created by: djhixx | Oct 13, 2007

Top Stories

53,484 votes

Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

Click on an option to vote

  • yes
  • no
  • well, im not sure
Comments
239,361 - 239,380 of 257,779 Comments Last updated 3 min ago

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257814
Jul 23, 2013
 
Zealous_Guy wrote:
<quoted text>If you disagree with his opinion, why don't you explain why you think he is wrong - instead of slyly attempting to attack him?

Oh... that must be because his opinion is solid.
Well a few of us have addressed his misrepresentation of the paper but your replies have been woefully inept at addressing those rebuttals.
onemale

Pana, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257815
Jul 23, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound like a three year old.
WHY?.......WHY?.......
Why is the questions forbidden???
Obviously you have no answers.

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257816
Jul 23, 2013
 
Zealous_Guy wrote:
<quoted text>So you want to smear Dr. Kevin Barrett rather than address his opinions or the article in question.

You don't have to agree with him, but simply saying his opinion is bias shows you are not able to challenge the piece.

I think he's bang on. In fact, it's obvious to anyone that has debated 9/11.
His opinions were based on misrepresentation of a paper he failed to properly cite.

And his bias is obvious since its the only filter he used in writing his article.
onemale

Pana, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257817
Jul 23, 2013
 
I have found the best method to determine what is the truth and what is B.S. is ask the following questions...
Is it biased or unbiased?
Is it politically driven or otherwise?
Who benefits from the statements?
What are the credentials of the delivers of the statements?
What are the facts to back-up the opinions?



Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257818
Jul 23, 2013
 
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
His opinions were based on misrepresentation of a paper he failed to properly cite.
And his bias is obvious since its the only filter he used in writing his article.
No.

The author proposed that only one of Barret's points was 'flat out wrong'.

Apart from the he disagreed with Barret, but that's just his opinion... he didn't do anything to support his opinion other than say he collected the data and was certain of his opinion.

Here you are Mr Hat, supporting the opinions of someone that has chosen to study 'conspiracy theorists'.

Can you explain why anyone would deem that a subject worthy of academic study? It would seem not.

To me, that would seem like a bizarre and pointless waste of time. Hardly the sort of decision a well balanced person would take.

So come on, Mr Hat, why would anyone study 'truthers'?

Like I said, so what?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257819
Jul 23, 2013
 
Zealous_Guy wrote:
You're totally insane Mr Hat.

In the real world, rather than in your imagined one, statistics are open to interpretation and opinion pieces are - duh!- based on the opinion of the author.

It's kind of funny, I guess, that you are here day after day trying to score points and 'prove' you are right... especially since we have seen time and time again that you cannot prove your beliefs are correct. But it's also sort of sad to see someone so consumed by a belief like that.

Like the guy who wants to study conspiracy theorists. Do you not think that's a bit odd? It seems barking mad to me. To start with a broad generalising term like 'Truther' or 'Conspiracy Theorist' and then attempt to 'study' these people, I simply can't imagine why anyone would bother to do that.

Perhaps you could enlighten me Mr Hat?
In the real world you lost this debate right after your opening post regarding Barrett's paper.

But you quite obviously don't live in the real world.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257820
Jul 23, 2013
 
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
In the real world you lost this debate right after your opening post regarding Barrett's paper.
But you quite obviously don't live in the real world.
Barrett's paper? I don't think that's quite what you meant.

Come on then Mr Hat... I'll ask for a third time shall I.

Why would any balanced person produce an academic study of 'Conspiracy Theorists'?

And you want to talk about filter and bias... ho ho.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257821
Jul 23, 2013
 
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is the questions forbidden???
Obviously you have no answers.
You keep asking stupid questions like a three year old. When you ask something relevant, I'll let you know.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257822
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

AussieBobby wrote:
Bush fires must be inside job.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/0...
Check it out Simple Jack, it could be anything at this point, thats the benefit of destroying evidence before the investigation - to make sure nobody can dispute it. They turned a physical investigation into a theoretical one, and failed to prove what actually happened, to what could have happened.

Thats a cover-up when they chose to destroy evidence, and thats makes it unscientific, because they eliminated peer review.

