Don't blame me, I was here first. I have strong suspicions that the Bustah is little more than a cheap sock.

"If you had read the the ASCE report".

"Are you here just to pick lint too?"

"Unsupported comments like "Have you ever actually examined the "eyewitness" accounts in depth?"."

"Oh, and your unsupported claim that somehow you stumped Catherder on the abovetopsecret post. "

"I don't know if it'd convince Father Paranoia."

"I think that outside of trying to get a bite on your woowoo link you have nothing to offer this board except rhetoric and immaturity."

"You throw "Israel," "pipelines," "military bases," "Empire building" etc out there in rhetorical fashion but lack the geopolitical savvy to realize how empty such phrases are."

"Even then I am still not certain if you added any comments of your own."

"you plop gibberish into a thread, then claim a victory."

"You have made a life of trolling this stuff on message boards."

"This thread went off the rails in so many ways. I'm shutting it down."



Basically, it seems to depend on who is insulting whom, and in what manner. The moderators do "own" the board, of course, but let's not kid ourselves, here.

Now, now. Didn't someone just get banned for life for this sort of thing?

Codecs reside on your computer. If you lack a valid codec, that is on your end. They are not a part of a video file.

"If you had read it, you would've seen..." I don't see the insult there.

A minor thing. I wouldn't say something like that personally, but it's certainly not as bad as calling someone a moron, or a "dickless (curse word)"

Claiming that something's unsupported is not an insult.

Re: Claiming that something's unsupported is not an insult or Ad Hominem.

I had a talk with "goodastronomy" about this in PM. I was trying to suggest for him to take it back. He said he meant it more of in a joking manner, but I still don't agree with it being posted.

Despite the fact that I agree with this statement, yes, I admit, it is rather aggressive. Unfortunately, frustrations do arise when dealing with people like Jason; nonetheless, it's not really a good excuse.

If you lack the geological savvy, then it's not really a personal attack. When someone demonstrates that they don't actually have the facts on something they claim to, and someone calls them out on it, then it's not a personal attack.

I didn't see the context of this one, but at first glance, it seems like a pretty big accusation, I admit.

That is what Jason was doing.

And he did. He had posted in several messageboards, and he did behavior which is known as "trolling".

Okay... how in the name of heck is THIS an insult?

I agree; let's not kid ourselves here... like, say, what you seem to be doing.

The context was that I was referring to his post in the abovetopsecret forum. It was a repost of a USENET article, and as such was messy due to the has marks, cascading, etc. of a USENET post. I added that it was hard to tell if he added anything of his own or just plopped a post in from elsewhere raw.

Make of that what you will. I certainly meant no insult.

Hey, KookBuster, you know so much. Did Jason actually report any of these accusations to the administrators, using that handy "report" button?

To a person who posted a lengthy (and unanswered) examination of the ASCE report?

Forgetting the fact that the original poster was correct regarding the "antenna" quotes, and the person who challenged his assertion was not.


Which illustrates my point perfectly. Some people are free to be insulting. Others are not.


How does one support a _question_?


It was a false claim. The original poster never claimed to have "stumped" catherder, or anything of the sort.


Again, you admit that "anti-conspiracy" posters are free to insult with impunity.

Another example of the double-standard at work here.

Geological savvy?

What facts are you claiming the original poster lacks?


Yet nothing came of it. Just another insult thrown out by a regular, and ignored by the moderators. Thanks for supporting my point yet again.

Can you cite examples of "gibberish" from the original poster? Do you know what "gibberish" is?

Further insults.


Several messageboards?

Cite?

Asking questions, on a conspiracy board, about supposed conspiracies is "trolling"?

More insults.


It's not. It represents a desire from the moderators of this board to close a discussion regarding 9/11. If the original poster was banned, why lock the entire thread?

More hypocritical insults.

I even included his paraphrase in my last post.Actually, when it comes to giving any "credence to the planning or engineering that it took to orchestrate 9/11" .. that's your job. Graham2001's link addresses pre-meditated demolition. You allege pre-meditated demolition. It has relevance.Profitable if we don't find them? What difference would it make?? We had to invade and occupy Iraq anyway. I'm also not sure how you think your damage-control argument that not finding WMD somehow sustains our occupation of Iraq can make any kind of logical sense. I think the only reason you guys aren't claiming we "planted" WMD in Iraq is because we publicly admitted we didn't find any.

