Maddox's take on 9/11 conspiracy theories

[boolean]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

He makes a good point!

[WoodrowFan]

1. BOL!

Great site, thanks for posting!

[Ka hrnt]

2. That's hilarious! EOM

[beam me up scottie]

3. LOL!

Very funny, thanks!

[salvorhardin]

4. I saw that posted somewhere else earlier in the week

Very funny though.

[petgoat]

5. It's hilarious, all right!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The central point is uinintentionally anti-tautological!

So the fact that Dylan Avery is alive to spread his movie "Loose Change"
is regarded as proof that no conspiracy exists?

Then any conspiracy wishing to cite such proof would make sure that he
remains alive, wouldn't they? They might even buy him a new laptop and
a DVD burner and pay his rent!

Some people around here can't reason their way out of a paper bag (and they
know who they are).

That's why their opinions are so peculiar.

[mirandapriestly]

6. It's a real knee slapper

what is it with these cartoons that aren't funny? I'm the first to laugh at myself, but these guys don't get it. I think what they really like is the way the guy calls those who question the government's role in 911 "morons" and makes the usual references to ufos, Roswell, chupacabras, etc...this cartoon is an underhanded way of posting that little bit o propaganda & hate speech.

[HamdenRice]

16. For the same reason "Mallard Fillmore" is the unfunniest cartoon ever

Most cartoons derive their humor from their subversion of expectations. That's why anti-establishment or liberal-left cartoonists and comedians have a built in advantage over right wing cartoonists and comedians.

But pro-government cartoons have to uphold orthodoxy. They stupidly and ploddingly reiterate the official line or criticize dissent. I didn't even look at the cited cartoon, but I would guess it's about as (un)funny as "Mallard Fillmore," the right wing cartoon that runs in newspapers and that simply unfunnily repeats right wing talking points, or as (un)funny as a Soviet era socialist realism cartoon that trumpets the glorious opening of tractor factory number 117 and its meeting its production quota as a humorous anecdote.

[mirandapriestly]

67. well said eom

[Ka hrnt]

20. Neat

"Some people around here can't reason their way out of a paper bag..."

This coming from someone who thinks the faux intellectualism of 9/11 Eyewitness is "science"... :eyes:

[petgoat]

27. I said there was science in 911 Eyewitness to someone who

claimed there wasn't any.

There were piddly criticisms of the movie's calculations, but the errors were
trivial.

I'll take honest and easily detectable errors over NIST's deliberate mendacity
any day.

[Ka hrnt]

37. Um, no.

See the post I linked to above. Their attempts at using science were laughable. The fact they couldn't do simple calculations correctly doesn't make you suspect the quality of the other "science"? I don't want to hijack the thread, but a brief recap:

Seismic analysis was bogus, projectile motion was ridiculous, sound analysis of "explosions" was irrelevent as said "explosions" could apparently only be heard from that one spot, the fact their "science" led to the risibly stupid conclusion that a vacuum helped bring down WTC7 is just hilarious, and claims of pyroclastic flows requiring "explosive energy" are factually untrue.

[petgoat]

38. Everybody's seismic analysis is bogus. The Palisades station

is too near to the site to have meaningful results because the different kinds of waves
overlap and interfere with each other.

Siegel's first draft work is flawed, but at least somebody tried. Your assertion that
explosions could only be heard from Hoboken is absurd--they were reported by many people
who were on the scene. In the context of Ground Zero the pyroclastic flow DOES require
explosive energy, because the only other alternative is "the nonexplosive eruption of lava
when parts of dome or a thick lava flow collapses down a steep slope"--or are you going
to postulate a volcanic eruption in lower Manhattan coincidental to the collapses?

As to the linked post:

2. visiting the towers doesn't make you an expert on them

No, but it does make you familiar with them and their construction.

