demolition tree, so another opportunity will be missed.
2223 times.Please follow the basic conventions of debate. You don’t get to decide what I think then get to tell me why the thing you have decided I think is wrong. Not even if you say it 24 times.
…“break Newton’s laws” [is] a phrase you have used yourself …
That’s a lie.Did Binney address the Lawyers’ Committee to support Twin Tower demolition theory?
No, he was there to deliver his own lecture:Did Binney speak at the Lawyers’ Committee’s event knowing they support Twin Tower demolition theory?
Yes.Did Binney thereby support the Lawyers’ Committee’s event?
Yes.Did Binney thereby tacitly support the Twin Tower demolition theory?
Yes.It may be a mistake, but it is not a lie, Node. As best I remember, it was on the 9/11 Post.
Whatever; the phrase is continually repeated by Truthers, but I have never known you to set anyone straight. on the matter.
They voted for war irrespective of Blair’s deception, everyone knew he was lying.
Craig Murray gave an interview on an Alex Jones radio show. Does Craig therefore tacitly support all the nonsense Alex Jones promotes? Or was he more likely trying to spread some intelligent thinking?
If it helps, controlled demolition doesn’t mean all Jews or even you are to blame.
That’s a dishonest analogy. In order to make it applicable to the situation we’re discussing, we would need to imagine that Alex Jones was famous for promoting only one single cause, and that Alex Jones held an event to publicise that cause, and that Craig then chose to speak at that event. In those circumstances, yes, Craig would be tacitly supporting Alex Jones’ cause.
Well, you could retract the accusations of me having sold my soul, or claiming that black is white, or of skunking the thread then. You could even apologise 🙂
It may be a mistake, but it is not a lie, Node. As best I remember, it was on the 9/11 Post.
It was no mistake, it was a lie of the type that you repeatedly commit. For example you once claimed I had made antisemitic remarks on the 9/11 thread, but when challenged you couldn’t provide a single example. You make up anything that suits you, or that is provocative, depending on your mood, and if it isn’t challenged, you take that as proof of your claim.
Well I’m challenging you. I’m calling you a liar. It is trivially easy to search the 9/11 thread for that phrase. Find a single example of me saying it, or anything with similar words with the same meaning, and I’ll apologise abjectly and sincerely to you. And if you can’t you’re a liar.
Yeah, most were very keen for war. About 30 Labour rebelled, I think, Old Labour mostly. The Conservatives were in opposition, but they voted to support Blair.
But false flag is a pattern, so it must serve some purpose.
Node, do you maintain that after collapse initiation, the collapses of the Twin Towers contravened Newton’s laws unless external means of destruction were applied?
I don’t remember accusing you of anti-Semitic remarks, and I don’t remember you making any. However, you have been consistently chummy with commenters who have, indeed right now you’re having a go at me but have had not a word of criticism for Dave, who leaped in with abuse and has recommended a Holocaust denier. But then Dave’s a demolition disciple, and supporting each other no matter what is the Truther modus operandi.
Extract from the press release accompanying the draft UAF report:
“The research team plans to make public by the end of September all of the data used and generated during the study, a decision that contrasts with NIST’s withholding of key modeling data on the grounds that releasing it “might jeopardize public safety.”
This is a game changer. The UAF report has side-stepped all the dirty tactics of the Deniers – sarcasm and smears, misinformation and lies, shills and useful idiots – and rendered them irrelevant overnight. At a stroke a battleground has been established where only reasoning and science can prevail. You can’t undermine a 3D modelling programme by calling it a conspiracy theorist. “Hey, mathematical formula, where’s your tin foil hat?” doesn’t work either.
Kempe recognised this and scuttled off. Others are slower on the uptake.
Really? Your lies are exposed and you just change the subject as if nothing happened? Thought about a career in politics, Clark?
Love, love is a verb
Love is a doing word
Fearless on my breath
Gentle impulsion
Shakes me, makes me lighter
Fearless on my breath
Teardrop on the fire
Fearless on my breathNight, night of matter
Black flowers blossom
Fearless on my breath
Black flowers blossom
Fearless on my breath
Teardrop on the fire
Fearless on myWater is my eye
Most faithful mirror
Fearless on my breath
Teardrop on the fire
Of a confession
Fearless on my breath
Most faithful mirror
Fearless on my breath
Teardrop on the fire
Fearless on my breathIt’s tumbling down (as in love falling apart)
It’s tumbling down (as in love falling apart)
Yeah, it’ll be just great after the New York fire-fighters are exposed for the murderous scum they are, and Truthers everywhere are recognised as the heroes.
Sorry Node, I shouldn’t have written that you used that exact phrase; that was imprecise of me. As I remember it was a quip, an aside, and I’m not even entirely certain that it was you.
But there’s no need to quibble when you could state your position perfectly clearly right now. Do you maintain that to be consistent with Newton’s laws, collapse progression of the Twin Towers required explosives?
– “we would need to imagine that Alex Jones was famous for promoting only one single cause”
But the Lawyers’ Committee didn’t promote only the “one single cause” of Twin Tower pre-rigged demolition. Here’s the archive record of their website:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/
In fact they still promote other matters too eg. the FBI lawsuit, but more recently they do seem to have been heavily influenced by A&E9/11″Truth”.
Finally lost it!
Yes Dave; I despair at the id-ego driven nature of human behaviour, each individual’s faults invisible to themselves. Look at what Node wrote above; there are those such as yourselves who accept “controlled demolition” of the Twin Towers and thus are above criticism, and then there’s everyone else – quote, “Deniers – sarcasm and smears, misinformation and lies, shills and useful idiots”.
Black flowers blossom. My only hope is that the teardrops eventually quench the fires.
It would confirm a prejudice, but you’ve nailed the professional victim routine!
- The topic ‘Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC’ is closed to new replies.