Controlled demolition: disinfo?

by **bamabecky** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:01 am

Listen to Slimmouse! He nailed it! Bama

by **bamabecky** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:28 am

People just don't pay close enough attention to details. That's how they missed WTC #7. And the cabal counts on that, that's why they waited till after the evening news that day to pull a 47 story building with controlled demolition! and it's interesting to see who on this board is up on this and who isn't..... very telling..... Bama

by **rapt** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:29 am

Qutb: "...weaker than many people think." Plenty strong enough for me, but then I am surely lacking in perspective, insight, knowlege of physics. Can you describe this weakness in some more detail for us Qutb?

by **Qutb** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:45 am

"Can you describe this weakness in some more detail for us Qutb?" No, because I'm not interested in spending a lot of time discussing this (and discussion about CD invariably go on and on and on and on and...). Like I've written, I don't think it's all that important whether some extra firework was added or not. I don't buy the CD hypothesis, but if people want to believe it, that's fine by me. I'm a little worried about the lack of critical thought shown by some adherents of it, though. This is my approach to "conspiracy theories": It's about individual human beings, conspiring. And about the institutions within which they operate. What is important is to uncover exactly who those people are, which institutions they operate through, and what their agenda is. Was JFK shot by 1, 2, 3, or 4 snipers? Ultimately, it's not really important. What's important is who put that sniper or those snipers there. "Grassy knollism" is a nice hobby to have, but it doesn't do the world much good. Even if solid evidence could be found of explosives in the WTC (and I don't think that can be found), we wouldn't be any closer to knowing who put those explosives there. See my recent post on Dave Emory's interview with Sander Hicks, and listen to the interview, if you want an example of the kind of important, relevant information that rare investigators like Hicks have uncovered about 9/11 and specific individuals connected to it. Specific instances of people having shown foreknowledge, for instance, is worth a lot more than far-out theories based on short, grainy video clips. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **sunny** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:34 pm

Very interesting indeed. I have no expertise at all in engineering, architecture, controlled demolition, or physics, so I cannot state with absolute certainty that CD was the cause of the collapses at the towers. I have no expertise in ballistics either, but I can state unequivocally that one bullet did not cause several wounds in two people on that Nov. day in 1963. When the "magic bullet theory" lost all credibility, the entire official version "collapsed." For if there was more than three bullets involved in the shooting, there was more than one person involved in the killing, and it goes on, and deeper, from there. That is what we have in the CD theory. If this can be proven, the official version "collapses" from that one single fact- it means, without a doubt, considerable advance planning. IF CD can be proven, and put before the public, it will work, like the debunking of the single bullet theory, to convince people that what we have here is a criminal gov't. not above deliberatly murdering it's own citizens. Of course, this is all elementary, but I think it behooves us to arrive at a consensus, and then somehow get the word out.

by **Pants Elk** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:12 pm

The only 9/11 "truth dogma" that I can see is in the Commission Report - which is painstakingly refuted, point by point, using impeccable logic and argument, by David Ray Griffin in his "Omissions and Distortions" follow-up to "The New Pearl Harbor". Putting forward a controlled demolition theory is by no means contributing to this dogma (one still, and possibly forever, believed by millions) but flying in the face of it. It's not like anyone is conjuring up a CD theory for the hell of it - the theory is based on more trustworthy and rigorous testimony than you'll find in the Commission Report. One other thing; someone mentioned all they find on 9/11 internet is "conspiracy sites"? That's all there is; the official version is a conspiracy theory, too. Because, it was a c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y. Anyone having trouble with this word (saying it without a cynical sneer on their lips, perhaps) should keep the dictionary definition of the word firmly in focus, and not confuse it with "crackpot". Because that's what "they" want you to do.

by **Peachtree Pam** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 2:42 pm

I am like Pants Elk: I can't BELIEVE this discussion is taking place on RI. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek">

by **Peachtree Pam** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 2:54 pm

also important, as Bamabecky said, to note who is up and who is down on this. Very interesting...<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **AnnaLivia** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:16 pm

