Printable View
Never seen anything from my scientific approach of being skeptical until proof shows otherwise. All your evidence is explainable as something else, hence, not proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
I suppose next, you will be talking about UFO's.
Parker, don't you know...
This is what happened...
The Islamic radical stole Asgard beaming technology, and planted the thermite on the new technology. That's the only way they could do it without being found out!
You don't think I've already read up on this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
That's why I don't have to read anymore.
So what exactly is the chemical makeup of the material?Quote:
you just keep reciting the same bullshit about paint, which the paper disputes on page 1. And that dude is a published scientist. and you are not.
Show us all what it actually is, and then I will believe it isn't paint and rust.
Investigate what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
And who would investigate?
The government?
An "independent" group given money by the government?
More bullshit.
Give me a believable narrative that contains everything you currently believe about 9/11.
This request goes out to everyone who doesn't believe more or less the accepted theory.
I'm waiting.
I'm sure all I will get is whining. That's all I've gotten in the past.
Danish scientists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
I wouldn't be lol'ng if I was you, those same scientists you laugh at are the ones who busted Americans trying to pass off petrified wood as a NASA moon rock.
If this country can lie about walking on the moon I am sure lying about a few buildings in NY is not a problem.
Presence of thermite for starters. If other scientists confirm the work of this Dane, then we need to answer the question as to how it got there. Thats not real hard is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
At least not as hard as it is to get anyone to address the issue.
My take: The silence in MSM is telling. I think people are scared to question the official line. Professionals and people with something to lose are scared, if you ask me.
We need to see that stigma removed so we can get some honesty, not just an intimidated silence. I think we have a lot more skeptics than we can account for in the current climate. I think people are afraid to lose careers and worse if they start to resemble looney truthers.
How about unpaid appointments going to veterans who retired from law enforcement and have a minimum of five children? Joe the Plumber maybe? Has to be someone completely outside the political process. So no Joe the Plumber. see next answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Actually, if we need it done, we need it done. Just because there isnt a ready supply of independent investigators immune to political pressure doesnt mean we just wish the questions away.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Are you afraid to debate this single issue, Chump? Are you so afraid that you need everyone to pour out their own flawed theories so you can do battle with straw foes?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I dont have a theory, I have questions. I think the first commission did a piss poor job, kicked aside credible testimony and was manipulated up and down.
lol Danish scientistsQuote:
Originally Posted by mouse
lol Dutch moon rocks
it's been a while, was the name of the Dane scientist 'Neils Harrit'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
if the building was detonated, what do you think is a reason for the bad guy(s) flying planes into the buildings?Quote:
then we need to answer the question as to how it got there. Thats not real hard is it?
yes. And I cant say. I can think of tons of scenarios, but they all amount to guessing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
It was no big secret the building was going to be attacked Larry Silverstein wanted to make sure he could cash in on it. Why fix a building you wanted to get rid of already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
You act if though America has never done this tactic before.
I thought you knew about American history?
http://newsfall.com/wp-content/uploa...arl-harbor.jpg
History of
American False Flag Operations
The leaders of smaller and less industrialised nations are not madmen (whatever the media claims). They also are generally better informed than their citizens. In a war an attacker does not need equal forces compared to the enemy. The attacker needs a 5-fold local superiority, or better. No one begins wars without very definite objectives and a quick victory in sight. If a war with more even military balance erupts, someone has been mislead and walked into a trap (usually arranged by third party).
After the American war of Independence (1776-1779), and an English challenge to that independence (1812-1814) no single nation has planned an offensive war against the USA. It is probable that a strong coalition of Anglo-French-led European nations planned to split the USA into two states through diplomatic recognition of the Confederate states possibly followed up by naval blockade embargoing the Union. At that time the British Empire was the strongest naval power, and the French the second strongest. The events led, however, into the Civil War (1860-1865) and due to the Russian intervention 1863 (1863) on the Union's side, those European plans were quietly abandoned.
Mexican wars 1819, 1846-48: Long series of operations, commencing with the annexion of Florida (1819) and followed by a declaration of independence of Texas from Mexico (1836). Provocative troop movements near the U.S. southern border caused an incident which led to war. (It is said the US built a fortification 150 km inside the Mexican border.) The annexation of Texas by the USA and the conquest of California, New Mexico, and nearby territories followed. Mexico had a weak government at that time, because after Napoleon conquered Spain (1809) their former colonies soon revolted. Mexico had been a colony of the Spanish kingdom but now they revolted and formed a republic. There were a series of revolts, not just one.
