BBC Documentary Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 Next
ziggy @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:08 am
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
I really dont know what to say,I'm gobsmacked. New foiler technique I guess,the source is only to be used when it fits the agenda. Unbelievable 
LOL!
LOL!
I guess you do mind, then.
Slow sips on that water there Trigger,I mean Opp.
OPP @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:12 am
ziggy ziggy:
I really dont know what to say,I'm gobsmacked. New foiler technique I guess,the source is only to be used when it fits the agenda. Unbelievable
LOL!
LOL!
If he is so cirten of the cause of the collapse, as you claim.. then why would they call for a fullblown investigation to be able to determine what caused the buildings to collapse? Could you answer that Ziggy.
$1:
In this report, issued July 17, 2003, Battalion Chief FDNY (Ret.) Arthur Scheuerman, presents a preliminary interpretation of the evidence in the analysis of the cause of the large loss of life and collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and recommendeds code changes to mitigate the chance of a recurrence in high-rise office buildings.
Tricks @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:14 am
OPP OPP:
The yank was trying to dismiss me as some sort of follower of a 23 year old college dropouts insane conspiracy theory
Yep pretty much. $1:
when in fact it was the "debunkers" who brought his movie to my attention. I have not relied on information from this mans documentary to make a point nor to provide with evidence (exept for one instance, The Bin Laden Confession tape, when I had not yet seen the film).
Riiiight. You have seen 5 documentaries but you heard the most popular one from us. $1:
You don't seem to recognize the wast amount of people who spend their money, time and effort investigating these events. This does not prove anything! That's not the point! My point was that you can not dismiss these theories as that of a lone nut.
Sure you can. Except it is a bunch of lone nuts. $1:
You mean like Ziggy did on "the Official 9/11 foiler thread"?
No I mean people like you.$1:
I'm to stupid... You dismiss my arguments by ridiculing and insulting me. True "debunker" spirit, that is.
I haven't seen an argument in this thread before this post.$1:
Well.. that is your opinion and your firm beliefe. I belive the opposite and there we are!
I feel bad for Sweden.$1:
I wasn't referring to the facts in the movies themselfs. I was referring to the facts I stated above.
What facts? That more then one person is a foiler? Whoopee $1:
You are acting exactly as the so called debunkers on the screw loose change movie, telling me that I have to present evidence in every single sentence I make.
You have to present evidence in every single sentence you make.$1:
Did I not present proof that evidence was being destroyed by the government?
No. You provided evidence that millions of tons of steel (but not all of it) was being recycled. Again, logical fallacy. They are recycling steel so it must be all of it. $1:
Did I not present proof that there has not been a non-partisan investigation?
Does it matter? People from the left and from the right believe both stories.$1:
It is the so called debunkers who dismiss facts and evidence solely because of their stubbornes and unwavering beliefs.
Actually, I use my head. I think about things rationally.$1:
If you do not recognize this then it is you who are the sheep who do not question when in doubt.
Of course I question things. I used to be a foiler when I was a youngen. Then I woke up and used my fucking brain.
ziggy @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:15 am
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
I really dont know what to say,I'm gobsmacked. New foiler technique I guess,the source is only to be used when it fits the agenda. Unbelievable
LOL!
LOL!
If he is so cirten of the cause of the collapse, as you claim.. then why would they call for a fullblown investigation to be able to determine what caused the buildings to collapse? Could you answer that Ziggy.
$1:
In this report, issued July 17, 2003, Battalion Chief FDNY (Ret.) Arthur Scheuerman, presents a preliminary interpretation of the evidence in the analysis of the cause of the large loss of life and collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and recommendeds code changes to mitigate the chance of a recurrence in high-rise office buildings.
I did a couple hundred times allready....slow sips Trigger,you can do it.
OPP @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:33 am
Tricks Tricks:
OPP OPP:
The yank was trying to dismiss me as some sort of follower of a 23 year old college dropouts insane conspiracy theory
Yep pretty much. $1:
when in fact it was the "debunkers" who brought his movie to my attention. I have not relied on information from this mans documentary to make a point nor to provide with evidence (exept for one instance, The Bin Laden Confession tape, when I had not yet seen the film).
Riiiight. You have seen 5 documentaries but you heard the most popular one from us. $1:
camerontech camerontech:
OPP OPP:
camerontech camerontech:
are you serious, you actually belive that little movie?
that movie is not made by people looking for the truth, it's made for a profit.
seriously my 8 year old neighbour could see right through that garbage
that movie is not made by people looking for the truth, it's made for a profit.
seriously my 8 year old neighbour could see right through that garbage
What profit? What are you talking about? It's a "straight to the internet, spread it too your friends" film. Why don't you tell me what you found that was soo obviously incorrect or contradictful?
young directors....like the director who made "loose change" (the 9/11 conspiracy film) make these to get their names out, to post on the internet. it's all fiction, just some guys making independent movies to further their directing career. isin't it obvious that no evidence is presented, all the director does is pick and choose what he wants the viewer to see.
if you have a minute, please read this
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
I see your point.
But in this film the audience is not told that it is infact the Brittish goverment who are behind the bombings. All it does is suply the viewers with evidence that there are alot of contradicting information provided by the Brittish government. Soo the question then becomes; Why are they lying to their own populous?
This is the first time I heard of Loose change. Soon after that post I watched a movie made by Alex Jones. What I read in the link made me hessitate about watching Loose change so I didn't untill Ziggy posted the "debunked" version.
http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=17671&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
The link is to a topic where I posted the first documentary I had seen in this "genre" about the London bombings.
ziggy @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:39 am
Alex Jones Dont think I would be putting much stock into that guy right now. Even his own university has distanced themselves from him.I could be wrong also but think he may have just been suspended without pay. 