3. Matthys.... states it looks like CD, but that CD is not what he believes caused
it to fall.

So what about what he believes? His testimony can be used to support what he said:
It looks like CD. If a witness says "I saw the defendant standing over the body with
a smoking gun in her hand but I don't think she killed the decedent" does that mean you
strike the testimony about the smoking gun?

7. projectile motion....compared real-life motion of unknown velocity and angle

The velocity can easily be estimated because video cameras shoot at a known frames-per-second
rate.

8. you claim "A vacuum was created

I'm not convinced that there isn't a vacuum at the source of the explosion after the force
blows all the air away. Of course the force blows the dust out explosively, and afterwards
the falling debris generates outward-flying dust.

9, 10-- see above

11 Ax Siegler's comments regarding the crying of on-lookers

I believe his comment was with respect to using the reactions as a time marker for
when visibile events occurred.

12. Give some explanation for the flashes.

How can you expect him to? He's not an ordinance expert. He very wisely refrains
from speculating.

Siegel is flawed, spooked's rabbit cage model is flawed, Dr. Jones's paper is flawed
by his claim that a picture shows WTC7 in the afternoon when clearly the picture was
taken in the morning. It doesn't mean they're not true.

[Ka hrnt]

45. Well, at least there's one thing we agree on!

Mods: Can we move this subthread to where it belongs?

Their application of the peak reading to potential energy was bogus, as was the reading itself apparently, so it was wrong for more than one reason. And I'll grant you Siegel may be "familar" with the Twin Towers, but that's still not expertise of any sort.

"...does that mean you strike the testimony about the smoking gun?"

Bogus analogy. They quote him as an expert saying it resembled CD when his expert opinion is that it was progressive collapse. A correct analogy of what they've done would be: "I saw the defendant standing over the body with a smoking gun in her hand but I don't think she killed the decedent because as stated in my coroner's report, he hadn't been shot." Selective quoting = intellectual dishonesty.

"The velocity can easily be estimated because video cameras shoot at a known frames-per-second rate."

Too bad they didn't do that (you'd need the exact angle of the camera to the TT as well...). And you'd have to take many measurements as the velocity wasn't (and couldn't be) constant. Which raises the unfortunate aspect that they compared ideal (constant velocity) parabolic motion with real life motion. Which also means the fact they got it to fit proves they manipulated it to fit, as it {constant velocity motion} can't fit real life motion.

"I'm not convinced that there isn't a vacuum at the source of the explosion"

A very small and (very) short-lived one, perhaps, but... "A building implosion isn’t truly an implosion — atmospheric pressure doesn’t pull or push the structure inward, gravity makes it collapse."

"or are you goingto postulate a volcanic eruption in lower Manhattan coincidental to the collapses? "

Of course not; the quote indicates (to me) that the collapse can cause a pyroclastic flow. The energy provided to generate the flow is potential energy, just like in a snow avalanche. Speaking of which, now I'm not convinced they were even technically pyroclastic flows: "{pyroclastic flows} move much like a snow avalanche, except that they are fiercely hot, contain toxic gases, and move at phenomenal, hurricane-force speeds, often over 100 km/hour."

"Your assertion that explosions could only be heard from Hoboken is absurd..."

So yet again I ask, why was the only recording of these {incredibly loud} "explosions" made nearly two miles away?

"I believe his comment was with respect to using the reactions as a time marker for when visibile events occurred."

Some of them yes, but not all.

"How can you expect him to? He's not an ordinance expert. He very wisely refrains from speculating."

He speculated there was a nuclear attack; why not speculate here? They insinuate these flashes are relevant to the collapse but offer no explanation of how/why. That's not science, that's an observation; they don't even provide a hypothesis, yet alone an experiment to test it.

[petgoat]

49. ..

Matthys Levy said "It was very much like a controlled demolition when you look at it."
What is dishonest about quoting that? It looks like a controlled demolition. So what
if he doesn't think it was one. He said it looked like one.

why was the only recording of these {incredibly loud} "explosions" made nearly two
miles away?

