NM fair booth pulls targets depicting bin Laden

Sep 22, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: CBS News

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. &#8212 A shooting gallery booth at the New Mexico State Fair has pulled targets depicting Osama bin Laden and other Arab-dressed figures after complaints that they were racist.

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 110 of110
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Oct 6, 2012
 
Ok. The government demolished them because they are very smart and good at subterfuge and have fooled millions of people, except for us few that see the light. Conspiracy Theory and Enemy of the State were great flicks.

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Oct 6, 2012
 
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you being deliberately dishonest, or is this just a consequence of your persistent psychological denial?
I have stated that the demolitions at the World Trade Center are PROVEN because that is what the videos show and because that is what the abundant incendiary residues indicate. The abundant presence of unreacted, very sophisticated pyrotechnic materials in the dust is further confirmation. There are also plenty of credible witness accounts of secondary explosions in places far from the impact and fire zones, and this witness testimony is supported in some cases be obvious blast and shrapnel injuries to the witnesses' bodies!
The fact that steel-frame highrises are inherently robust (as a consequence of the properties of steel and the practice of including safety margins in the design), and the fact that there are ZERO cases of complete structural failure for any reason other than demolition throughout the history of steel-frame highrises everywhere on the planet (barring the alleged three exceptions that happened on 9/11) is not proof of demolition, and I never claimed it was. It is however, A VERY GOOD REASON to consider demolition as a viable hypothesis. However, the government "investigators" did not test for and rule out demolition, since they refused to test the debris and dust for evidence of high-temperature incendiary arson (even though such tests are NORMAL protocol!) and since they DESTROYED over 99.5% of the steel evidence before it could be metallurgically tested. Even when other government agencies (FEMA, EPA, and USGS) turned up evidence that was consistent with demolition and inexplicable from the "fire & damage" hypothesis, the NIST investigators chose to ignore the "anomalies" and spin computer-generated fictions that had little basis in reality.
You don't understand the theory of multiple working hypotheses, and you certainly don't apply it as a method of reasoning. Just because a building falls a certain way does not "prove" it was demolished with explosives. The lab tests did not "prove" there was thermite in the dust. And the lack of evidence or loss of evidence cannot be used to prove any hypothesis.

But, if believing in all this far-fetched conspiracy crap gives meaning to your pathetic life, then good for you.
911 was an inside job

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Oct 6, 2012
 
Lobo Viejo wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't understand the theory of multiple working hypotheses, and you certainly don't apply it as a method of reasoning. Just because a building falls a certain way does not "prove" it was demolished with explosives. The lab tests did not "prove" there was thermite in the dust. And the lack of evidence or loss of evidence cannot be used to prove any hypothesis.
But, if believing in all this far-fetched conspiracy crap gives meaning to your pathetic life, then good for you.
So you tell me: if you were an investigator approaching the devastation at the World Trade Center, what would be your working hypotheses?

You can tell a lot from how a building disintegrates. Are you familiar with conservation of energy and momentum? If a working hypothesis leads to an apparent violation of these laws, then you need to address that pronto. If you can't account for the energy that is evident in a video or the lack of an expected transfer of momentum, your working hypothesis is on thin ice, and you need to look for alternatives or check your analysis.

Spoliation of evidence and obstruction of justice are crimes. When these crimes are committed in an attempt to shield the identity of mass murderers and the true nature of a crime, the perpetrator(s) could rightly be considered accessories and co-conspirators.

The "Active Thermitic" paper and Mark Basile's research not only confirm the presence of thermite and thermite residues in the dust, but they identified a high-tech member of the thermite family, an ultra-fine-grain "nanothermite" which can be modified by including trace elements so that the material functions anywhere on the incendiary-to-high-explosive spectrum. The US Geological Survey and RJ Lee Group (the latter performing an environmental impact study for Deutsche Bank's insurance company) also documented the abundant presence of iron-rich microspheres in the dust. Iron microspheres indicate that the iron was once molten and aerosolized. Surface tension on the molten droplets pull it into a spherical shape, which is preserved as the iron cools and solidifies. Iron is a byproduct of thermitic reaction. The other main byproduct (besides a whole lot of heat, the reason why the iron is molten) is aluminum oxide, which often appears as white smoke -- and there was certainly quite a bit of that at Ground Zero.

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Oct 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
So you tell me: if you were an investigator approaching the devastation at the World Trade Center, what would be your working hypotheses?
That's a fair question.

Observation: the towers were hit by jetliners and destroyed.