You and other CTers apply selective sophistication to your nefarious PTB and have to change the story when certain things (martial law for instance) don't come to fruition. You want to have it both ways it seems. The PTB kills their own people to "sell" Iraq but then needs to fabricate another reason (WMD) anyway, one which has cost the president dearly in terms of public support when they weren't found. Yeah, real good "sell-job" there SynKronoS!

the paraphrase demonstrates no relavence and it is you who selectively chooses what you want to hear--i have to change nothing i never said a word about martial law or planting wmds that is your disinfo--im still waiting to understand how a "coroners report" can shed any light on the planning and engineering necessary for anything?!?! --

Refuse to see the relevancy all you want SynKronoS. Doing the web equivalent of covering your ears and eyes isn't helping your case, although it helps me do what I want to do here.

I've fortunately had the "pleasure" of meeting only a couple true-blue CTers in my lifetime and know critical/rational thought is not what motivates them. Whether it's a total lack of trust or paranoia I'll leave to the psychologists, but trying to convince you that you are mistaken is not my primary reason for posting here. I'm posting for the lurker, maybe an impressionable kid that might come across your hokum. I want them, as I do, to take a step back and look at this nonsense from a Big Picture perspective.. That's all it takes. It helps if the reader is savvy in things like foreign affairs and geopolitics but what separates me and hopefully many of those that lurk is we will read the comments proffered here and form our own conclusions. Not based on vitriol, stylish rhetoric, or an innate sense of mistrust, but by examining what we read using common sense and critical thinking.

So, tell me you "don't get it" or "fail to see the relevancy" all you want SynKronoS, but as long as somebody else does I feel I've done my job.

[Edited to fix a spelling gaffe]

This one has already been dealt with in a thread started by JasonGoretician's sock puppet, in essence Marvin Bush was with the company until 06/2000 which means that it is highly unlikely that he had anything to do with the companies operations in the lead-up to 11/09/2001.

For more information than I am willing to repeat here read Ktesibios post(Nº 17 in the linked thread.)

__________________
We all know those Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

John Sladek, The New Apocrypha, pg 34.

you can feel all you want-- im not worried about it or your propagandist tactic of blindly proclaiming what you "feel" will persuade an inept onlooker--anyone that has followed this thread will see right through your deceitful comments knowing right away that you have never explained the relavence of a coroners report in considering the ability to plan or engineer a terrorist event and that 9/11 was indeed an inside job where demolitions were used

Where have I been "deceitful" here? It's not my fault you refuse to see the relevance of a site that deals with the potential problems with controlled demolitions.

"Propagandist tactics?" Is that the best you can do? You never really addressed my prior post when I took you to task for this inane comment:Tell me SynKronoS, what would have changed had we "found" them? We were still in control of Iraq either way.

Let's cut to the chase ..no lame evasions this time SynKronoS. I want you tell me and anyone who reads this why our own government would bomb NYC and D.C. on 9/11 to supposedly foster support for a future invasion of Iraq and then shoot themselves in the foot with WMD when it happened. Explain why your cabal cared about public opinion in 2001, but not 2003. (Try to do better than that lame Halliburton corollary this time because, like I pointed out prior, outside of it being an off-the-wall thing to post, they and any others stood to have a shot of the "spoils" regardless of whether WMD was found or not).

It's interesting people mention about what they think they heard, etc.

In aviation accident investigation, often the best witnesses are those that have no aviation knowledge at all. They report what they heard, not what they THINK they heard; they report what they saw, not what they THINK they saw.

That's not a put-down, BTW; it's just that most often we try to rationalise and associate what we heard / saw with something we do know - and sometimes in the process, it becomes 'that' rather than 'similar to that'.

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

it all breaks down to oil and money--if you are a construction contractor do you want to bid for a 3 month contract building a house or every govt building for the nest ten years? --there is also this

search - P2OG or proactive pre-emtive operations group
In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This “super-intelligence support activity” will bring together the “CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception”. According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require “counter-attack” by the United States on countries “harbouring the terrorists”.

I don't buy that, not at all. The comparison between 9/11 and Pearl Harbour is totally invalid.