Many witnesses on the site reported explosions. Do you take the lack of released tapes
over that fact in trying to deny there were explosions?

The energy provided to generate the flow is potential energy

Applying the PE of the 99th floor to its pulverizing impact to the 88th floor is not fair.
You have only 11 floors worth of PE to burn, not 100.

[Ka hrnt]

57. *yawn*

"What is dishonest about quoting that?"

Um...because they tried to pass off an expert as saying it looked like CD when the expert claims it wasn't CD. If the narrator himself had stated it there'd be no problem. But they're trying to use this man's expertise to lend validity to their claim. Go look at the context from which they ripped his quote.

"Many witnesses on the site reported explosions."

Strawman: I'm not asking what witnesses said, I'm asking why are there no other recordings of these "explosions".

"Do you take the lack of released tapes over that fact in trying to deny there were explosions?"

Strawman: I'm not asking for "unreleased tapes", I'm asking for ANYTHING that recorded these noises

"Applying the PE of the 99th floor to its pulverizing impact to the 88th floor is not fair."

Strawman: My claim is that they're wrong in stating it requires "explosive energy" to generate a pyroclastic flow.

[petgoat]

64. The man said it looked like a CD. How is the fact that he

thought it wasn't CD relevant? It looked like a CD. That's undisputed. That's stated
by plenty of other experts.

I'm asking why are there no other recordings of these "explosions".

I don't know. I'm not an accoustics expert. There are many possibilities. But the
missing evidence can not trump the earwitness testimony of many firemen, IMHO.

I'm asking for ANYTHING that recorded these noises

The firemen reported them. Are you calling them liars?

they're wrong in stating it requires "explosive energy" to generate a pyroclastic flow.

People are confusing the dust cloud flowing up the street with the explosive ejection of dust
as the rop forty stories turned to dust in the air. The dust in the air required explosive
energy because there was not enough PE in those floors falling a short distance to generate
the explosive expulsion of dust AND pulverize the floors AND break down the building.

[Ka hrnt]

71. Ai ai ai...

"...thought it wasn't CD relevant?"

Because they're trying to use this man's expertise to lend validity to their claim; they're giving the appearance this man believes it's a CD. For that matter, if you read the transcript you'll see that the very next line after Levy's statement is "The reason the core failed first in the North Tower can be explained by the way it was hit." Pathetic.

"There are many possibilities {that the explosions were only recorded by one device}."

So your only response to why no other device recorded these incredibly loud "explosions" is "There are many possibilities."??? Name one that isn't utterly absurd. And again you go with the strawman of "many" earwitnesses. New York City has a population of ~8 million people. I'd expect there to be more than just "many" people who heard these "explosions", particularly if they were loud enough to be heard 2 miles away.

"The firemen reported them. Are you calling them liars?"

LOL. Wow, the kids in the debate club I'm sponsoring know better than to pull this kind of crap. First of all, even after I point out your strawman and explained why it's a strawman you continue to try to use it. That's freaking fantastic. But again, just for the sake of thoroughness here, I asked for "ANYTHING" that recorded the sounds. Last time I checked, firemen are people, not things.

"People are confusing the dust cloud flowing up the street with the explosive ejection of dust"

That's fantastic, but again, not a rebuttal to the fact that the video incorrectly stated that pyroclastic flows require "explosive energy" (I really love that term...).

[petgoat]

72. If they're not claiming he said it was CD, and they're only

claiming he said it looked like CD, then it's up to the reader to make the distinction
you're refusing to make. Frankly I'd never heard of the guy and his supposed expert
status makes no difference to me. Van Romero said it looked just like CD too.

Sound carries over water, amazingly. There have been reports of people hearing conversations
across a lake. Your invocation of 6 million non-witnesses in an attempt to refute the
testimony of twenty-thirty witnesses to explosions is not logical.