It would be similar to an airliner crashing, and instead of rebuilding the plane in a hanger, they destroyed the evidence and ran a computer simulation to try to explain it. Would you be here allying yourself with the smear campaign against people that had a problem with that?

Now about your picture that shows aluminum melted in a brush fire... Fireman see aluminum melting in fires all the time, and it's telling not one claimed it was aluminum running down the channel rails. Do you think fireman are not accustomed to seeing aluminum melting in fires?

Systematic cover-ups only happen when there is something to cover up. When murderers are found to have recently bleached their floor after their wives go missing, the cops are all over them like ugly on you. Yet when the government destroys evidence, the media, the investigators, never suspect it and always chalk it up to institutional incompetence, because they are all controlled and compartmentalized by the same people.

You do realize, I hope, that matching the color of a glowing metal with its temperature will identify that metal to a specific type? Multiple firefighters stated it was specifically steel, its doubtful they didnt know the temperature and just assumed it. Doubtful becomes impossible when you realize nano-thermate was found in the dust along with iron microspheres indicating something other than airplanes and burning office furniture was in action during the collapse. If all this melted iron occurred after the collapse, it would not have been found in the dust blocks away.

So stop drinking, and start thinking.

Insults Are Easier

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257823
Jul 23, 2013
 
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Check it out Simple Jack, it could be anything at this point, thats the benefit of destroying evidence before the investigation - to make sure nobody can dispute it. They turned a physical investigation into a theoretical one, and failed to prove what actually happened, to what could have happened.
Thats a cover-up when they chose to destroy evidence, and thats makes it unscientific, because they eliminated peer review.
It would be similar to an airliner crashing, and instead of rebuilding the plane in a hanger, they destroyed the evidence and ran a computer simulation to try to explain it. Would you be here allying yourself with the smear campaign against people that had a problem with that?
Now about your picture that shows aluminum melted in a brush fire... Fireman see aluminum melting in fires all the time, and it's telling not one claimed it was aluminum running down the channel rails. Do you think fireman are not accustomed to seeing aluminum melting in fires?
Systematic cover-ups only happen when there is something to cover up. When murderers are found to have recently bleached their floor after their wives go missing, the cops are all over them like ugly on you. Yet when the government destroys evidence, the media, the investigators, never suspect it and always chalk it up to institutional incompetence, because they are all controlled and compartmentalized by the same people.
You do realize, I hope, that matching the color of a glowing metal with its temperature will identify that metal to a specific type? Multiple firefighters stated it was specifically steel, its doubtful they didnt know the temperature and just assumed it. Doubtful becomes impossible when you realize nano-thermate was found in the dust along with iron microspheres indicating something other than airplanes and burning office furniture was in action during the collapse. If all this melted iron occurred after the collapse, it would not have been found in the dust blocks away.
So stop drinking, and start thinking.
Insults Are Easier
Can you identify who "they" actually are?

“WELL PAID GOVIE SHILL ”

Since: Jun 07

Cold Spring Harbor, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257824
Jul 23, 2013
 
Revised Report of Results: MVA9119
Progress Report on the
Analysis of Red/Gray Chips
in WTC Dust
Prepared for:
Classical Guide
Feb, 2012
Denver, CO
James R. Millette, Ph.D.
Executive Director
MVA Scientific Consultants
3300 Breckinridge Boulevard
Suite 400 Duluth, GA 30096

Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.