Spanish-American war, 1898: The surprise explosion of the battleship Maine at Havana, Cuba. 255 of the crew died. The Hearst press accused the Spanish, claiming that the explosion was caused by a remote-controlled mine. The USA declared war on Spain, and conquered Philippines, Guam and Cuba. Subsequent investigations revealed that the explosion originated inside the Maine and that it was either an accident, such as a coal explosion, or some type of time bomb inside the battleship. Divers investigating the shipwreck found that the armour plates of the ship were blown bending outwards, not inwards.
World War I, 1914-1918: A U-boat torpedo hit ocean liner Lusitania near Britain and some 1200 people, including 128 Americans, on board lost their lives. Subsequent investigations revealed that the major explosions were inside the Lusitania, as it was secretly transporting 6 million pounds of artillery shells and rifle ammunition, as well as other explosives on behalf of Morgan banking corporation to help their clients, the Britain and the France. It was against US laws to transport war materials and passengers in the same ship.
World War 2, 1939-1945: A U-boat torpedo hit the ocean liner Athenia near Britain with some 1100 passengers, of which 311 were Americans. The sea was calm and only 118 people on board lost their lives. The ship was sunk because it behaved like a military transport, blackened out and zigzagging. This incident wasn't enough to precipitate war, and the Germans also refused to be provoked by several American acts of war. Americans confiscated German merchant ships, and Americans started to support the British with various lend-lease items, US volunteer pilots joined the RAF and some RAF pilots were trained in the US, US gave the British 50 old but usable WW1 destroyers and 20 modern torpedo boats, tanks, light bombers, fighter aircraft like P-40s and so on. American destroyers also escorted the convoys bound to Britain, and attacked German U-boats even far away from those convoys. The US did not maintain a neutral stance attitude towards the warring nations.
The US naval intelligence, chief of Japan desk planned and suggested "8 insults", which should bring Japan into war with the US. President Roosevelt executed this plan immediately and also added some other insults, enraging the Japan. The most serious one was a total blockade of Japanese oil imports, as agreed between the Americans, British and the Dutch. FDR also declared an all-out embargo against the Japan and forbade them the use of Panama canal, impeding Japan's access to Venezuelan oil.
The Flying Tigers volunteer air group successfully fighting the Japanese in China with some 90 fairly modern P-40Bs was another effective provocation that is not generally acknowledged by historical accounts of World War 2, most of which fail to mention any air combat action prior to 7th December 1941. But at that time the Japanese had already had lost about 100 military aircraft, mostly bombers, to the Tigers. After Pearl Harbor these squadrons were some of the the hardest-hitting ones in the US service.
The attack on Pearl Harbour followed some 6 months later. Having broken the Japanese encryption codes, the Americans knew what was going to happen, when and where, but the president did not dispatch this information to Pearl Harbor. Americans even gave their friends the British 3 Magic decrypting machines which automatically opened encrypted Japanese military traffic. But this same information was not available to the commanders of Hawaii. The movement of the fleet was also visible in the very effective radio direction finding network. Japan had an alliance with Germany, and the Germans upheld their promises by declaring the war against the USA right after the Japanese declaration.
Two scapegoats, the navy commander Admiral Husband Kimmel, and the army commander Lt. General Walter Short were found incompetent and demoted as they were allowed to retire. Short died 1949 and Kimmel 1958. In 1995, the US Congress re-examined this decision and endorsed it. Then in 2000 some archive information came to light and the US Senate passed a resolution stating that both had served in Hawaii "competently and professionally". In 1941 they were denied vital information, and even on presidential orders purposefully mislead into believing that the Japanese feet could be expected from the southwest. These commanders have yet to be rehabilited by the Pentagon.
Korean War, 1950-1953: South Korean incursions (the Tiger regiment etc.) into North Korea (1949) led to contrary claims and into war. The cause of this war propably was covert action involving leaders of Taiwan, South Korea and the US military-industrial complex (John Foster Dulles has been mentioned as an organizer of the hostilities.) After the unpublished hostilities in 1949, the communist powers were strongly backing North Korea.
Chiang Kai Sek was being abandoned, isolated and falling prey to the powerful communist Chinese operations. The right-wing South Korean ruler was expected to loose the soon-to-be-elections. The American military-industrial complex went into high gear again, and huge government orders for equipment were flowing in.
The American-led UN forces had difficult times early in the war, but after sufficient forces arrived they advanced victoriously and penetrated deep into the North Korea. The strong Chino-Russian intervention into the war once again turned the tides, the Chinese with vast armies on ground, and the Soviets less visibly with large numbers of aircraft, nearly costing the UN forces the war.