I'm not an acoustics expert. I don't know how the acoustical environment around Ground Zero
might have masked the sounds. Perhaps the sound-reflective properies of surrounding buildings
created an environment where low-frequency waves were scattered and cancelled out. it could
even be that the charges were designed to be relatively quiet.

I don't know. Maybe Rick Siegel is a liar and his audio is completely phony. But since it's
corroborated by earwitness testimony from the site, I'm inclined to accept it provisionally.
I believe news reporters spoke of secondary explosions and secondary devices on the day of
the event, but never spoke of them after.

[Ka hrnt]

79. Whatever...

They quoted him out of context and put the Nova's overlay of "Author of Why Buildings Fall Down" under him and you don't seem to think that that's an attempt to gain credibility by having an expert who doesn't believe in the CD theory say it "looked" like CD?

"There have been reports of people hearing conversations across a lake."

Yes, it has to do with the thermal layers of air; the cooler air over the lake transports sound better as the molecules are closer together. However, this is another bogus analogy: the more accurate analogy would be of people hearing conversations across a lake where the people having said conversations couldn't hear each other.

"Your invocation of 6 {sic} million non-witnesses in an attempt to refute the testimony of twenty-thirty witnesses to explosions is not logical twenty-thirty witnesses."

It's perfectly logical; these people could've heard explosions up close. There are all sorts of things that can explode in a building if they get too hot. I don't deny they heard stuff blowing up in the building, but they weren't these massive explosions that could be heard 2 miles away. It's not possible that these explosions the firemen in the building heard in or right next to the building could mysteriously disappear and then show up again 2 miles away.

"I don't know how the acoustical environment around Ground Zero might have masked the sounds."

It's far too open an environment for the sounds to be completely nullified.

"But since it's corroborated by earwitness testimony from the site..."

Again, how could a few people at the site hear it, have the sound disappear, then mysteriously reappear 2 miles away? (Note: again, I'm not denying there were some minor explosions within the WTC buildings, but they aren't possibly massive CD explosions.)

[Ka hrnt]

80. Interesting...

It's interesting you brought up the "lake" effect on sound. I may have erred earlier; I believe it has something to with the differing temperatures transporting sound at different speeds and then having them interfere constructively as they cross back over land. I'd look it up but I lent my copy of What Einstein Told His Barber to one of my students. Good book; I recommend it to anyone with a modicum of curiousity. :)

[greyl]

40. You said, hilariously, "It's the most science this side of Jones"

Ka hrnt did the best job I've seen in this forum of giving a detailed refutation of that fraudulent anti-science video. "Piddly criticisms" my ass. It's probable that the lack of coherent rebuttals to his/her points indicates a lack of fault in his/her analysis.

Prove me wrong and bump the thread with a competent rebuttal if you care to.

[petgoat]

47. I said it had a lot of science, I didn't say it was perfect.

Can you name a video that has more science?

[Make7]

58. Weird Science

I couldn't pass that one up.

:) Make7

[greyl]

60. A perfect answer. nt

[petgoat]

73. Wierd science, flawed science.

The claim I responded to was "no science", some people tried to play "gotcha"
by pointing out flaws in the report, and we wind up wasting bandwidth and time.

I give him credit for trying. NIST gets cited for not trying.

[Make7]

77. Sorry, I guess I didn't take the joke quite far enough on that one.

petgoat wrote:

Can you name a video that has more science?

:) Make7

[Ka hrnt]

48. S'panks!

"You said, hilariously, "It's the most science this side of Jones""

Yeah, I thought that was pretty hilarious. The 2nd best source of scientific evidence for CD and 90-100% of it is thoroughly inept...

"Ka hrnt did the best job I've seen in this forum of giving a detailed refutation of that fraudulent anti-science video."

S'panks! (Thanks, for those whose sense of humor may be lacking.) ;)

[greyl]

31. Yep

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/wings-break-off.html

[mrgerbik]

7. Webpage

So this comes from "The Best Page in the Universe" where such serious topics include:

"I am a genius, you are not."
"I just wanted a video game, not eternal damnation in hell."
"I hate Cameron Diaz."
"How to kill yourself like a man. "
etc etc

I have been to this page before a few times and he is pretty funny, in his own sick twisted way. But to use this site as some sort of debunking premise is funnier then the article itself.

