911 conspiracy video - Penn & Teller

[greyl]

Warning: Not for the easily offended.

Feauturing Eric Hufschmid(Painful Questions), Jimmy Walter, and others.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=syEFbdYKl9s

edit: Runtime: 08:25

[SidDithers]

1. Kicked...

and recommended :)

Sid

Edit: well, if we could recommend posts from here, then I would have recommended this one.

[petgoat]

2. I note you don't actually endorse this movie. It's pretty dumb.

Full of straw man arguments and Fox News tricks.

It chooses geeky spokesmen for one side, and solid citizens for the other.
It uses camera distortion and probably selected footage to ridicule the geeks.

It asserts that anyone who reads one spokesman's book should be thrown down a
flight of stairs.

When Huffschmid asserts a plausible (if imaginative) theory it asks "“Did you do that
hard-hitting data research in your ass?”

It doesn't ask that question when Dan Daley of FDNY or Dr. Jodi Foster present
similarly unsupported opinions. And it doesn't challenge Glen Corbett's completely
untrue assertion that “There's no evidence that there was any type of explosive device.”
I would expect a professor from John Jay College of Criminal Justice to recognize that
eyewitness testimony about explosions and flashes of light from lower floors is evidence.

Then Dan Daley weighs in and tells us 10,000 gallons of jet fuel brought the buildings
down, but everybody knows that at least half of the jet fuel (and IMHO probably more)
burned up OUTSIDE the building. He then tells us "everything was vaporized" but fails to
explain how a simple collapse caused by localized fires could vaporize "everything".
Which it did.

The movie then makes an emotional argument, equating theorizing with masturbation and
insulting the dead.

It's silly. Maybe Penn and Teller should stick to lampooning stuff with comic potential
like fractals and string theory. Political propaganda makes for lousy art.

[greyl]

4. I think you've been lulled into a false sense of credulity

because of how polite the debunkers are in this forum.

[petgoat]

6. I resent Penn and Teller's opening premise:

They show a picture of the towers collapsing and say something like "Looking at this and
having your first thought be 'this is a hoax staged by the government' means you're an
asshole."

Well, that was anything but my first thought. In fact I didn't even consider the idea until
the 9/11 Commission Report came out and wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

Then I started looking at the evidence for myself.

[greyl]

7. You were warned in the OP.

It's clear who Penn & Teller are referring to.

[dchill]

30. "It's clear who Penn & Teller are referring to."

Indeed - everyone who disagrees with them. Like all good Republicans, Supply-side Xtians, and fascists. The video is easily as credible as Eric Hufschmid and Jimmy Walter. And President Bush, for that matter. The answers to any "question" they might pose are as pre-loaded as the pasta in one of the other cute videos on the YouTube site. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=-LtE0cfvajs&search=911%20conspiracy%20penn%20teller)

So, this represents YOUR side of the "discussion?"

[Rich Hunt]

10. There's a doctor named "Jodi Foster"?

That's strange.

[petgoat]

17. Dr. Jodi Dean. Sorry.

Dr. Jodi Dean



Jodi Foster

[mirandapriestly]

14. Sounds like typical propaganda for people who can't think for

themselves. Wonder who paid for it...

[Debunking911]

24. Wrong place

I posted this in the wrong place...

[Debunking911]

25. Talk about straw men...

I agree that these guys choose the worse conspiracy spokesmen to easily attack but there are some points to the show which are telling.

It's not lost on me that conspiracy theory sites are quick to use Glen Corbett's quote criticizing the FEMA investigation yet all of a sudden he doesn't know what hes talking about when he supports collapse by fire.

And as far as straw mans, Dan Daley never said jet fuel alone brought down the towers. They were clear on all the different combustibles which were in the towers that day. It's like saying you can't cook a steak in a grill because the lighter fluid burns to quickly while leaving out the charcoal as a factor. Pure straw man.

As for flashes, the fireman themselves realized it could be electrical explosions. The building had the mother of all building electrical systems. I would expect to see flashes with high voltage all over the place.

An acre of concrete crashing down on another acre of concrete is going to make a noise on earth. Maybe in the vacuum of space you wouldn't hear it but toward the beginning of the collapse, when one of the massive floors collapse on another; or when structural steel snaps like a twig under the massive weight it's going to make a sound. Even the bolts snapping in half will make noise. The DB of a sound like that can ONLY be described as EXPLOSION. Especially when you are being hit with a coordinated TERRORIST ATTACK.