SMARTEN UP DUFUS !!!
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Check it out Simple Jack, it could be anything at this point, thats the benefit of destroying evidence before the investigation - to make sure nobody can dispute it. They turned a physical investigation into a theoretical one, and failed to prove what actually happened, to what could have happened.
Thats a cover-up when they chose to destroy evidence, and thats makes it unscientific, because they eliminated peer review.
It would be similar to an airliner crashing, and instead of rebuilding the plane in a hanger, they destroyed the evidence and ran a computer simulation to try to explain it. Would you be here allying yourself with the smear campaign against people that had a problem with that?
Now about your picture that shows aluminum melted in a brush fire... Fireman see aluminum melting in fires all the time, and it's telling not one claimed it was aluminum running down the channel rails. Do you think fireman are not accustomed to seeing aluminum melting in fires?
Systematic cover-ups only happen when there is something to cover up. When murderers are found to have recently bleached their floor after their wives go missing, the cops are all over them like ugly on you. Yet when the government destroys evidence, the media, the investigators, never suspect it and always chalk it up to institutional incompetence, because they are all controlled and compartmentalized by the same people.
You do realize, I hope, that matching the color of a glowing metal with its temperature will identify that metal to a specific type? Multiple firefighters stated it was specifically steel, its doubtful they didnt know the temperature and just assumed it. Doubtful becomes impossible when you realize nano-thermate was found in the dust along with iron microspheres indicating something other than airplanes and burning office furniture was in action during the collapse. If all this melted iron occurred after the collapse, it would not have been found in the dust blocks away.
So stop drinking, and start thinking.
Insults Are Easier

“Kenyan-born Obama=Antichrist”

Since: Sep 09

Casper, WY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257825
Jul 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

onemale wrote:
I have found the best method to determine what is the truth and what is B.S. is ask the following questions...
Is it biased or unbiased?
Is it politically driven or otherwise?
Who benefits from the statements?
What are the credentials of the delivers of the statements?
What are the facts to back-up the opinions?
Like why would Donald Trump, Pat Boone, Alan Keyes and Sheriff Arpaio lie about their President's birthplace and citizenship?
Why would Obama lie about it?
www.wtc.net

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257827
Jul 23, 2013
 
Zealous_Guy wrote:
<quoted text>No.

The author proposed that only one of Barret's points was 'flat out wrong'.

Apart from the he disagreed with Barret, but that's just his opinion... he didn't do anything to support his opinion other than say he collected the data and was certain of his opinion.

Here you are Mr Hat, supporting the opinions of someone that has chosen to study 'conspiracy theorists'.

Can you explain why anyone would deem that a subject worthy of academic study? It would seem not.

To me, that would seem like a bizarre and pointless waste of time. Hardly the sort of decision a well balanced person would take.

So come on, Mr Hat, why would anyone study 'truthers'?

Like I said, so what?
The authors disagreed with Barrett's general premise about their paper.

Squirming to avoid that fact only makes you look like a bigger fool than you were when you originally posted Barrett's paper to begin with.

And I'm not supporting a side, I'm pointing out and proving why twoofers like yourself will never achieve anything aside from providing cheapentertainment to people like me who are amazed such people as you actually exist.

As to why a researcher would study twoofers.

Why not?

There's fields of study dedicated to abnormal psychology so why wouldn't a professional be interested in studying people with twisted epistemologies that display irrational logic?

Lemme guess, you don't think that's a valid assessment.

Yet unless you're a mute, it would be impossible to miss posters like timesten and Onemale who can be described exactly that way.

And if its so irrational for people like myself or researchers to observe twoofers in their natural habitats, what's rational about you coming on threads like this and posting bs articles to support them?

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257828
Jul 23, 2013
 
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize, I hope, that matching the color of a glowing metal with its temperature will identify that metal to a specific type? Multiple firefighters stated it was specifically steel, its doubtful they didnt know the temperature and just assumed it. Doubtful becomes impossible when you realize nano-thermate was found in the dust along with iron microspheres indicating something other than airplanes and burning office furniture was in action during the collapse. If all this melted iron occurred after the collapse, it would not have been found in the dust blocks away.

So stop drinking, and start thinking.

Insults Are Easier
And along comes Ignorance is Bliss to perfectly illustrate my case of twoofers having twisted epistemologies and failed logic.

The temperature of a material can be roughly estimated by colour WHEN the material is known.

Materials can't be identified by colour when glowing which is exactly what this twoofer is trying to claim.

His total misrepresentation of emissivity is even more humorous when you consider that different metals will glow the same colour at different temperatures.

Both steel and aluminum glow red albeit at different temperatures.

There was no nanothermite found and the fire fighters never claimed the molten material wasn't aluminum and must be steel.

They did what many do and what I've proven time after time. They saw a molten material and called it

“Twoof, a true act of ignorance”

Since: Jun 09

Edmonton, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257829
Jul 23, 2013
 
Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>And along comes Ignorance is Bliss to perfectly illustrate my case of twoofers having twisted epistemologies and failed logic.