As to what it says, many dissenters of conspiracies are probably kept alive precisely to invoke these types of reactions - making a mockery of them and what they stand for. "If he isn't dead, he must be full of shit." Let the population do the work of debunking him. It works out very nicely for those involved.

[boolean]

8. It's a no-win situation with you people

I'd bet you a trillion dollars that if this guy was found dead tomorrow, you'd yell and scream about how the people behind the conspiracy are responsible.

But if he stays alive, it's because the people behind the conspiracy are letting the population do the work of debunking him.

[mrgerbik]

9. I wouldn't

yell and scream anything. I would leave it in the realm of possibility and leave it at that. I might look into it a bit further, but that would probably be the extent of my concern. As far as this guy is concerned, I doubt he would pose any serious threat anyways - just as the makers of Loose Change.

You shouldn't keep yourself too close minded. A healthy dose of skepticism yes, but to be so close minded (to me) is not healthy.

Do the phrases "mind control", "remote viewing" and "psychic abilities" sound loony? How about your nobel CIA smuggling drugs? Or propping up dictators? Would it sound so crazy if you knew that the CIA has had their hands in these things?

I don't understand why you can't keep it in the realm of possibility when your government spends 30 billion+ a year on keeping the CIA running. Where the hell is all this money going? Why do we need such an infrastructure in the first place? If its to protect the people, why can't it be more transparent?

If certain groups of people and agencies such as the CIA weren't so annoyingly secretive, i would bet you a trillion dollars that almost all paranoid conspiracy theories would cease to exist - because they wouldn't need to exist.

[salvorhardin]

11. Do the phrases...

Do the phrases "mind control", "remote viewing" and "psychic abilities" sound loony?

Is this a trick question?

[beam me up scottie]

12. !

[petgoat]

74. It's a rationality test. A rational person would not dismiss

subjects he has never investigated. Those who find it necessary to dimiss things
they know nothing about are not rational.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Absolutley not. There is no point to kill someone who has

compiled public information and presented it, because there is always someone else out there who can and will do the same. People who have inside knowledge, however, are in a more dangerous position.

Avery is just reporting the information he compiled. He did a pretty good job. too.

Given that over half of the population believes they were lied to by the governemt, I don't think it's "The population" whose behind the debunking. It's people who take it on as a full time job. See The Swift Boat Vets for Truth about that kind of employment opportunity.

I hear they are hiring. :)

[HamdenRice]

17. For someone who's screen name is boolean,

you realize that your assertion is not logical, according to formal logic, right?

Even accepting your premise:

If he's found dead, it is because he found the truth and had to be eliminated;
If he is not found dead, it is because he did not find the truth.

is the same as:

If A then B; has the same truth value as
If not A then not B

But everyone learns in junior high school that these statements don't have the same truth value.

If it rains, there must be clouds in the sky;
if it is not raining, there are no clouds in the sky.

But of course, it could be a cloudy day without rain.

Or he could have found the truth, and they decided not to eliminate him.

Boolean, you learned that in junior high school, didn't you? Or maybe you guys want to go over this carefully in the so called science/skeptics forum.

[greyl]

18. Good grief, that went right over your head.

boolean was making an observation and speculating about the illogical either/or thinking that others display.

[HamdenRice]

19. Good grief, actually the entire thread went right over your head

My response was to boolean, not to the hyperlinked page. boolean wrote:

"I'd bet you a trillion dollars that if this guy was found dead tomorrow, you'd yell and scream about how the people behind the conspiracy are responsible.

But if he stays alive, it's because the people behind the conspiracy are letting the population do the work of debunking him."

That's a logical fallacy. He is saying that if we are logically consistent we should actually adopt the logic of the hyperlink rather than assume he is being allowed to stay alive.