You can see in the videos of the fireman talking about explosions moving their hand down with every "BOOM".

"BOOM" (Moves hand down)
"BOOM" (Moves hand down)
"BOOM" (Moves hand down)
"BOOM" (Moves hand down)

He is talking about the sound of the pancaking floors.

[petgoat]

26. "Dan Daley never said jet fuel alone brought down the towers. "

The Dan Daley quote (6:49 to 7:03) mentions nothing but jet fuel, but that's not the point.
The point is he said 10,000 gals of jet fuel was in the building. Most of the jet fuel burned
up outside in the fireball. NIST says the jet fuel burned off in ten minutes.

There is no evidence, except for the fact that the building collapsed, that the fire burned
hot enough to weaken the steel.

To conclude that it did is like concluding that a man who was beaten to death with a
hammer must have committed suicide.

Your high-voltage flashes are imaginative, but think about it: The electrical cabinets would have
had to have been open, and the doors facing the windows. The lower floors were undamaged, the wires
were in conduits. You're thinking about Star Trek or old submarine movies with your arcing electrics.

The news reports of official statements were of secondary explosions. You would expect responsible
people in FDNY to know to couch their reports in terms of "a loud sound, a crack, a boom that could
have been floors crashing or structure popping or an explosion." The reports were of explosions.

Assuming the 911eyewitness tape is the real thing, I have a hard time believing those thunderous
sounds detected all the way across the river (and which much preceded the collapse) are falling floors
or popping rivets.

It's like saying you can't cook a steak in a grill because the lighter fluid burns to quickly
while leaving out the charcoal as a factor.

Ah, the "burned steaks brought down the towers" straw man. Actually I'm saying you can't make a
grill suffer total progressive collapse simply by pouring lighter fluid on some scraps of particle
board, carpeting, and telephone.

[quickesst]

29. If I could add something...

My job is commercial metal stud framing and drywall installation. I'm the one who builds the walls and installs the drywall around those electrical rooms. There are at the least four (4) layers of 5/8 drywall surrounding the entire room, plus insulation, and fireproofing around the complete perimeter and interior where the walls meet the ceiling for a two hour rating. That means a fire will have to directly burn the area for two full hours before penetration. The concrete floor above serves as the fire rating for the ceiling. It really doesn't matter if the electrical room IS next to an outer wall. Unless the rooms took a direct hit, it would be hard to imagine a fire penetrating a two-hour rated wall that burned for less time than that. Also note: Electrical rooms have no windows. It would completely destroy the mandatory fire-rating. The flashes I saw were occurring well below the collapsing building. Just a point of interest from what I believe some of you refer to as a lurker. Thanks!
quickesst

Please note: I have not worked on anything near as large aa the WTC, but I would suspect that the fire-ratings for those buildings would either meet or exceed the requirements I'm used to. Thanks.

[petgoat]

31. Thanks for your informed opinion, quickesst,

and welcome to DU! :hi:

I have not worked on anything near as large as the WTC

Well don't feel like the Lone Ranger; few have.

[wildbilln864]

33. excellent points quickesst..

I have been a drywall and acoustic ceiling mechanic for years! There's no way that a kerosene fire brought those buildings down!

[Ezlivin]

3. Wait a second...Charlie Sheen is a buffoon but Penn & Teller aren't?

I have no problem with Penn & Teller coming out on the "official" side of the story, but if the best they can do is poke fun, then I don't need to listen.

I suppose people no longer sit down and go through a thorough discussion without resorting to name-calling and character assassination. All Penn & Teller would have to do is just rebut, point-by-point, the "non-official" side of the story, providing links to the evidence.

It sure would be easier if the FBI just released all the tapes it has in custody. I'm sure there's proof of something there, but it's obviously not the official story.

[greyl]

18. Eric Hufschmid &Jimmy Walter are featured in the 8 minute movie

If you're bringing up the fallacy of "appeal to authority", great!
I'd love if it if the majority of the general public were capable of evaluating all manner of claims using critical thinking skills and sound logic rather than being convinced by celebrity, authority, and baseless arguments.