The temperature of a material can be roughly estimated by colour WHEN the material is known.

Materials can't be identified by colour when glowing which is exactly what this twoofer is trying to claim.

His total misrepresentation of emissivity is even more humorous when you consider that different metals will glow the same colour at different temperatures.

Both steel and aluminum glow red albeit at different temperatures.

There was no nanothermite found and the fire fighters never claimed the molten material wasn't aluminum and must be steel.

They did what many do and what I've proven time after time. They saw a molten material and called it
Hit send to soon.

To complete what I was saying:

They saw a molten material and called it steel.

The NFPA also addresses this as a common mistake and I've posted that here with no comment from Ignorance because,

[His] Ignorance is [His] Bliss

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257830
Jul 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Porkpie Hat wrote:
<quoted text>
The authors disagreed with Barrett's general premise about their paper.
Squirming to avoid that fact only makes you look like a bigger fool than you were when you originally posted Barrett's paper to begin with.
And I'm not supporting a side, I'm pointing out and proving why twoofers like yourself will never achieve anything aside from providing cheapentertainment to people like me who are amazed such people as you actually exist.
As to why a researcher would study twoofers.
Why not?
There's fields of study dedicated to abnormal psychology so why wouldn't a professional be interested in studying people with twisted epistemologies that display irrational logic?
Lemme guess, you don't think that's a valid assessment.
Yet unless you're a mute, it would be impossible to miss posters like timesten and Onemale who can be described exactly that way.
And if its so irrational for people like myself or researchers to observe twoofers in their natural habitats, what's rational about you coming on threads like this and posting bs articles to support them?
Yes, the author 'disagreed' with Barrett's premise. Hardly surprising, since Barrett was effectively arguing that the author himself was likely a sandwich or two short of a picnic.

That's called 'a difference of opinion', you might be surprised to learn that this is something that's not at all unusual when it comes to academic papers.

I agree with Barrett... you are apparently 'not taking sides'- squirming over there much Mr Hat?

I see you can't propose a valid reason for studying 'conspiracy theorists'- explaining how you personally catagorise a 'twoofer' is not actually giving a reason.

Besides, I'm certain you could find plenty of people who support the official line on 9/11 who are 'people with twisted epistemologies that display irrational logic'.

Here in the UK we have a lovely bunch of people who call themselves 'The English Defence League'. Look them up Mr Hat, they certainly fit your criteria.

Regarding 'studying twoofers in their natural habitat', this is clearly as much, if not more, YOUR natural habitat. The fact that you see it as somewhere for 'twoofers' shows just how twisted your take on this subject is.

I fully understand why people who don't believe the official line on 9/11 are compelled to voice their concerns. It makes complete sense. It is totally logical.

On the other hand, It's not logical at all to obsess about someone else's opinion just because you don't simply don't agree with them.

"I'm concerned that we've been lied to about an attack on the USA which has been used to justify attacks on other nations and an erosion of our rights"

or

"I'm concerned that other people hold an opinion I don't agree with"

...and you're definitely not playing with a full pack of cards if you're so obsessed with 'conspiracy theorists' that you're writing academic papers and a blog on the subject.

“Roger is my favorite Wabbit”

Since: Jun 07

Dorchester , MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257831
Jul 24, 2013
 
onemale wrote:
<quoted text>
Why???
NIST had hundreds of videos of explosions and eyewitnesses, but didn't acknowledge any of it.
They could have at least explained why all this is untrue, but instead they ignored it... WHY???
And also why is it, when anyone questions 9/11, it is out of bounds?
Topic forbidden!
Question 9/11 and you shall be shunned by all of mankind.
Why all the secrecy ???
Perhaps the FDNY not ever having experienced two 100 story skyscrapers along with another 50 story all collapsing into a burning 100 odd ft pile after having two 767s crash into them...

The addition of speculation like lava and molten steel and pyroclastic flows...

Just adds more insanity to an already insane day?...

I have no problems with anyone questioning 9-11...

But I yet to see any viable questioning...