I know that Winston Churchill may have had some advance warning and may have chosen to contain it, in order to bring the US into the war, but I'd never read about Roosevelt knowing.

Can you provide some links? I'd be interested to find out exactly what it was he was supposed to know.

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

heres a start
LINK

Apologies for straying off-topic slightly but I think that this last post needs some historical perspective supplied.

During 1940-41, prior to Pearl Harbor the US Atlantic fleet had been actively involved in escorting British convoys, this effectively meant that the USN was engaging in wartime activities whil the US was officially neutral.

This came to a head on the 31st of October 1941 when the USS Reuben James(Link to historical information) was torpedoed and sunk.

Had Pearl Harbor not occurred, then it is quite likely that the US would have entered the war as a result of a similar incident.

Indeed during the hunt for the Bismark the USN dispatched a battleship and three destroyers into the Atlantic on an exercise. Had they run into the Bismark the result could have been the US entering the war in 1940.

__________________
We all know those Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

John Sladek, The New Apocrypha, pg 34.

To continue the slight off-topic, there's no way that England could have intercepted and decoded the operational message of 25 Nov that directed radio silence of the task force. Neither the US nor England had broken JN-25 at the time (although the US did break it by April of 42 and the decrypts were crucial in battles of Coral Sea and Midway). The US had broken the diplomatic cypher which they referred to as PURPLE. However, this was not a military cypher and operational orders to the Combined Fleet were not sent in it. Synk, if you have evidence that England broke JN-25 before the US did you should provide it. Serious historians of Pearl Harbor would disagree with you.

Another thing Pearl Harbor conspiracists forget is that if Churchill was scheming to get the US to declare war on Germany he failed. The only result of Pearl Harbor was the declaration against Japan. Germany, under no treaty obligation to do so, declared war on the US first.

PS, Graham's post is correct. In addition, a U-Boat shot at a US escort and missed (I forget the name, but can look it up on request) about a month before the Reuben James was sunk. I'd be happy to continue this discussion in a separate thread.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Sorry won't wash. Once we committed to an invasion various contractors were going to receive bids as soon as the Hussein regime was toppled, WMD or no anyway. I don't know where you get your 3 months as opposed to 10 year figure but it overlooks the simple fact that 9/11 need not be "staged" at all if WMD was Bush's primary reason for invading. You earlier claimed "not finding them" was the real plan but it doesn't make sense when A) it contradicts the so-called reasoning for needing to stage a 9/11 in the first place - public support, and B) admitting they were not found this early into your "10 year" scheme. Wouldn't it have made better sense to provide the American public with a "little here and a little there" so we could draw out the search and help Bush's ratings?

You also overlook the fact that during the initial "military" phase we preserved as much of Iraq's infrastructure as possible which doesn't make sense if we wanted construction contractors to spend the next 10 years rebuilding government buildings.

I'm going to pass on the Pearl Harbor thing SynKronoS. That would make an entertaining CT thread in it's own right but we have enough 9/11 spin-off threads as it is. One major difference between 1941 and 2001 though: No one is claiming the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor as is the case with 9/11.Seems you are selective on what media you consider credible SynKronoS. What did you call National Geographic again? This is actually "old news" and has been circulating among CT circles for some time. If this is supposed to be some irrefutable "smoking gun" for the 9/11 hokum, I'm not impressed.

So far you haven't really shown me anything. I'm still waiting for you to explain the inconsistencies regarding the "why" and the "how" of 9/11.

in both instances it has been prooven the govt either knew as in pearl harbor or they orchestrated it as in 9/11--either way lies are being told intentionally-- it has been admitted long ago that roosevelt knew in advance of the attack and even went as far as to have a skeleton crew moved in to assist the momentum of indignation-- the smoking gun from 9/11 comes from the mass acumulation of inconsistencies and the indirect evidence-- no 9/11 was not necessary by any means but it was profitable-- that huge white elephant needed to be condemned due to the fbi's handy work in 93' and the asbestos and occupancy woes that were 24/7-- you have to ask yourself "WHY" silverstein would purchase a damaged building littered with asbestos that had never achieved a profitable occupancy and was in need of demolition and rebuild which would have cost untold millions and could not have made any sense until you realize that there was a new insurance policy added that is suspicios from the get go as no insurance company in their right mind would have insured that sickly behemoth-- but what a flash of luck for silverstein huh?? the clean-up which would have cost a full years rent from every tenet(not including the rebuild) was now shifted to the tax-payer while he gets double pay-out as he claimed each plane was a seperate event doubling his 3.5 billion dollar policy to 7 billion with an initial insurance investment of only 200 million--if the towers were his wife he would have been the main suspect and considering far more than one life was taken i think he still is-- the mossad has infiltrated the bush administration and helped silverstein,haliburton,the carlyle group and countless others to dip into the 280 billion dollar pork barrel they manufactured