[Sterling]

79. without resorting to name-calling and character assassination

Exactly, whats next, fist fights? I mean if someone was to speak to me in the tone that some here resort to that is pretty much where it would end up. It's hard to have an intelligent discussion with people who start out with an opinion to be defended and resort to ridicule as their main tactic of discussion.

[Twist_U_Up]

5. I think this one is Funnier

Celebrity Death match: Siegfried & Roy vs Penn & Teller

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fKddHi99mWI&search=911%20conspiracy%20penn%20teller

[mirandapriestly]

8. They must be hard up for money

I'm not going to waste my time, though...

[greyl]

9. It's not for sale. nt

[mirandapriestly]

12. That's not what I meant.nt

[greyl]

15. What did you mean? nt

[mirandapriestly]

16. "Someone" paid him to do it...nt

[Jazz2006]

19. Who?

Who, that is, do you think "paid him to do it"?

[rman]

20. Do you think they did it for free?

Most likely -someone- payed them, whoever it was.

[greyl]

21. rman, my comrade,

you must be aware of how much money is being made by the worst of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and their various books and videos, just as money is made from palm reading, astrology, and shitty vacuum cleaners.

In this case, however, the video linked to in the OP is no charge.

[rman]

27. you misunderstand me

I'm saying Penn & Teller got payed for making that presentation.

[greyl]

39. Oh, ok. Do you suppose that's a valid argument? nt

[Jazz2006]

22. I don't know why you're asking me that question, rman....

when I'm simply asking the person who asserted that "he" (I'm sure she meant "they") was paid who the person asserting that preposition had in mind.

Perhaps you should ask her who she thinks was paying them?

Just a thought.

[rman]

28. You asked who payed for it,

as though it'd be strange if it would have been payed for.
All i'm saying is that it would not be unusual if it would have been payed for - regardless of -who- payed for it.

[Sterling]

80. I thought it was common knowledge Penn and Teller were RW trolls

Why are we discussing them here with any type of credibility. I feel sorry for anyone who still takes these has beens seriously. Jeez.

[sabbat hunter]

100. i never knew that

i never knew they were RW trolls. so it obviously isnt common knowledge.

what should be common knowledge is that penn and teller are a couple of magicians/comedians and probably are doing this for the entertainment value. if not ours then theirs.

[greyl]

23. lol, but you've admitted that "nobody can convince you"

and that you won't watch the video.

That's fine.

[Rich Hunt]

11. I enjoyed it

The video only criticizes the people who say "the government" was behind 9-11. Is this now a tenet that one must hold in order to be a member in good standing of this board?

Hint : you don't have to think the government "did it" to think that some or many of the pieces are missing. I particularly have problems with idiots who say "the government did it" when they don't specify WHOSE government or WHICH government or WHICH agencies. The U.S. government is vast and diverse. What's more, it's traditionally the Democratic Party that has gone into the trenches to DEFEND the federal government. Extending people's "it's the government" logic - if that were the case, we ought to abolish the federal government ASAP. What a reactionary and positively CONFEDERATE attitude.

That sort of willfully stupid evasion is, in my experience, the mark of someone with something to hide.

[mirandapriestly]

13. I don't see people saying that here too often. Can you please link

to the posts that say that? I've probably said it and guess what? I'm not "willfully stupid", but someone who makes that kind of generalization probably is. The government is lying about it so I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say the government took part in it or do you think they are trying to protect "the terrorists"?.

[Rich Hunt]

58. you make such a post yourself

You refer to "the government" as a monolith. Sorry, but that is cultspeak. "The government" is not a monolithic entity - it is composed of tens of thousands of people and many, many agencies....and that is just at the federal level. Then you have the state level, the county level, the municipal level.

It's a dead giveaway, so people ought to avoid picking up that particular meme.

It would be more rational, no, to refer to specific persons and agencies - like, say "The Department of Justice", or "The Department of Defense", or, "some factions within the DoD", etc.? Just saying it's "the government" appears to me to be willfully unclear.

I don't have to refer to specific posts - you and I can both use archives and read, can't we? I mean, that's a basic skill that any grammar school kid can master.

[mirandapriestly]

67. the government is the government.