Finally the front stabilised along the original 38th parallel armistice line. The war resulted in the death of 3 million Korean Chinese and the destruction of virtually all of the Korean cities, and left Taiwan in strong American protection and South Korea firmly in the hands of the right-wing president Syngman Rhee. Some 55,000 Americans lost their lives.
Vietnam War: "The Tonkin incident", where American destroyer Maddox was supposedly attacked twice by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. What was happening at the time were aggressive South Vietnamese raids against the North in the same general area. Huge American presence wasn't decisive and President Nixon negotiated a "peace with honour" in 1973. This war was lost, when North Vietnam finally conquered South Vietnam in 1975.
Grenada invasion: The Grenadian leader, Maurice Bishop, favouring the left and having invited Cubans to help build the infrastructure including by extending the airport to accomodate long range Soviet aircraft, was deposed and executed in October 19, 1983. Six days later the US invaded, with the proffered reason that the American medical students studying in the Grenada were in danger due the Cuban presence. The new leader supported by the US favoured more traditional values and the right.
War on Drugs: The war was launched by Richard M Nixon sometime around June 17,1971. The drug problem was found bad within the army in Viet Nam around 1968 prompting action was required towards the end of the war. Nowadays it is estimated that the military will never win the War on Drugs. The street prices of illicit drugs did not change significantly in the USA despite the military action in foreign drug-producing countries. The Colombian experience, with local military supported by the US, has shown that peace is more important than war against drugs. The Colombians have successfully negotiated some 1000s of guerrilla fighters back into the society and out of jungle.
This "war" actually seems to be a pretext for military invasions into less developed countries, where covert "bad" drug lords on behalf of western intelligence services are producing drugs into US and first world markets. This operation produces huge incomes, generating black budget money for those intelligence services managing the global drug operations.
Panama invasion: The incident between American and Panamanian troops led to invasion. The leader Noriega was changed and the earlier Carter administration plan to hand control of the canal over to Panama was cancelled. The strategic importance of the canal has surpassed any more just thinking in the US global domination policy.
US-Israeli sponsored war between Iraq and Iran, 1980-1988: The US has built power bases in the Middle East in Iran starting with the CIA-organised coup 1953, where Iranian prime minister Mossadeq was replaced with the Shah of Iran Reza Pahlavi and he by his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran was equipped with the best western military equipment, including the American F-14 fighters with Phoenix missiles and the British Chieftain MBTs. Unfortunately there was in 1979 a coup of ayatollah Khomeini replacing the Shah and founding an Islamite nation.
After this, the US warmed up relations with their good Iraqi friend Saddam Hussein, and started to build a nation capable of challenging the Iran. Iraq acquired large numbers of effective weapons including factories able to produce older versions of gas warfare agents. These would later be called WMDs, which of course they were not, being the WW1-vintage weapons.
The war broke out and was fought to exhaustion because third-party powers, especially Israel, were carefully monitoring the power balance supplying more weapons to the side which seemed to be loosing. "Too bad they both cannot loose" is how Kissinger evaluated this situation.
Desert Storm (First Gulf war), 1991): Hussein asked for permission from the US (via their ambassador April Gillespie) and got an answer that the US does not care Arab quarrels. That was a trap, and after Saddam occupied Kuwait, George Bush Sr. mobilised a coalition of some 40 nations to "liberate Kuwait" and to smash the recently-built Iraqi military power base. This also involved a media hoax, where the daughter of Kuwaiti US ambassador played nurse on TV and testified to "witnessing" Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait.
War on Terror: The war was launched by Bush administration October 2001. The war was claimed to be the response on terrorism, especially the 9-11 incidents. Most of the people in the world today know that these reasons are false and that those events were based on MIH type (make it happen) inside job.
Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan invasion), 7.10.2001-: Without any evidence, the former CIA-asset, a Saudi-Arabian Osama bin Laden was claimed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 strikes at the WTC and the Pentagon. Such a complex operation, if actually executed which it was not, in this case would be much beyond the capabilities of anything in Afghanistan. Only some top ten intelligence services in the world could hope to be successful in such an operation involving forgery, infiltration, living "underground" in a foreign non-Muslim country, coordination of moves, illegal arms, hi-quality flight training, accurate aircraft navigation in no-visibility conditions and so on. Perhaps even less, because the friends of the US (at that time, still most of the world) would also have been interested in stopping the attack.
Enduring Justice (Second Gulf war), 20.3.2003-: later known with less irony as Operation Iraqi Freedom The claimed reason of the attack was that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US with wmd's available within less than an hour after the decision to assemble them has been made. Since no wmd's were found, and after the Iraqi also scrapped some 800 long range Scud style missiles before the US coalition attack, the reason for the invasion was changed into "bringing the democracy into Iraq".