QED

Please learn to read.

[greyl]

23. Nonsense.

"My response was to boolean, not to the hyperlinked page."

Yeah, no shit. Where did you get the mistaken idea I thought otherwise?

[petgoat]

29. Where did you get the mistaken idea

Probably since your claim that boolean was satirizing CTers made no sense, he assumed
you were talking about something else.

[greyl]

32. You'll have to explain which idea you're talking about. nt

[HamdenRice]

62. Your post makes absolutely no sense if it refers to boolean

Now I really know that this has gone over your head.

BTW, did you hear the joke about the glorious opening of Stalingrad tractor factory no. 117? It met and exceeded its production quota after just 6 months!

[greyl]

85. See post #63 nt

[boolean]

63. LOL!

I know it's a logical fallacy. I'm saying you conspiracy theorists are the ones using it!
:rofl:

[greyl]

81. It's sad that you have to repeat yourself, eh? nt

[John Q. Citizen]

10. I'm not sure he makes such a good point.

First, Avery doesn't have any first hand knowledge of the events of 9/11. He's essentially just a reporter and compiler of information that anyone else could compile and report on. In fact many others have.

Is the fact that Dr Steven Jones isn't disappeared also proof that the OTC is true?

People who fall for this kind of logic are not the people I'd want working any kind of investigation, be it scientific or criminal.


Why is Daniel Elsberg still alive? Tens of thousands of Americans were sacrificed in Vietnam as a result of a false flag operation (gulf of Tonklin) that led to the full scale commitment of American troops in Vietnam, all based on a secret government conspiracy.

Why didn't all the ships crews involved in the Gulf of Tonklin incident come forward and reveal that it was a false flag operation? Did they kill them all? No. Was anyone ever prosecuted for perpetrating this lie that resulted in the deaths of 50000 Americans? No.

I could also go into the Kennedy assassination where they did off the guy with insider knowledge, Oswald, and we were fed the OCT of the lone gunman, only to find out later in the report of The House investigative committee in the 90's that in fact there was a shot fired from the grassy knoll, showing Oswald in fact didn't act alone, No one ever successfully prosecuted there either, but I think you already get the idea.

It is a lot easier and much safer to commit character assassination to take care of the people who smell something fishy, investigate and publicize there views.. In fact that is exactly what the government attempted to do to Elsberg as well as to people who questioned the lone gunman theory.

And that guy's web site (thebestintheworld etc.) does a splendid job of character assassination.

His theory? Because Avery is alive, the government conspiracy theory of 9/11 is true.

False logic, my friends. But very effective at discouraging anyone from seriously looking at the facts.

[Jazz2006]

14. I got a laugh out of the folded $100 bill, personally.

:D

[petgoat]

15. You would nt

[Jazz2006]

21. Tsk tsk. So humourless, goat. Your insults don't bother me, though.

I find it amusing that you resort to them so often, though.

[mhatrw]

22. He makes no points worth mentioning

1) Anyone planning 9/11 would be too smart and competent to be leave clues that lead to doubts.

Since when have neocons done anything competently? They are kings of the ridiculous, bombastic overreach, and they simply try to bluster themselves out of trouble whenever they are found out.

2) Anyone trying to expose the truth about 9/11 would be killed instantly.

To what purpose? If you aren't convincing many, why go to the trouble? If you are convincing many, won't your suspicious death help convince a lot more?

3) Someone who says that the folding a $20 bill trick proves 9/11 was done by our government in some way is a representative claim of 9/11 official story skeptics.

A complete straw man.

4) No conspiracy as "big" as 9/11 could ever be pulled off because people can't keep a secret.

See history, world. First, the conspiracy would not have to include many -- just a few at the top. Everyone else would be following orders and doing their jobs and wouldn't have enough information to prove anything. Second, how hard is it for the most discreet military and intelligence agents in the world to keep a secret? This same guy would have no problem believing that mobsters can keep secrets about their crimes. They take an omerta and must maintain secrecy under the threat of death. What's the big difference between this and how the CIA and military intelligence organizations are known to operate?