I don't need the lesson, I'm aware of all that. There are different levels of "the government" working in unison on this, that should be obvious to anybody who has been reading about it for any length of time.
A lot of people on this forum and elsewhere use the term and they certainly are no less idiots than your hero's Penn and Teller.

[mirandapriestly]

70. After my name it says "ignore" all over the place

but I know who you are because I have never put any one else on ignore before. It is really scary I know you are intentionally following me around targeting me, creepy.

[Jazz2006]

68. Rich - she likes to answer 7-10 days later to pretend she's scored a point

(long after her posts have been proven untrue on other threads)

It's sad, really.

Very, very sad.

[Grateful for Hope]

73. Seems as if

you may be taking debate into the personal attack realm. Just an FYI, as you are very, very new here.

[Jazz2006]

74. Not at all...

just an observation.

But thanks for your input.

[Grateful for Hope]

75. you are very welcome

thought it might come in handy. Guess not.

[mirandapriestly]

78. Thanks Hope

I can't read it because I use the "ignore" feature thinking that the person would leave me alone, but I guess they are still at it. If you don't want someone replying to you , you should be able to prevent them from doing so, since there seem to be no other behavioral rules on this forum. Wonder why?

[Sterling]

81. They seem to have a different standard here.

Some can make personal attacks, others can't? I wonder why that is. I don't think any of these people would talk to some one like this to their face, at least I hope not, yet I would not mind if I got the chance to confront one of them in person and see if they still wanted to insult me.

[mirandapriestly]

84. For some reason, in the 911 forum on DU

people are allowed to come in and make personal attacks on the posters. It isn't tolerated in the rest of DU. I don't get it, (or maybe I do). If you "alert" them, the post will get removed , but they will just come back and keep doing it.

[Sterling]

83. Just an FYI, as you are very, very new here.

Or just an asshole? Hey if he can do it why not me?

[Sterling]

82. I think they go beyond what you suggest.

They seem to have a distaste for people who are even willing to consider the possibility that the official story is a lie. Besides DUers have known they are douche bags for some time now.

[DemInDistress]

32. USA former CIA special ops and Israel Mossad...either or both

did 911.. ok i stand by my conviction "911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" the WTC was brought down with explosives and
"WORLD TRADE 7 IS A NASTY LOOSE END"

fire downed 3 buildings "ROTFLMFAOOOOOO"

[pauldp]

34. Great. So not only are they nerdy magicians...

They seem to be shitbag traitors too.

They keep saying "show us your evidence" to the two easiest targets around - Hufscmidt and Walters. But of course they don't discuss or show one fucking frame of 7 coming down. Nor do they discuss Bush family ties to the Bin Ladens, the ISI connection, the fake Bin Laden video or any other real evidence.

Total propaganda. Fuck them.

[greyl]

35. By "easy targets", do you mean

that Walter and Hufshmidt are clearly wrong?
Don't you agree that credibility is an important issue to any 9/11 truth movement and that the presence of the extreme/nutty "theories" harms that credibility and distracts from the real questions?

They didn't title the video "The Whole Truth About September 11", so criticizing it for not being the whole truth is a strawman argument.

[petgoat]

36. Hufschmid is not telegenic, that's all. So he's an easy target

for ridicule. Penn doesn't show him to be wrong, he just ridicules him.

Walters Penn attacks for having inherited wealth, and it seems that Penn uses speeded-up
video to make Walters look like a "bouncing in the chair" type ("Asshole!") and then
uses funny lenses to make Walters look geeky.

If Penn would debunk Hufschmid's and Walters's theories in a rational way, that would be
fine.

Note Walters has offered $100k for anyone who can prove the towers came down without explosives.

[greyl]

37. They didn't make fun of how he looks.

However, this is the third time in this thread that people who give a thumbs down to the video have said something about the appearance of Huf or Walter.

Speeded up video? No, I don't so.
Funny lenses? No again. Walter pushed his face up close to the camera and that's natural distortion.
Obviosly, Walter himself was trying to look goofy because he was mocking bush during that scene.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

40. Do they mention that he's a Holocaust denier?

I'm on dial-up so won't even attempt the video & I plan on getting the Bullshit DVD one day.