Might be you can win the debate and create/foster understanding…without having to prove the towers were imploded? Snippets from an online friend (from CG forum) whom I have most unfortunately lost track of…who debates 9/11 truth better than anybody I have seen. This approach may help those of us who try to get the disbelieving to awaken? My friend KT says: I'll just run through some sample dialog. I generally prefer this opening question: "Do you believe there is an international terrorist conspiracy threatening the USA?" You're not "testing" them on their knowledge of 9/11, and you’re giving them a lot of leeway with such a broad introduction. Surprisingly, MOST people will respond with some reservations, either, "Not exactly what the government is describing," or "well... I think a lot of people dislike us." If they leap right into 9/11, then, at least, THEY are the ones who appear to be bringing it up. Discussions move from the general to specific, but, not right away. Simply rattling off all the 9/11 anomalies without laying any groundwork beforehand is completely foolish. Many people will simply dismiss it out-of-hand while confessing their ignorance: "Obviously, you have read more about this than I have. (Implying...) If I spent as much time researching this, I am sure I would find out enough information to contradict you." He has basically closed the discussion at this point. It's good not to make them look too stupid before successfully luring them into an argument, because, they'll shut you down before having to expose their stupidity. The soft-ball nature of general questioning forces them to commit without having to offer much proof. I have been using a "set-up" introduction, which I find works very well under a variety of circumstances--especially in live debate: "There are hundreds of anomalies associated with 9/11. I could sit here and rattle them all off... but I won't. I promise you, though, that you will not be able to answer any of them... not one. Not rationally, of course. I know this because the government hasn't been able to answer any of these questions, or, are unwilling to do so." (They're at ease, somewhat... knowing you're not going to grill them on the details of 9/11.) "That's right. I could lay out all these questions, and, you're just going to shrug your shoulders and say, "I dunno" to everything I say. You might have some conjectures, but that's about it." (They think: yes, as YOU have nothing but conjecture, either.) "However, I can answer ALL of these questions. That's right. Every single one of them. Right here and now. IN fact, I can answer practically every anomaly associated with 9/11, and with just two words. Ready? Government Complicity. There you go. All questions answered. Not only does this explain all the anomalies, but it also explains why the government has been caught lying, covering up, and withholding evidence." At this point, nearly any True Believer is going to take a swing at the "Conspiracy Theorist," claiming that the government isn't capable of such a thing, or, that I'm simply wrong because I believe in Conspiracy Theories. They may even get indignant or angry here. I'll continue: "Have you done a lot of reading about this?" (They usually concede with, "Not as much as you.") "Are you familiar with all the questions which have been raised concerning 9/11?" (Usually, "No, or, "Some... kinda.") "Right. All you "know" is that I am wrong, right?" (Pause for dramatic effect.) "You can't have it both ways. You can't maintain that I am wrong, while admitting to only a slim familiarity with the facts. Either you can prove me wrong or misinformed, or, you have to concede--at least--to the possibility of my conclusion." (We're still in the world of the general, drawing him into the debate, while narrowing the discussion. You're entertaining his "conspiracy theory" by confessing to being a "conspiracy theorist," but, this will change later.) The typical response: "It's a crazy Conspiracy Theory. Our government is not capable of such a thing." "Not too long ago, YOUR government tried to convince the people that the North Vietnamese Army was eventually going to march into Sydney, Australia--and 57,000 Americans died for that. MacNamara and other architects of the war have admitted this. So, I know what they're capable of... in terms of body-count." (Young people, especially, hate hearing about Vietnam; mainly because they know nothing about it. For people especially sensitive to this conflict---) "After Iran-Contra, the CIA admitted to trafficking in drugs... lots of drugs. Do you think they have stopped this?" (Of course, you don't want to debate these issues, but, neither does he. You're simply trying to show the difficulty of excluding the Government from the Suspect List.) This is usually the point where I decide to get a little angry, because it's right before THEY usually get a little angry. (If you sense weakness, striking first with anger can really work for you.) Their predictable response: "Yeah... but, you don't KNOW. This is all a theory of yours. You have no proof." It may seem that we've taken the long road to get to this question, but, it was all necessary. They aren't going to jump into a discussion of the 9/11 Anomalies all by themselves... you've got to push them over the edge and into it all. They may often try to bag-out of the whole thing at this point, with the often-used: "I don't like debating this. Let's talk about something else." This is even better. I love it when they signal retreat, because it's license to turn up the heat with a good rant: "First of all, this isn't a debate, because you clearly do NOT KNOW YOUR SHIT! If you think crying, "Conspiracy Theory! Conspiracy Theory" is any sort of "debate," then, we obviously went to different school systems. You think you can sit there and pick my brain for what I KNOW about 9/11, give you a run-down on the factual evidence PROVING government complicity, while you just pull crazy explanations and excuses out of your ass? This isn't some fucking WORD GAME or Logic Puzzle you read in the back of a magazine." (The rant has just started. They are nervous, and will almost invariably