Hypotheses:

1) The towers were destroyed by structural damage from the jet impacts, fires and, in the case of tower 7, from fire and damage from the collapse of the north and south towers.

2) In addition to the damage in hypothesis 1, the terrorists carried explosives or accelerants onto the aircraft in their luggage.

3) What firefighters and people thought were explosive charges detonating, were actually parts of the structure failing in response to heat and increased load.

4) In addition to the jet impacts, fires and collapse, explosives were planted in all 3 towers as part of a conspiracy.

5) In addition to the jet impacts, fires and collapse, explosives were hastily planted in all 3 towers after the jet impacts.

6) In addition to the jet impacts, fires and collapse, explosives were planted in tower 7 only as part of a conspiracy.

7) In addition to the jet impacts, fires and collapse, explosives were hastily planted in tower 7 only after the jet impacts.

8) If explosives were planted, they were planted by terrorists.

9) If explosives were planted, they were planted by the US government.

10) If explosives were planted, they were planted by Donald Trump.

NOTE: With regard to developing hypotheses, some positive evidence or potential reasonableness is needed. Otherwise, there would be no end to far-fetched hypotheses. Do you think the towers might have been brought down by:

11) ionospheric disturbances from the HAARP facility in Alaska (another favorite subject of conspiracy theorists);

12) the angry ghosts of the dead terrorists who had just discovered that virgins were not waiting for them on the other side; or

13) by God, who was angry with New Yorkers for being tolerant of homosexuality?

Now, with all these hypotheses lined up, the scientific method calls for us to try to disprove each one, using logic, testing and experimentation.

But you have your methodology backwards. You are trying to "prove" one hypothesis (# 4) rather than trying to disprove them all. You are trying to force fit everything, pseudo-science, anecdotes, rumors, and speculation into hypothesis 4.

I am no expert in structural engineering, but I do not believe that hypothesis 1 has been disproven. And I don't know to what extent hypothesis 2 was even considered.
911 was an inside job

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lobo Viejo wrote:
That's a fair question.
Observation: the towers were hit by jetliners and destroyed.
Careful. The way you formulated your observation suggests a causal relationship between plane impacts and destruction, but your investigation has not established this. These are two distinct observations at this point.
Lobo Viejo wrote:
Hypotheses:
1) The towers were destroyed by structural damage from the jet impacts, fires and, in the case of tower 7, from fire and damage from the collapse of the north and south towers.
2) In addition to the damage in hypothesis 1, the terrorists carried explosives or accelerants onto the aircraft in their luggage.
3) What firefighters and people thought were explosive charges detonating, were actually parts of the structure failing in response to heat and increased load.
4) In addition to the jet impacts, fires and collapse, explosives were planted in all 3 towers as part of a conspiracy.
5) In addition to the jet impacts, fires and collapse, explosives were hastily planted in all 3 towers after the jet impacts.
6) In addition to the jet impacts, fires and collapse, explosives were planted in tower 7 only as part of a conspiracy.
7) In addition to the jet impacts, fires and collapse, explosives were hastily planted in tower 7 only after the jet impacts.
8) If explosives were planted, they were planted by terrorists.
9) If explosives were planted, they were planted by the US government.
10) If explosives were planted, they were planted by Donald Trump.
NOTE: With regard to developing hypotheses, some positive evidence or potential reasonableness is needed. Otherwise, there would be no end to far-fetched hypotheses. Do you think the towers might have been brought down by:
11) ionospheric disturbances from the HAARP facility in Alaska (another favorite subject of conspiracy theorists);
12) the angry ghosts of the dead terrorists who had just discovered that virgins were not waiting for them on the other side; or
13) by God, who was angry with New Yorkers for being tolerant of homosexuality?
Now, with all these hypotheses lined up, the scientific method calls for us to try to disprove each one, using logic, testing and experimentation.
Fantastic, although I would hold off on prematurely eliminating all possibility of "exotic" weapons, but that can be a fall-back hypothesis if the more likely theories are failing to account for "significant missing mass" at Ground Zero or "radioactive isotopes," etc.
Lobo Viejo wrote:
But you have your methodology backwards. You are trying to "prove" one hypothesis (# 4) rather than trying to disprove them all. You are trying to force fit everything, pseudo-science, anecdotes, rumors, and speculation into hypothesis 4.
I am no expert in structural engineering, but I do not believe that hypothesis 1 has been disproven. And I don't know to what extent hypothesis 2 was even considered.
You are assuming that I haven't gone through this process of elimination already in my own research. My presentation on this forum doesn't necessarily reflect the evolution of my understanding. In any case, everyone should go through the process themselves, and I hope you continue. The 9/11 attack has been used as justification for multiple wars, a massive redirection of our nation's treasury and resources, an erosion of our civil liberties and constitutional law, the establishment of off-shore extra-judicial prisons, new "legal constructs" (like "enemy combatant") which circumvent established law, massive new government bureaucracies and intrusion into our lives (through unwarranted searches by TSA and NSA data-mining), etc.
911 was an inside job

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Also, an average individual obviously won't have the opportunities to investigate the World Trade Center site and other aspects of the 9/11 attack in the same way that official "investigators" did, but we can certainly review the evidence that is available in the public domain and review the "investigators'" efforts to see if they were adequate and honest.