So, wait... now Silverstein orchestrated 9/11 for the insurance money? I'm confused.

You seem to be, too. You haven't actually explained anything. You've just offered up misplaced wrongdoing and called it a "smoking gun". You're drawing lines between dots that aren't even related. Pearl Harbor and 9/11? How is that even proof?

The government did not know there would be a strike at Pearl Harbor. What the gov't knew up to Pearl Harbor is well documented and does not add up to foreknowledge by any means. It has certainly not been 'proven'.

Any serious WW2 historian who has looked at this claim has found it seriously nutty, even those historians who like a nifty secret or two.

There's more. After the RN had lost track of the Bismarck on her run for the French coast, she was located by an RAF Coastal Command Catalina. This made possible the Swordfish attack which jammed her rudder and brought her to bay.

The pilot of that plane was an American Navy officer, Ensign Leonard "Tuck" Smith, one of a group of volunteers lent to the RAF. You can read about it in Ludovic Kennedy's Pursuit: The Chase and Sinking of the Bismarck.

Graham's probably right. Given the level of US participation in the Battle of the Atlantic, a casus belli would have been near-certain to arise between the USA and Germany.

From the point of view of the British war effort, it might have been more desirable for the USA to be drawn into the war against Germany at first. Fortunately for Churchill, after Japan attacked the US, Hitler declared war against the US. There was still a job of diplomacy to do to get the US government to agree to a "Germany first" policy...

__________________
Please enjoy your trip through this door.

The Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories have been around for years; it appears that the 911 hoax folks have perfected the techniques first used for it, and now seem to be able to turn around and use the new 'refined' arguments to 'prove' Pearl Harbor was a hoax, so of course they can use that to prove 911 was a hoax.

Or something like that...

Well, actually, Jason, it's more like several hundred demolition experts poured over the rubble and failed to come up with any shred of evidence that the buildings were "blown."

That, the videos of the airliners hitting them and the expert opinions of the structural analysts are enough to convince most of us as to what really happened, which is pretty much precisely what most of us saw.

But I'm a naysay, a skeptic, at best, and a certified aerospace engineer, statistician, and ATP (pilot). So, I kept digging, and came up with pretty much the same, namely, that terrorists flew fuel-laden airliners into a structure, the fuel-burning caused catastrophic failure through excessing heat which resulted in a cascading collapse of the structural members of the building.

It appears that anti-authoritarianism is built in to our human psyche, particularly with respect to populations at large.

Why? I dunno, except to say that digression/skepticism is healthy for any organism or environment, and perhaps this is simply our collective conscious keeping us on track.

Unfortunately, in recent years our consious seems to have aquired a mind of its own.

Beyond that, I can't account for it.

Or it's learned through environment, media, and disillusionment as we realize how often governments will lie to the people using propaganda, while not caring about them (I.E., Stallin, Chinese government, etc.)

Like I said, I think it's more societally and environmentally learned, I don't think it's a "natural reaction" based on brain mtter.

In a way, yeah. But there have always been people in every society that have felt "fed up" with the government; sometimes making up reasons to dislike them, or pinning the blame on undeserving people. This seems to have been true throughout time.

Well, "nothing" except for more than 100 years of very heavily documented materials science, mechanics of deformable bodies, studies of catestrophic failures, etc.

What? Did you think this is the first time a building structure has failed? Did you think we scientists and engineers turn a blind eye to this sort of thing so that we're apt to repeat it?

Heavens no, Man! We STUDY it, as we've done for hundreds of years. We LEARN from it, so that we do NOT repeat it.

It's just that no one's ever flown a large aircraft into a large building before.