try to smirk, or make some ridiculous remark. Now, I get personal. This shuts them up.) "What's so fucking funny? Did I say something funny, or, do you think this is all some sort of joke? Because, I'M not laughing. You think there's something funny about 9/11, I'd really like to hear it now!" (This usually settles them down. They may attempt to speak. Cut them off.) "This isn't a debate about 9/11. You don't KNOW enough to debate me about 9/11. All you're doing is name-calling and trying to disguise the fact that you haven't taken the time to research anything beyond what you've been spoon-fed by Laurie Dew and Time Magazine. Vietnam was a "Government Conspiracy." Iran-Contra was a "Government Conspiracy." You want to debate those topics? No? Then, YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT about government conspiracies, either! Still think I don't know what I'm talking about, well, guess what? It doesn't matter what I believe, or, what I know: BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT! There's only one thing on the table for discussion. ONE thing. And, it's not some crazy "Government Conspiracy Theory." We're talking about the Government's explanation of 9/11. That's ALL we're talking about. And, surrounding this governmental explanation, this "Theory" of theirs, are hundreds of unanswered questions. Questions which ALL point towards government involvement and cover-up! THAT'S what we're discussing. You think I "don't know shit" about all this? Fine. Let's say I DON'T know shit--the POINT IS that you've decided to accept the government's theory at face value, that you choose not only to avoid asking any serious questions, but, to automatically oppose anyone else who may decide to raise these questions--and YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW SHIT about these events. Getting it now? We're talking about YOUR government, YOUR decision to accept their explanations, YOUR understanding of these events, and YOUR willingness to (God forbid) ask any questions concerning what happened on that day! It's not about ME, and it's NOT about what I believe." (Repeating myself for emphasis.) "So, we're not talking about having a "debate" here, OK? That's not going to happen, because you have nothing to debate WITH, except the word of George W., Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and the rest of them--and, unless they start releasing some of that "Mountain of Evidence" connecting Al Qaeda with 9/11--until THAT wonderful day, when the government FINALLY decides to answer these questions--which thousands of people are asking--then, I'm not simply going to take their word at face value. So, there isn't going to be a debate, but, we can have a discussion, if, of course, the subject matter is at all "Interesting" to you, because, I really don't want to bore you at this point. We could be talking about Lindsay Lohan's tits, or Michael Jackson's magazine collection, or, what-the-fuck-ever is happening with Brad and Jen... so, please, don't let me MAKE THE GOD-AWFUL IMPARDONABLE SOCIAL SIN OF PERHAPS BORING YOU WITH ANY OF THIS SHIT CONCERNING 9/11!!" Of course, in a discussion board, I would post this in pieces. In live debate, it takes about ten minutes, which is brief enough. The "Rant" ending can be tailored for the situation. If they simply repeat themselves, I tell them to stop repeating. Don't put any "theories" of yours on the table at first. Always focus on the government's "theories," the government's explanation. I tend to come out pretty strong against the "Conspiracy Accusation," because it is their only card, in most cases. If you can get beyond that, then, you can approach some of the specifics of the events, but trying to "prove" government complicity from the outset by claiming that the South Tower fell in 9.4 seconds, or, some other such "proof," is going to get you nowhere. The conspiracy-thing really has to be addressed. This is how I try to "maximize my facts," by treating them as important information, which isn't simply thrown around to "win an argument." snip They want to draw you out into a discussion of remote-control planes or something, so they can simply say, "Well, I don't believe that." If someone doesn't know the facts, they are going to want to shift the discussion into the realm of conjecture as soon as possible. Don't take that leap. Stay focused and remember that the discussion is about the GOVERNMENT'S "Conspiracy Theory," not yours. You want to know WHY people (such as your opponent) would believe the government. You want to know WHY the government hasn't released any information. You want to know WHY the government has been lying about this. Stay objective, but, remember that his shouting "Conspiracy Theory" is a personal attack: he's calling you a "Kook," so, at this point, make it personal. Ask him if he believes EVERYTHING the government says. Ask him if the government suddenly switched to "Truth Mode" simply because we're in an armed conflict. If he's joking around, ask him, "What's funny?" If he seems distracted, ask him, "Am I boring you?" Ask him if he takes any of this seriously. Reserve your rants for moments when he is obviously trying to "get away with something," such as pretending to know something he obviously doesn't, or trying to minimize the significance of the event. Here's one of my very favorite rants, which can be used at either high or low-volume, in response to the most foolish retort of them all: "Yeah, OK... it all sucks, but, I can't do anything about it, and, neither can you, so, what's the point of debating it?" Response: "There doesn't seem to be much you can do to effect the outcome of the Superbowl, either. But, you'll spend days on-end discussing that newsworthy event. Perhaps, while you and your friends are screaming and yelling about which team should or shouldn't win, I'll just interject with,"Yes, but, none of you can change the outcome of the game, so, do we really have to talk about this?" Wonder how welcome I'd be in THAT discussion? Or, maybe, all of you would look at me like I was a complete IDIOT for saying something so completely foolish!" This works well. I use it a lot, too.