[greyl]

41. No, is he? nt

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

42. Yes.

I won't post the link because this post will be deleted, but here's a quote from an essay on his website (google should find it very easily) entitled "How do we distinguish Truth from Lies?"

"Could any government or historian possibly be so stupid that they believe they are helping the world by arresting "Holocaust Deniers"? I don't think so. 

The arrest of Holocaust deniers is an attempt to frighten people into remaining silent about the Holocaust. And the only reason for this is because the Holocaust promoters are trying to hide something; they are trying to promote a lie.

The truth about the Holocaust does not come out when people are arrested. Rather, lies about the Holocaust are promoted when people are arrested.

The truth about the Holocaust will come out when all of the photos and information is released, and when we are allowed to discuss the information.

People who question the official story of the Holocaust are not Holocaust Deniers. Rather, they are Holocaust Truth Seekers, or HoloHoax Exposers."

--

He also believes the moon landings were faked, which leads to a rather odd theory that in the same essay that Germar Rudolf is actually a "zionist" posing as a Holocaust denier because Rudolf believes the moon landings were real.

[petgoat]

44. If it's true that Hufschmid is a holocaust denier, then it just

proves the point that Penn is deliberately choosing the most vulnerable of
spokesmen for 9/11 Truth.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

46. He was the part of the original "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"

Listed as the person to go to for "resource questions" in their launch press release:

http://www.prwebdirect.com/releases/2006/1/prweb338782.htm

Fetzer & Jones obviously thought highly enough of him then (although I can't see reference to his name on their site now so perhaps he's been quietly dropped). They still link to articles by Christopher Bollyn though, so they can't be that troubled by far-right anti-semites.

[petgoat]

48. Hufschmid's book "Painful Questions" was treated very respectfully

by Dr. Griffin in "The New Pearl Harbor"

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

[petgoat]

50. Walter was trying to be funny. The video made him look silly,

and Penn decided to use it.

[Jazz2006]

38. That's dishonest, petgoat.

"Note Walters has offered $100k for anyone who can prove the towers came down without explosives."

No, he hasn't.

He has purportedly offered $100k to anyone who can disprove his own conspiracy theory and also prove a bunch of criterion that are utterly ridiculous and can and will never be proven because they all rely on parts of his ridiculous conspiracy theory to start with.

Don't even try to make that sound like a legitimate offer or challenge, petgoat. It will only hurt whatever credibility you may have around here.

Jesus.

Please tell me that you don't really believe your own post there, petgoat.

[petgoat]

45. I haven't investigated the offer. If it's not on the level, let

somebody with some credentials make the claim that it's not.

The point remains. If the fires brought down the towers, prove it. Using mathematics, and reference
to the blueprints, and steel samples.

Oh right, the steel samples were destroyed, and the blueprints are secret. A pity, isn't it?

[Debunking911]

47. They proved it...

to everyone using the NIST report. Anyone can go over the report and pass a peer reviewed paper pointing out errors. I'm talking about the final report. To date no structural or civil engineer has written a paper suggesting anything in the report is incorrect. A keep asking, if this was so blatant, why hasn't anyone passed a peer reviewed paper through a civil engineering journal proving it? None of the so called scholars for 911 truth are civil engineers. None have passed a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal.

Newton proved sometimes what people think should happen, doesn't. So what people think should have happened means nothing.

The implied "steel was destroyed by the federal government" is deceptive. It never happened. The feds had no authority to do anything with the steel. It was simple greed that caused it. The mayor of NY even moved to stop it.

[petgoat]

49. "why hasn't anyone passed a peer reviewed paper "

Because the blueprints are a secret.

To attack a government report without proof is really really really dumb.

The implied "steel was destroyed by the federal government" is deceptive.

I never said it was the feds. I think it was Giuliani. He wants to be President in 2008.

The mayor of NY even moved to stop it.

But he didn't when he could have. His rapid cleanup defied the expressed concerns and outrage
of family members, firemen, Fire Engineering magazine, and the House Science Committee.

It was simple greed that caused it.

Oh, you have the (rather frantic) answers. Whose pockets were lined?

[Rich Hunt]

89. they are like hell

the blueprints are featured prominently in the Time-Life DVD about the destruction of the Twin Towers, which, for some reason, no one bothers to bring up here nor has anyone else apparently watched.