[Jazz2006]

24. Why do DU CTers appear to be so uniformly humourless?

Come on ~ surely, they can't all be. And surely, they don't sign a blood pact or something similar in which they vow to refrain from any and all laughter that touches even remotely upon their pet subjects forever and ever.

Or is it (more likely) that most of them DO have a sense of humour (which would explain why only the core few feign "offence" to a cartoon or joke on these threads and the rest say nothing)?

Is it that most just don't want to admit that they find a joke funny for fear that it will somehow detract from their intractable positions?

Here's a hint: it won't!

In that vein, here's another cartoon. I think it's funny ~ anyone else?

[Bolo Boffin]

25. You are wicked.

:rofl:

For one thing, that birdhouse fell over away from the pole. When al-Qaeda knocks buildings down, they fall into their footprints.

[Jazz2006]

26. Well, damn

I hadn't thought of that ~ ~ ~ I was trying to genuinely reach out to our CTer friends to show that those of us on the other side of the fence can actually find humour in cartoons on both sides of the great divide.

But now that you mention it....

:rofl:

On edit: those squiggly marks COULD be "footprints", you know. (If you slow the still picture down to 1/1000 speed, enlarge it to 1000 times its size so that it blurs really well.... well, you get the idea)

[mrgerbik]

28. I thought the OP link was funny - same with your post n/t

[Jazz2006]

33. Whew ~ finally :)

I was beginning to think that the humerus was being surreptitiously amputated from the bodies of CTers once the conspiracy theories began.... thanks for your post.

(and yes, that was tongue in cheek, too) - just in case casual readers need that explanation)

The way I see it, despite our differences in opinion, neither our humour nor our humerus should suffer for it.


In other words, cartoons can be funny whether they espouse one view or the other, and one does not have to feign indignance at a cartoon merely because it goes against one's primary view.

:toast:

[petgoat]

30. My sense of humor is just fine. For personal reasons I don't find

9/11 to be a laughing matter. I am frustrated by the obstructions placed in our
pursuit of the truth, and ridicule of our attempts to investigate do not amuse me.

[greyl]

34. Would you like to be known as someone who takes 9/11 seriously? nt

[petgoat]

35. I don't really care what I'm known as. I want the truth, I want a

new investigation with subpoena power.

[greyl]

39. So how is complaining about this thread achieving your aim?

When did you file your last FOIA request? When did the total asshole Dylan Avery ever file a FOIA request?
Websites that you ridicule are posting the results of their requests. ( www.911myths.com )
You whine about comedy that you don't get, while supporting rabbit cage science.

Incredible.

edit: added link.

[Jazz2006]

43. I have it on good authority that

no bunnies were killed in the making of the cartoon I posted.

A couple of squirrels had to relocate, but they weren't killed either!

:P

[mhatrw]

83. No members of the audience were killed, either.

[petgoat]

51. When did you file your last FOIA request?

I see no reason to think the government would give me the real documents.
I don't do FOIA requests.

I get the dumb jokes just fine. Like I said, I have personal reasons for
not regarding 9/11 truth as appropriate fodder for unintelligent jocularity.

[greyl]

55. LOL, I champion more than one site who submitts FOIA requests,

you've ridiculed both of them(one for sure anyway) while providing zero evidence that they should be discounted, you defend "Scientists" just because they agree with you...

I prefer intelligent jokes to stupid ones, but yes, I'm laughing right now.

Adios.

[petgoat]

66. The issue was the utility of FOIA requests. Your response is

circular in its reasoning.

I defend scientists when their findings are scientific.

[greyl]

86. No, the search for truth and humor were. nt

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

41. It's spooky. nt

[Jazz2006]

42. Lol

Oh yes, I almost forgot about all of those "CIA" spooks hanging out at ground zero "spooking" the crap out of the professional rescuers.