by **Byrne** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:35 pm

It should be noted that only 3 steel framed buildings have ever collapsed as a result of fire damage. All three of these buildings collapsed on 11th September 2001; WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7. In addition, the 'Pancake Theory', used to describe the collapse mode, had never existed as a collapse mechanism theory in structural engineering prior to 9-11.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Specific instances of people having shown foreknowledge, for instance, is worth a lot more than far-out theories based on short, grainy video clips<hr></blockquote>. If what you are concerned about, is appealing to sophisticated highly intellectual scholars with an average IQ of about 150, then a true 9/11 "anorak" can wax lyrically for hours about incontistencies, behind the scenes knowledge, and all the rest of it, with some confidence. To my mind however , this flies over both the head and attention span of the average laymen, and neglects a far simpler method of presentation which is painfully obvious to everyone, from the keenest scholar to a five year old child. Such as; Here are 2 pictures. One showing a blazing building that burns all weekend without collapsing ( see my previous links), and WTC1, with a picture of the poor woman looking out of the plane- hole within 10-15 minutes of the impact. "you tell me, young man ( five year old child) - Which of these buildings should fall down due to the heat caused by a fire, and which shouldnt?" "Tell me 10 year old young man, what would happen to the poor woman stood in that planehole 10 minutes after impact, if the steel around her was heated to around 1000 degrees, or 800 degrees, or however hot was neccesary to cause it to buckle ? " For those who refuse to see the obvious, and then come back with the sophisticated stuff - Shrug ones shoulders, cry miracle, and THEN make the case with back up arguments involving the plethera of information at our disposal as people who KNOW that 9/11 was MIHOP. I strongly suspect however that you would be wasting your breath. In the meantime ,those buildings were ALL pulled. Im not arguing the case, because the case is simply beyond reasonable argument, not to mention 'official' arguments involving Pancakes, jet fuel, and lagging blowing off due to impact ? Who the fuck do these people think theyre talking to ? In the meantime, Why go off at tangents when the bleeding obvious is staring you in the face for gawds sake ? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 10/4/05 2:06 pm

by **nomo** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:18 pm

As to the claim that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, I came upon this publication by NIST claiming there have been six since 1970: <a href="http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02028.pdf">fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fi...f02028.pdf</a> Of course, that's basically the government saying shit like that happens all the time... -- When all else fails... panic.

by **Qutb** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:37 pm

Sunny said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That is what we have in the CD theory. If this can be proven, the official version "collapses" from that one single fact- it means, without a doubt, considerable advance planning<hr></blockquote> Yes, of course it would, but 1) I don't think it's true, 2) even if it is, you'll never find any good evidence of it, and 3) my experience is that people who would otherwise have been interested in the possibility that 9/11 was more than what we've been told, are often put off by the theory of controlled demolition, which is often the first thing they hear about (that, and the supposed Tomahawk that supposedly hit the Pentagon - blah). So they don't bother looking any further, and aren't interested in hearing more about it, as they assume that "9/11 conspiracy theories" are about as credible as underground alien bases. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **slimmouse** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>As to the claim that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, I came upon this publication by NIST claiming there have been six since 1970:<hr></blockquote> Better still, did you see the pics ? I see buildings or parts of them still stood in EVERY SINGLE CASE. More Bovine Faesces. NIST. Sure lol. In the UK when your drunk, your often described as Pissed. So I think PIST might be a better acronym <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> Glad you posted the link though. Forewarned is forearmed <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D">

by **nomo** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:50 pm

Oh and it's worth mentioning that of those six buildings, three were at the WTC. -- When all else fails... panic.

Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Re: Controlled demolition Absolutely

Re: Controlled demolition: WTC #7

The Gospel

Re: The Gospel

Re: The Gospel

9/11 "truth dogma"

Re-evaluating

It is

anna knows they done killed our own that day

Flat as a 'Pancake' Theory

Re: The Gospel

Re: Flat as a 'Pancake' Theory

Re: The Gospel

Re: Flat as a 'Pancake' Theory

Re: Flat as a 'Pancake' Theory

Who is online