They are stored in the archives of the architecture firm that was located near the WTC.

Jeezus.

[SidDithers]

51. But...but...but...

Dr. Jones wrote something that's gonna be in a book! That's almost like being peer reviewed.

And with evidence like this (could that trailing smoke be a blob of molten steel, thus indicating the presence of thermite?):


is it any wonder his peers have issued statements disputing his conclusions.

Sid

[petgoat]

52. Had the steel been examined properly before being shipped

off to China, there would be no need for this kind of discussion.

Under the circumstances, you have to use the evidence you have rather
than the evidence you might wish for.

[greyl]

53. There's a difference between evidence and speculation.

Do you know how many years we had a damn good idea of the temperatures on the moon before we landed there? (jeez, I honestly just remembered that you speculate that we may not have landed there). Anyway, you're transfering responsibility for your wild speculation to the bush admin's negligence and incompetence. You're blaming them for the lousy point of discussion, when in fact it's just a lousy point of discussion.

You've said the steel tested shows that the fire temps never exceeded 250°.
You've said the scientific experiments that show typical office fires exceed the temps needed to induce the WTC's collapse are irrelevant.

Confirmation bias writ large.

[Jazz2006]

54. Self delete....

wrong thread.

[petgoat]

56. "Confirmation bias writ large."

Au contraire, Monsieur Q.E.D.

You're the one who starts with the assumption that 9/11 skeptics are loony conspiracy
theorists whose arguments must therefore be irrational.

I've said that NIST's methodology in heating up model floor trusses with 3.4 MW burners
are of questionable validity.

Your objections that scientific standards of proof are not provided does not apply to a situation
where the evidence is not available because it is either 1) secret or 2) destroyed.

Also, if scientific proof were required in criminal cases you'd never see a conviction--and we're
operating at the grand jury level here--not claiming conviction, trying to determine if there's
probable cause to support an investigation.

You are assuming that I have come to a conclusion about the facts. The only conclusions I
have come to are that the destruction of evidence looks suspicious and we need a new
investigation.

[greyl]

59. 4 slices of baloney and avoidance.

"You're the one who starts with the assumption that 9/11 skeptics are loony conspiracy
theorists whose arguments must therefore be irrational."

Wrong, as I've stated before.

"Your objections that scientific standards of proof are not provided does not apply to a situation
where the evidence is not available because it is either 1) secret or 2) destroyed."

That doesn't make sense, but I think it's related to knowing the temperature of the Moon without having to sample a piece of it. Oh, and that you speculate that we didn't land on the Moon even though there is empirical and logical evidence.

"Also, if scientific proof were required in criminal cases you'd never see a conviction"

Sounds like you have a very low opinion of science. Your problem, not mine.

"You are assuming that I have come to a conclusion about the facts."

No, I presume that the direction of your speculation does not depend on an unbiased consideration of the facts.

[petgoat]

61. Speculation is speculation and there's no need to hinder it by

worries about bias.

What is needed is a clear distinction between what is proven or indicated by the facts, and
what is sheer speculation.

No reasonable person can assume that the moon landings were not faked. If we have the technology
to put a man on the moon, we have the technology to fake it. That's just a fact. With that caveat,
I tend to believe we put a man on the moon.

you have a very low opinion of science

Au contraire, I have a very high opinion of science. I have a low opinion of criminal trials.
The FBI forensics lab was shown several years ago to be faking evidence. The Governor of Illinois
commuted all the death sentences because the convictions were so hinky.

[pauldp]

43. I mean it is easy to make them look bad.

They don't go into the evidence at all. They picked two people
who look odd to begin with and did a character hit piece. It is obvious they were trying to discredit the whole movement with name calling -"asshole!" Totally transparent and ridiculous.

[Jazz2006]

55. Agreed.... it's very easy to make them look bad..

I suspect that's why they parodied those particular conspiracy theory nutcases in this way... to illustrate the crappy and ridiculous theories espoused by conspiracy theorists ... many of whom seem to buy into the ridiculous theories espoused by those very nutcases in the first place.

See post #1 and following for clarification as required :)

For the record, I thought the P&T video was entertaining but not compelling or persuasive in the sense that it should or would have made viewers experience an epiphany .... which of course was not its intent. I saw it as a spoof on the crap conspiracy theory videos like "In Plane Sight", "Loose Change", etal, nothing more than that.