Nothing to do with "spooky" creaking and "spooky" noises and "spooky" bulges and "spooky" smoke, and "spooky" fires and such that would frighten seasoned firefighters and cause them to retreat from such "spooky" environments, right?


:rofl:

[petgoat]

44. That you had smoke apparently pouring out of every window

on the south side, but the fires were barely visible on the e, w, and n sides seems pretty
spooky to me.

Also "spooky" was the presence of the CIA offices were on the 25th floor of WTC7.

According to Capt. Boyle, Butch Brandies reported the building was creaking and nobody should
go in there.

The fact is, the firefighters did retreat from the environment. According to reports,
sending men into the building was not prudent.

Given the presence of secret government offices and supposed unconventional security systems,
a certain amount of caution was justified on that score too.

Then you have the fact that many FDNY personel believed there had been bombs in the towers.
They therefore might reasonably suspect bombs in WTC7 too. If they found that there were
fires scattered throughout the building with no apparent cause other than arson, under the
circumstances that would be spooky.

[Jazz2006]

46. Well, that's a bit OT but what do you make of this: spooky or not spooky?

[petgoat]

50. It depends on the context. nt

[Jazz2006]

52. ROTFLMAO ~ in other words... no sense of humour. Got it. nt

[greyl]

53. Were fires visible on all 8 sides of WTC1 and 2?

Is it spooky that the most damage and fires witnessed and photographed of WTC7 was on the south side when you consider that debris from the plane impact with WTC2 could have impacted the south side of WTC7?



Not to mention the fact that WTC1 & 2 were on the south side of WTC7.
What doesn't fit what was to be expected?

[petgoat]

65. There was smoke apparently pouring out of every window.

Ever see a fire like that when it didn't show on the other sides of the building?

[greyl]

76. I don't think you responded to my post. nt

[mirandapriestly]

54. They probably think Dennis Miller is funny, too.

It's the same thing. Dishonesty can't be funny and that "cartoon" is trying to manipulate/deceive, so it's only funny to others who are doing the same.

[greyl]

56. "I have you guys lumped as "the opposition""

How quickly we can forget lessons learned.

Miller isn't funny anymore.
I like Eddie Izzard, George Carlin, Mitch Hedberg, Robin Williams & Chris Porter, just off the top of my head.

edit: Plus, your post is a "big fat hairy red herring".

[mirandapriestly]

59. Here, this is funny

(no, it was an example of something that is not funny not a red herring, keep trying...)


This lady is a typical OCT, look at her hairdo and the way she acts...Now THAT is funny...
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/07/val-mcclatchey-photo-more-smoking-guns.html



Notice her choice of words (combined with the overall hillbilliness, hahahaha!)
"but then become very hostile and defensive when they started showing her evidence that Flight 93 couldn't have crashed there. Then they said she became absolutely "livid" when they tried to show her that the mushroom cloud in her photo looked more like it came from an ordnance blast rather than from a plane crash. They said she seemed to just want to discuss her alleged lawsuit against the AP in an apparent attempt to intimidate them and stated that she “didn’t want to be around any people who question the government.” She then jumped up and threw them out of her office, calling them “conspiracy theorists” on the way out.. Lisa told me that Val never mentioned to them that her lights and phone service were knocked out by the crash by the way.

[Make7]

61. "Dishonesty can't be funny..." - mirandapriestly ( n/t )

[mirandapriestly]

68. Perfect example! Your post

isn't funny either!

[Make7]

69. You did not say that in Post #54? ( n/t )

[Lilith Velkor]

70. Dishonesty can be hilarious

I'm finding it true in this case.

[mirandapriestly]

75. These Octs have no sense of humor.nt

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

82. Well, I think your posts are a laugh riot.

[leftofthedial]

84. his "point" is a logical fallacy

[Bolo Boffin]

87. indulged in by the CTers... Your point is? n/t