The working hypotheses you listed are reasonable. Did the official investigators make a reasonable attempt to eliminate viable alternatives to the fire and damage hypothesis?

Was there indeed near-complete destruction of steel evidence at the site, as the Editor in Chief of the respected trade journal "Fire Engineering," the former NIST Fire Science Division Chief, and many others claim, and was there any justifications offered by investigators?

See 911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/fir...
and commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy2413...

Did investigators test the dust and debris for evidence of incendiaries or exotic accelerants? If not, why not?

Did investigators make an attempt to explain the global failure modes, the severity and rapidity of destruction, energies required to dissociate building components, conservation of momentum analyses, etc.? If not, what was the justification?

Were the conclusions of the investigators supported by physical evidence? Was there physical evidence that undermined the investigators' conclusions, and was there any attempt to further investigate these anomalies?

I encourage you to pursue this, if you have the courage. The site www.911research.com is a good resource. For a broader exploration into the attack, the site historycommons.org offers a very helpful expandable timeline on 9/11 (and other topics), often with links to mainstream primary sources in which the events on the timeline were reported.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
Oct 7, 2012
 
Sounds pretty cut and paste to me. What do I know? Jet fuel burns very hot. Steel doesn't have to melt to weaken. Try 350 degrees Centigrade. Very clever to use the airplane to hide what they did to bring the building down.
911 was an inside job

Austin, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Willothewisp wrote:
Sounds pretty cut and paste to me. What do I know? Jet fuel burns very hot. Steel doesn't have to melt to weaken. Try 350 degrees Centigrade. Very clever to use the airplane to hide what they did to bring the building down.
Jet fuel doesn't burn that hot in an uncontrolled environment -- it's essentially kerosene. 350 C does nothing appreciable to steel, and anyway, according to the NIST report, less than 2% of the steel samples that they examined had reached 250 C. No samples had reached 600 C, where one actually starts to see restructuring of the micro-crystals.(But perhaps NIST threw out the important pieces and kept the worthless ones by mistake?)

AND jet fuel cannot account for TONS of molten iron spherules in the dust (or evidence of once-molten silicates or molybdenum and other extremely high temperature phase transitions). Oh. And then there are TONS of those pesky little red/gray chips that give off a whole lot of heat very quickly when ignited.

“26.2”

Since: Feb 08

Santa Fe, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
Oct 7, 2012
 
911 was an inside job wrote:
I encourage you to pursue this, if you have the courage. The site www.911research.com is a good resource. For a broader exploration into the attack, the site historycommons.org offers a very helpful expandable timeline on 9/11 (and other topics), often with links to mainstream primary sources in which the events on the timeline were reported.
I will do some reading, and continue to follow this issue, and see if anything changes my opinion. I think there are some unanswered questions, particularly with tower 7, but a lack of understanding does not disprove something, or prove something else. If it was an inside job, lots of people must have participated or at least known about it. And right now nobody is singing.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
Oct 7, 2012
 
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
Jet fuel doesn't burn that hot in an uncontrolled environment -- it's essentially kerosene. 350 C does nothing appreciable to steel, and anyway, according to the NIST report, less than 2% of the steel samples that they examined had reached 250 C. No samples had reached 600 C, where one actually starts to see restructuring of the micro-crystals.(But perhaps NIST threw out the important pieces and kept the worthless ones by mistake?)
AND jet fuel cannot account for TONS of molten iron spherules in the dust (or evidence of once-molten silicates or molybdenum and other extremely high temperature phase transitions). Oh. And then there are TONS of those pesky little red/gray chips that give off a whole lot of heat very quickly when ignited.
Oh, I'm sorry...didn't realize building fires didn't getter hotter. Didn't realize that 250 degrees Centigrade is exactly when steel starts having trouble (excellent point and you can look that up again. And talk to a blacksmith about malleability of metals. Iron? Forgot to take mine today.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 110 of110
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••