And in that context, as a parody of the conpiracy theory videos, it was excellent and funny as hell.

[petgoat]

57. Serious 9/11 reserachers are more critical than you are of

"Plane Site" and "Loose Change" because they have a command of the
perttinent facts and data.

[greyl]

60. non sequiturs, red herring and ad hominem.

Thanks for bumping this thread.

[petgoat]

62. Labels are not arguments. Your posts are of little value and

suggest that you not only lack time to research the issues, but you lack time to
formulate your posts as well. I've grown reluctant to respond to them because
doing so only clutters up the thread.

[greyl]

63. Non sequiturs, red herring and ad hominems (edit)

aren't arguments. They are logical fallacies.

You've grown reluctant to respond to my posts because doing so clutters up the thread?
I think I agree with you.

edit: I suppose you didn't want to add clutter to this other thread by responding to my researched and formulated' post, eh? : South Tower 15 Degree (that's a rhetorical question , no need to answer it.)

[Jazz2006]

64. Indeed.

I, too, agree that his/her red herrings, non sequiturs and ad hominem responses clutter up the thread.

[politrix]

65. Penn & Teller Suck. They Always Have Sucked

For no particular reason, just pure suckiness.

NOW, they want to be authorities on 911?!?

I'd have more respect for Pee Wee Herman's take on it. Penn and Teller are traitors and it's scary to think anyone takes them seriously.

Elmo or Barney would get more respect from me.

[mirandapriestly]

66. How pathetic to only have "Penn & Teller" as spokesmen.nt

[Jazz2006]

69. Much more pathetic to wait more than a week to respond so that you

can pretend you were actually responding in a meaningful fashion in hopes that the uninitiated might not recognize your usual nonsense for what it is.

Now, THAT is pathetic.

Sad, sad, sad, that.

[canetoad]

71. Hehe

Now THATS'S what I call a convoluted answer.

[Jazz2006]

72. Ummm, okay. I don't know what you mean by "THATS'S" and can only assume

that you're spouting off without thinking, much like most propagandists do, since you have said nothing of substance and have only delivered a cut and paste boasting poor spelling and grammar so far. You've done the same kneejerk response on other conspiracy threads before, IIRC, though, so whatever your agenda, knock yourself. It means nothing to me, really.

On the actual topic.... what is this "THATS'S" you allege? Is that supposed to mean something? If so, please elucidate if you can.

To make a long story short, because that's how things are in the 21st century, after all, the question remains: Was there some kind of point you were trying to make or were you just posting a non sequitur in quasi support of some undeclared position without giving it a second thought?

Do tell.

[politrix]

76. I Guess We Can See WHO IS On The Payroll

Trying to hard. Somebody has an agenda.

Will I get in trouble if I 'out' a spy?

[Jazz2006]

77. Holy paranoia, Batman.

"Outing" a "spy" on "The Payroll"?

Sounds like you need a stronger tinfoil hat than the one you're currently wearing. Here you go:

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Sterling]

86. Read the DU rules sometime.

Get back with us when you know why your last post is a waste of all our time.

[Sterling]

85. Some people have lives.

9-11 threads have a long shelf life here. I have not posted in months. Honestly I don't have the time because I am not a shut in or loser with no life who spends time hassling others over something I can't be bothered to actually learn about. I am also too busy to watch Penn and Teller with all the better things to do with ones time you know. To each their own I guess.

Really now, Penn and Teller? I agree Pee Wee Herman is a better spokesperson.

If you expect all of us to anxiously await your every scribble and reply in a timely fashion you have a serious overblown sense of your importance to this board.

[greyl]

87. So, according to you, you're ignorant of this thread's subject.

WoweewoweeWOW. This thread needed more cowbell, thanks. :)

[ConspiracyTheorist]

88. Case closed, thanks magicians! ;)

[Rich Hunt]

90. actually those "magicians"

....know quite a bit about science.

But "Bullshit" is a thirty minute entertainment show.

Put it in context.

Not only that, but the real terrorists are a bunch of emotionally nervous nellies and they DO respond to this sort of ridicule and satire and that's how we know who they are.....

...because they are (rather foolishly) ALL OVER the net.