References
Why the Pearl Harbor took place
Robert B. Stinnett: Day of Deceit: the Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, 2000
Mark Emerson Wiley: Pearl Harbour - mother of all conspiracies
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
Cordell Hull's Ultimatum to Japan
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/hullno26.html
What the US usually knew in advance (books)
Fredrick W. Winterbotham: The Ultra secret, 1974
Bradley F. Smith: The Ultra-Magic Deals, 1992
F.H.Hinsley: British Intelligence in the WW2 (4 large volumes), 1988
How to create innocent-looking wars
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/
How wars are made
http://tacklingthetoughtopics.net/default.htm
Especially these items: World War 1, World War 2, Korean War, The Vietnam War
How to create distant future wars
The Best Enemy Money Can Buy by Antony C. Sutton
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution by Antony C. Sutton
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony C. Sutton
The out-of-print book: From Major Jordan's Diaries (Google this item)
Why haven't they conclusively found the actual chemical makeup of the material and duplicated the experiment several times using independent labs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
That's not real hard, is it?
Address a bunch of made-up crap by a bunch of loons?Quote:
At least not as hard as it is to get anyone to address the issue.
If there is nothing at all to say, would you expect anything other than silence?Quote:
My take: The silence in MSM is telling. I think people are scared to question the official line. Professionals and people with something to lose are scared, if you ask me.
The stigma is there for a reason. These douchebags are now collectively the boy who cried nanothermite, where before they were collectively the boy who cried wing pods and drone planes and cruise missiles and planted explosives and directed energy weapons, etc.Quote:
We need to see that stigma removed so we can get some honesty, not just an intimidated silence. I think we have a lot more skeptics than we can account for in the current climate. I think people are afraid to lose careers and worse if they start to resemble looney truthers.
Forgive our skepticism, but these people have been full of shit for the better part of a decade. They have been retreating from each stupid position they have taken once it is smashed upon the rocks of simple common sense and cursory logical reasoning. It's not a stretch to conclude that this latest (for you) conspiracy theory is constructed wholly from the confirmation bias of the "scientists" who have been convinced from the beginning that the US government was complicit in or caused the 9/11 attacks.
They have outright lied in pursuit of their cause in the past, and they are not above lying again.
What the fuck does that even mean?Quote:
How about unpaid appointments going to veterans who retired from law enforcement and have a minimum of five children? Joe the Plumber maybe? Has to be someone completely outside the political process. So no Joe the Plumber. see next answer.
Were you being serious?
So you just aren't going to answer the question?Quote:
Actually, if we need it done, we need it done. Just because there isnt a ready supply of independent investigators immune to political pressure doesnt mean we just wish the questions away.
OK.
The single issue here is you think something happened different than the accepted theory.Quote:
Are you afraid to debate this single issue, Chump? Are you so afraid that you need everyone to pour out their own flawed theories so you can do battle with straw foes?
Just tell us what it is.
Give us something to believe -- you obviously believe something else happened. Make your theory fit what was observed.
Then why the fuck are you trying to convince anyone of anything?Quote:
I dont have a theory.
Get back to me when one of you loons has an actual working theory that fits the observed events of 9/11. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone's time.
If you are going to whine that that's too difficult for you, tough shit. I don't care. I know way more about 9/11 than any normal person should know because a bunch of idiots said "Well what about [insert single issue here]?" They all turned out to be a bunch of fucking weaklings who, once their pet issue was debunked, just posted another YouTube and declared that to be the new smoking gun. I'm fucking sick of it.
I asked you the simple question of how the conspirators could get the nanothermite in the exact locations of the plane impacts. You conveniently ignored it, which is understandable -- but that's the kind of blind spot I expect from conspiracy theorists who have no theory like you. This doesn't even pass the smell test, but our own confirmation bias forces you to believe it.
You are a fool.
Parker unites disparate elements of the board against him. It's sort of like a minor superpower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
(I can't remember the last time the withering scorn of ChumpDumper was expressed in full paragraphs here. Brutal.)
This paper has been through valid peer review (its been refereed) and its out there for criticism. Sounds like the ball is in the anti-truthers' court.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
So I was right...you just wanted to vent on already-debunked straw. Get it all out I guess. When you want to address this scientific finding, go for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
And the shit about the stigma being earned is a flat out lie. Stigma was present from day 1. Get honest Chump.
somehow superthermite was found. Its realfugginsimple.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I am trying to get intelligent feedback on thermite. Teysha gave some. Ill be happy with that I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
What are their names? I'd like to see some of the things they think as well. Surely they have nothing to hide, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
This has already been debunked as well. You are late to the party.Quote:
So I was right...you just wanted to vent on already-debunked straw. Get it all out I guess. When you want to address this scientific finding, go for it.