Instead I hear speculations disguised as hypothesis...

Lava?....never any even evidence

Can you compare the chunks of what you claim as cooled lave to say the Chernobylite found at the base of Chernobyl?...

Evidence...the truthers have no evidence

Yet seem to conveniently blame that on the Bush conspiracy...

But I do appreciate that you put truthers in that category of 'being shunned by all mankind'...

I see that as a 'tell' on your part...

You actually know that the truther mantra is flawed...

Cheers

“Roger is my favorite Wabbit”

Since: Jun 07

Dorchester , MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257832
Jul 24, 2013
 
Zealous_Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
You see Mr Hat, this is what marks you as unhinged.
Any sane person would understand that this is a topical discussion forum, yet you somehow see it as a world of quantifiable right and wrong. Hilariously, I post an opinion piece from press TV and you think I'm posting facts that I believe to be quantifiable.
You clearly have no idea how far removed from reality your perception is... you've obviously been consumed by this whole topic and it's left you in a strange place where you're projecting your own twisted logic on the world around you.
Looking back at your post roll here shows how your brain is simply on loop. Ironically, you're a classic example of the sort of person Barret is referring too.
Why is it verbotten in twooferdom to attack a poorly written opinion piece submitted by iranian press no less?...

Are we also verbotten to discuss the irony of the hamas terrorists agreeing to reconsider reopening of peace talks with Israel while sending their children to hate the Jew camps to learn terror tactics against kuffirs?...

Or should we wait for an opinion piece to appear in Press first?...

“Roger is my favorite Wabbit”

Since: Jun 07

Dorchester , MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257833
Jul 24, 2013
 
Porkpie Hat wrote:
What truly hilarious zealot guy is anyone can page back to your posting of Barrett's misrepresentation of the paper in question and clearly read your definitive claim something to the effect of "anyone with a modicum of sense knows...".
Now of course since I did your homework for you yet again and actually read the cited paper only to find Barrett was, in typical twoofer form, lying our his azz, you now claim there was never an intent by you to post this as fact.
And of course people did respond as is always the case on discussion forums and your position was to, yet again, ignore facts and sheepishly defend your source.
You then go on to say you agree with the premise of Barrett's misinformation article and attempt to distance yourself from the content of the article.
Which makes it obvious that in your little world it doesn't matter what you post as a source and that even though the sources your using make you look like a complete fool, it's the readers fault. Not yours.
That's quite the position zealot guy, not that you'll admit to the obvious, and one you've used as SOP when caught being a fool.
Here's the reality, you posted Barrett's article because you never thought for a second that it might be untrue even though you didn't do even a modicum of verification to confirm it. Like Ignorance is Bliss, you mindlessly agreed with the headline and thought that just once you could get those ebil rationalists backed into a corner.
Yet here you are, in a corner and fighting back with the only weapon at your limited disposal, projection.
This is evidence of the disingenuous nature of a truther post...

Post something as fact claiming to know full well the fallacies contained in the piece...

And justify by then claiming it was posted not as iranian fact piece but as an opine...

Twooferdum

And here I promised myself I would try to be more respectful...

“Roger is my favorite Wabbit”

Since: Jun 07

Dorchester , MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257834
Jul 24, 2013
 
RADEKT wrote:
Revised Report of Results: MVA9119
Progress Report on the
Analysis of Red/Gray Chips
in WTC Dust
Prepared for:
Classical Guide
Feb, 2012
Denver, CO
James R. Millette, Ph.D.
Executive Director
MVA Scientific Consultants
3300 Breckinridge Boulevard
Suite 400 Duluth, GA 30096
Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.
SMARTEN UP DUFUS !!!
<quoted text>
iron oxide

rust

a common steel coating intended to hinder corrosion...

To clarify this to truther-dom...

The truthers have collected...rusty dust

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min ChristineM 732,554
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min June VanDerMark 538,632
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 7 min KiMare 94,612
4 word game (use same Letter) (Mar '13) 9 min andet1987 997
lesbian sexting 11 min KatieUk966 8
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 15 min WasteWater 4,314
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 20 min Dave Nelson 226,168
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Clearwater 173,259
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr Epiphany2 599,750
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••