Say, does anyone remember Oklahoma City? Oh I guess not.

[petgoat]

91. "does anyone remember Oklahoma City?"

Yes, a lot of people remember Oklahoma City. Former Oklahoma State Representative
Charles Key is still investigating the bombing.

http://okcbombing.org/about_us.htm

He spoke last summer at the DC Truth Emergency Convergence.

Here's an eight minute Quicktime movie of his talk:

http://www.truthemergency.us/movies/CharlesKeyLafPark.mov

Chris Emory of the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation Committee
will be appearing at the 9/11 conference in Chicago June 2-4.

http://www.911truth.org/ChicagoConference.htm

[greyl]

94. That wasn't terrorism. It was simple revenge. nt

[petgoat]

95. I doubt you've investigated the issue sufficiently to reach strong

conclusions.

I haven't investigated the issue, but I have learned a few disturbing things.

At the time, television news reported the recovery of several unexploded bombs
in the building--which took the whole project well out of the realm of McVeigh
and Nichols.

Are you aware that Nichols visited a small town in the Philippines that al Qaeda
was known to frequent, and thus may have learned to build bombs there from the
same people who did the WTC 1993 attack?

The OK City incident was used as an excuse to crack down on the militia movement.

And another nagging epistemological issue: when execution is by lethal injection,
how do you know the guy is really dead? At least with a guillotine, you know.

[greyl]

97. Hah?

You say you "haven't investigated the issue", yet you throw a few wet noodles at the wall that I'm supposed to be intrigued by?
So what's new?

[petgoat]

98. You're the one who makes premature dispositive conclusions.

My purpose was to suggest that your complacent certainty is unjustified.

[greyl]

99. And your conspiracy theory IS justified?

As always, that's debatable.

[petgoat]

101. There you go again, leaping to conclusions. I presented no

theory whatsoever, let alone any conspiracy theory.

I alluded to certain reports I've read. I suggested that your apparent belief that you
had the answers about the motives and the perpetrators of the OK City incident might not
be justified.

[greyl]

102. That was based on reports I've read. nt

[petgoat]

104. You've read reports saying I advanced a conspiracy theory

about the OK City bombings?

My, what an interesting world you must live in!

[ConspiracyTheorist]

92. Then they might want to check this out

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12352.htm
http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=9962

[mirandapriestly]

93. Thanks, I watched half of jones

will watch the rest later. some notes:
Law of entropy- buildings tend to topple, a building that collapses as the result of ,say, an earthquake will topple.
Professor Barnett(?) - steel members appear to actually have evaporated, no way was it that hot. Not just did fire have to be 650, but the STEEL had to reach that temp and even if the strength of the steel was halved it still would support the building.
free fall for wtc7 would be 6.0 sec, and the collapse times was 6.2 secs. Commission didn't even mention 7-suspicious, he thinks. Fema used the word "implosions" which is curious, they said fires, but implosions, an implosion is usually something that means the core has been collapsed to bring the building straight down (not sure if I have that exactly right)
People write and agree with him - professors, engineers, but are afraid of losing their jobs.A lady mech engineer at Clemson (?) Univ.was afraid, but then she called him later because she was more afraid for what was happening to the world and she joined Scholars for Truth.
He talk to Kevin Ryan and he was fired for speaking out.
NIST could not get wtc7 failure to work using models, so they switched to computer visualization and then they had to change variables (temperatures, etc...) to get it to work, they won't show anyone these visuals, engineers are complaining about this. NIST uses simplification, extrapolations say engineers who are complaining about this (didn't get names) civil engineer wrote Jones said his staff would be fired if they wrote such a pathetic report.
that is not quite half through, I will watch the rest later

[petgoat]

96. Good summary. As a side note, the mechanical engineer

from Clemson is a founding member of Scholars for 911 Truth. She used to post on this board
under the name "Jane Doe" but one of our resident debunkers antagonized her and she's not here
any more. Her paper based on the work she was presenting here is featured on the front page at
http://www.st911.org/

While you're at st911, sign the petition calling for release of suppressed 9/11 evidence.

[mirandapriestly]

103. Oh, I remember her

and I remember the antagonism. The good people leave I look at the archives and there were some really good posters, but the debunkers stay on and on