OK, I agree that truthers had the stigma of being lying loons from day one of their conspiracy making.Quote:
And the shit about the stigma being earned is a flat out lie. Stigma was present from day 1. Get honest Chump.
So what was the actual chemical makeup of the thermetic material? It's a realfugginsimple question they failed to answer and refuse to investigate further. Many materials can have that reaction. And how did they prove it was from the actual WTC site? That should be realfugginsimple as well.Quote:
somehow superthermite was found. Its realfugginsimple.
And finally, what is their narrative that includes placing superdupernanonachograndethermite in the exact impact points of the twin towers and how did they survive the impacts and the resulting fires. Don't think we didn't notice you conveniently ignored that realfugginsimple question again. This is what "truthers" do -- they lie whenever a pet theory starts to unravel.
I am trying to get an intelligent answer about how the the thermite was attached to the building at the exact points of impact and how it survived the impacts, explosions and fires.Quote:
I am trying to get intelligent feedback on thermite. Teysha gave some. Ill be happy with that I guess.
I'll be happy if any "truther" stops ignoring this realfugginsimple question.
the info about how the thermite may have been placed on those levels
(cuz we just dont-fuggin-know if it was, cuz the official version never-fuggin-considered thermite at all (NEVER TESTED, NEVER ADDRESSED, NEVER QUESTIONED BY) (EVEN THOUGH NIST HAS EXPERTS ON THE TOPIC WORKING FOR THEM, WHO KNEW IT WAS A POSSIBILITY, AND KNEW HOW TO RULE IT OUT VERY EASILY)...is in the vids.
I notice you just edited out your promise to dig it up for us. Did you have trouble finding it?
Stop parrotting your anti-truther blog sources long enough to teach yourself something about peer review process, and you'll realize your source and you are ignorant....Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
In many fields of study, single-blinding is the normative practice; however, in others, such as information systems, it is almost unheard of, and double-blinding is the norm. While the anonymity of reviewers is almost universally preserved, open peer review is a relatively novel exception to this principle, where reviewers are revealed to the authors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_re...yles_of_review
By the same ignorant bloggers noted above? Which you ignorantly parroted? :lol Check yoursources Chump.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Ive answered that. The artical answers that. The scientists answer that. Sounds like you are unaware of the substance of the theory. That you claim is completely without merit. You sound biased. Along with ignorant. :toastQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
While I admit I found this funny, your misuse of the terminology again makes you sound ignorant...here. Have at some knowledge. :toastQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
Nano-thermite, also called "super-thermite",[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.
There is a theory. Its in this thread. Your welcome in advance.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
However: Unlike you I am not going to mindlessly parrot the shit, to provide you with ammo. As you did for me. Thanks, btw.
Two options here:Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
1. Sounds like you have unanswered questions that were not dealt with in the official report. Sounds like you need more info. The kind that warrants further investigation.
-OR-
2. There is a theory. Its in this thread. Your welcome in advance.
Damn Parker...You really get worked up about this 9/11 Truther stuff don't you?
It doesn't even rise to the level of theory, but as TeyshaBlue pointed out upstream, you don't seem to know what a theory is.
(The word you're looking for is probably "hypothesis.")
Chump, one more thing.
I understand your skepticism. What I despise is your unconditional skepticism-till-my-dying-breath.
And the reason is something you need to think about.
Here it is (Im gonna break it down for you so its clear):
1. If there is any rogue component acting within our government to carry out a rogue agenda contrary to the interests of the public...
2.Then, your bias and the parallel bias in MSM (that you emulate), along with the automatic ridicule for anyone with questions about 9/11...
3. ...lends itself to an environment that would allow that component to operate without interference.
4. And that approach runs counter to justice and transparency, and organized society. When you and people like you put a price on questiong authority, you do your country a disservice.
Think about that awhile, smart guy.
Not really. I see Chump trying to bully the board without even addressing the issue at hand, and I point out whats going on. Not that hard to fathom.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Its a pretty typical occurence around these parts. If you say something that someone else finds doesnt fit in their perception of the order of things, they think its enough to sweep it aside with brute ridicule rather than logic and debate.
Chump is smarter than he shows here. He just refuses to "stoop" low enough to engage this issue (nanosupernachograndethermite :hat).
He tried that shit with me last year and I gave him a coffee enema that would have made Starbucks proud. Just call him out on his bogus claims and keep posting evidence he can't explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker2112
If that doesn't work I may come back tonight and show you how to change his online diaper and put him in his place like I do to all the Bush lovers in this forum.