The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Mar 1st 2008, 11:15 am
#106
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,553
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Let me guess - you've just accepted the list of names and titles of the people involved in the physics911 site at face value without bothering to check if they're for real or not? It would certainly tally with pretty much everything else you've said in this thread.
Despite previously professing ignorance about what actually happened on the day, you were insistent that the idea of debris and body parts being blown outwards from the towers was fabrication, even though the collection of said parts is a material fact and was widely reported in the media at the time. Many people whose apartments were largely undamaged weren't actually allowed to return home until the forensic teams had been and removed the items from their balconies, and in some cases that took weeks.
It actually happened, is the point I'm trying to make here.
Why the emphasis on "solitary"? As I previously made clear, I was just picking on a single example, to demonstrate how they are required to use omission and distortion in order to try and make their argument stand up.
Surely it doesn't require a massive mental leap to concede that if just that one page is full of bad science and misrepresentation, there could well be a few - shall I say - terminological inexactitudes to be found elsewhere in the site? And yet you seem rather upset at the suggestion that this could be the case.
Hmmm. You seemed quite happy to discuss the supposed "suspicious" nature of the collapses. You only started getting unhappy with the direction the thread was taking when I started pointing out that you, and the physics911 site, might be rather wrong about one or two things
Despite previously professing ignorance about what actually happened on the day, you were insistent that the idea of debris and body parts being blown outwards from the towers was fabrication, even though the collection of said parts is a material fact and was widely reported in the media at the time. Many people whose apartments were largely undamaged weren't actually allowed to return home until the forensic teams had been and removed the items from their balconies, and in some cases that took weeks.
It actually happened, is the point I'm trying to make here.
Why the emphasis on "solitary"? As I previously made clear, I was just picking on a single example, to demonstrate how they are required to use omission and distortion in order to try and make their argument stand up.
Surely it doesn't require a massive mental leap to concede that if just that one page is full of bad science and misrepresentation, there could well be a few - shall I say - terminological inexactitudes to be found elsewhere in the site? And yet you seem rather upset at the suggestion that this could be the case.
Hmmm. You seemed quite happy to discuss the supposed "suspicious" nature of the collapses. You only started getting unhappy with the direction the thread was taking when I started pointing out that you, and the physics911 site, might be rather wrong about one or two things
Like I said - forget it. Read my post to SYB, which was very conciliatory to your argument.
The steel didn't "weaken" - it melted.
The towers did not collapse 'with one floor falling on top of another' - all floors appear to be collapsing simultaneously.
That website raises questions about that. They are legitimate.
As I am getting tired of telling you, I do not know the answer.
You have not convinced me - but nor has that website.
By the way - what do you think of the people chatting idly in that photo?
Mar 1st 2008, 12:21 pm
#107
Soupy twist
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,271
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Not at all - go and do some research. That's what I did when the conspiracy rumours first started gaining currency. Don't just be spoonfed bad science from a website that has to omit important matters of fact in order to make its arguments stand up.
Yes, I appreciate that the conspiracy theories are far more attractive than mundane reality, but when it comes to something like this, I think facts are more important than fiction.
You mean you haven't bothered to find out?
Conciliatory in your signature Deany way, naturally
And from where did you get that nugget of information? You seem very certain of it, so must be from a cast-iron (sic) source.
The operative word being "appear".
Only if you're willing to accept arguments that begin from faulty first premises. And Physics911 is full of them.
If you've realised that Physics911 is full of major factual errors, then some good has been done here 
To me, they look just like many people would in that situation - detached observers. They'd had nearly two hours for the initial slack-jawed stop-and-stare shock to have passed. However, as the photographer himself states, it's the apparent ambiguity that gives the image its power.
Yes, I appreciate that the conspiracy theories are far more attractive than mundane reality, but when it comes to something like this, I think facts are more important than fiction.
Are those names made up then?
Like I said - forget it. Read my post to SYB, which was very conciliatory to your argument
The steel didn't "weaken" - it melted
The towers did not collapse 'with one floor falling on top of another' - all floors appear to be collapsing simultaneously
That website raises questions about that. They are legitimate
You have not convinced me - but nor has that website
By the way - what do you think of the people chatting idly in that photo?
Mar 1st 2008, 12:56 pm
#108
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: By the old canal...
Posts: 7,715
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
To be honest, I'd never been motivated to do any research into 911 conspiracy theories because it has always seemed patently ridiculous to do so. AQ admitted responsibility for the attack, there is sufficient eye witness & video evidence, air traffic records etc to demonstrate that it did, in fact, occur - so why waste mental energy on entertaining the outlandish tales of rumour mongers?
However, the briefest of web searches will get you the results of the 3 year investigation into the causes. The dismissal of the controlled demolition argument is on their FAQ page....
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
As for a picture of some apathetic young kids watching from a distance.... this is surprising, why??????
However, the briefest of web searches will get you the results of the 3 year investigation into the causes. The dismissal of the controlled demolition argument is on their FAQ page....
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
As for a picture of some apathetic young kids watching from a distance.... this is surprising, why??????
Mar 1st 2008, 1:19 pm
#109
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,553
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
To be honest, I'd never been motivated to do any research into 911 conspiracy theories because it has always seemed patently ridiculous to do so. AQ admitted responsibility for the attack, there is sufficient eye witness & video evidence, air traffic records etc to demonstrate that it did, in fact, occur - so why waste mental energy on entertaining the outlandish tales of rumour mongers?
However, the briefest of web searches will get you the results of the 3 year investigation into the causes. The dismissal of the controlled demolition argument is on their FAQ page....
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
As for a picture of some apathetic young kids watching from a distance.... this is surprising, why??????
However, the briefest of web searches will get you the results of the 3 year investigation into the causes. The dismissal of the controlled demolition argument is on their FAQ page....
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
As for a picture of some apathetic young kids watching from a distance.... this is surprising, why??????
Gareth, you're wasting your time. That site is flawed, you say. I haven't done any research into the names but the sources seemed genuine enough.
You've worn me out, and apart from the indefatigable SYB, everyone else switched off ages ago.
Now go and reply to someone else about something else. You're a Moderator - you can do that.
I'm not calling a truce - I'm admitting defeat.
And just so I remember never to argue with you again - what exactly ARE your scientific qualifications?
And finally - is "Prof Steve Jones" NOT a prof at BYU?
Mar 1st 2008, 2:13 pm
#110
Soupy twist
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,271
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Now go and reply to someone else about something else. You're a Moderator - you can do that
That signature Dean schtick - gotta love it
And just so I remember never to argue with you again - what exactly ARE your scientific qualifications?
And finally - is "Prof Steve Jones" NOT a prof at BYU?
Mar 2nd 2008, 5:56 am
#111
**** it we'll do it live
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 7,892
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
That's true. But then, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever had an commercial airliner with a full load of fuel hit it and destroy part of its load-bearing structure *before* the fire started. That's not an irrelevant point..
not commercial but the empire state building was hit a b42 bomber in the 40's. there was also a building in brazil which a 757 hit. neither collapsed
Mar 2nd 2008, 6:05 am
#112
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 3,968
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD5my_VMMog
its a controlled explosion...my theory about steven Segal is correct..
its a controlled explosion...my theory about steven Segal is correct..
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:23 pm
#113
Powered by cows
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: currently Dubai, ex UK
Posts: 4,582
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
The debate: did this picture show couldn't-care-less twenty-something New Yoikers (well, Brooklyn, actually) idly chatting about what was happening over the river...... as if it was some sort of Hollywood special effects movie........? Or are they simply earnestly discussing what was happening?
Fascinating stuff here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2149675/
Fascinating stuff here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2149675/
Surprised the photojournalist withheld it... why self censor?
Mar 2nd 2008, 12:35 pm
#114
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,434
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
reminds me of the Press Photo Of The Year:
http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/uplo..._lebanon01.jpg
Surprised the photojournalist withheld it... why self censor?
http://sabbah.biz/mt/wp-content/uplo..._lebanon01.jpg
Surprised the photojournalist withheld it... why self censor?
Mar 4th 2008, 6:45 am
#115
Forum Regular
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: v high up
Posts: 116
Re: The 9/11 photo they took FIVE years to publish......
Recently I learned that President Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself. I also discovered that Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing rights for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001 for $200 million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement right after 9-11 - yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by claiming the two hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist attacks! He stood to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment. Talk about motive.
What a brilliant thread - the physics 911 site is fascinating...when you read excerpts like the above - the conspiracy theories gain their fuel...
What a brilliant thread - the physics 911 site is fascinating...when you read excerpts like the above - the conspiracy theories gain their fuel...