$1:
Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.
But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.
But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.
OPP @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:53 am
ziggy ziggy:
Alex Jones Dont think I would be putting much stock into that guy right now. Even his own university has distanced themselves from him.I could be wrong also but think he may have just been suspended without pay.
$1:
Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.
But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.
But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.
Ziggy.. I wrote Alex Jones.. Not Steven E. Jones. Those are not one and the same.
Umh.. by the way.. Who's Trigger? Have I missed something?
BartSimpson @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:57 am
PJB PJB:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Years back I worked in a place where the fries were done in beef tallow - OMFG were they delicious - crispy on the outside with just the right taste - add a little flake salt and they were to die for!
Ah, yes. The good old days.
Ah, yes. The good old days.
Ah, we all remember the good ole days. All that fat and other nasty stuff that actually added flavour to foods. All the things that weren't healthy...I still remember eating steak fat after it had been cooked on a barbecue. Damn it tasted good.
Now it's fat free, meat free, taste free...blah blah blah
Sooner or later the Nanny State will order us all to eat tofu, oatmeal, and hummus as a constant diet.
And then I'm going to go bar-be-que a bureaucrat.
ziggy @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:01 am
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
Alex Jones Dont think I would be putting much stock into that guy right now. Even his own university has distanced themselves from him.I could be wrong also but think he may have just been suspended without pay.
$1:
Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.
But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.
But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.
Ziggy.. I wrote Alex Jones.. Not Steven E. Jones. Those are not one and the same.
Umh.. by the way.. Who's Trigger? Have I missed something?
Old saying,you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink,Trigger was the lone Rangers horse's name.
OPP @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:02 am
Tricks Tricks:
OPP OPP:
Did I not present proof that evidence was being destroyed by the government?
No. You provided evidence that millions of tons of steel (but not all of it) was being recycled. Again, logical fallacy. They are recycling steel so it must be all of it.
Logical fallacy? ALL of it is considered evidence. Doesn't matter if they destroy a mere ton of it or all of it. They are destroying evidence. We've been through this allready.
$1:
$1:
Did I not present proof that there has not been a non-partisan investigation?
Does it matter? People from the left and from the right believe both stories.
Yes.. yes, it does. It does matter Tricks... for so many obvious reasons.
Tricks @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:28 am
OPP OPP:
Tricks Tricks:
OPP OPP:
The yank was trying to dismiss me as some sort of follower of a 23 year old college dropouts insane conspiracy theory
Yep pretty much. $1:
when in fact it was the "debunkers" who brought his movie to my attention. I have not relied on information from this mans documentary to make a point nor to provide with evidence (exept for one instance, The Bin Laden Confession tape, when I had not yet seen the film).
Riiiight. You have seen 5 documentaries but you heard the most popular one from us. $1:
camerontech camerontech:
OPP OPP:
camerontech camerontech:
are you serious, you actually belive that little movie?
that movie is not made by people looking for the truth, it's made for a profit.
seriously my 8 year old neighbour could see right through that garbage
that movie is not made by people looking for the truth, it's made for a profit.
seriously my 8 year old neighbour could see right through that garbage
What profit? What are you talking about? It's a "straight to the internet, spread it too your friends" film. Why don't you tell me what you found that was soo obviously incorrect or contradictful?
young directors....like the director who made "loose change" (the 9/11 conspiracy film) make these to get their names out, to post on the internet. it's all fiction, just some guys making independent movies to further their directing career. isin't it obvious that no evidence is presented, all the director does is pick and choose what he wants the viewer to see.
if you have a minute, please read this
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
I see your point.
But in this film the audience is not told that it is infact the Brittish goverment who are behind the bombings. All it does is suply the viewers with evidence that there are alot of contradicting information provided by the Brittish government. Soo the question then becomes; Why are they lying to their own populous?
This is the first time I heard of Loose change. Soon after that post I watched a movie made by Alex Jones. What I read in the link made me hessitate about watching Loose change so I didn't untill Ziggy posted the "debunked" version.
http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=17671&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
The link is to a topic where I posted the first documentary I had seen in this "genre" about the London bombings.
Tricks @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:31 am
OPP OPP:
Logical fallacy? ALL of it is considered evidence. Doesn't matter if they destroy a mere ton of it or all of it. They are destroying evidence. We've been through this allready.
So what can a piece of steel on the say....25th floor tell us? Nothing. And if it could, they wouldn't need all of it, only maybe a pound. Having millions of tons of steel stored is a waste of space and money and material. How this is not obvious to you is beyond my comprehension.$1:
Yes.. yes, it does. It does matter Tricks... for so many obvious reasons.
Which are?
OPP @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:00 am
Tricks Tricks:
OPP OPP:
Logical fallacy? ALL of it is considered evidence. Doesn't matter if they destroy a mere ton of it or all of it. They are destroying evidence. We've been through this allready.
So what can a piece of steel on the say....25th floor tell us? Nothing. And if it could, they wouldn't need all of it, only maybe a pound. Having millions of tons of steel stored is a waste of space and money and material. How this is not obvious to you is beyond my comprehension.
He he.. No, Tricks. What is beyond your comprehension is the fact that FEMA can not be relied on to gather and store these key-evidence... that is what's beyoind your comprehension.
I'm gonna lay down for a while now.. I'll be back tomorrow, snuggoms.
Scrappy @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:01 am
What I'd like to know is why OPP is so obsessed with the US being responsible and why he wants it to be the US not the Mad Dogs of Islam? An agenda of his own perhaps? Like maybe he's of Arab decent and a Muslim who can't live with what those vile dogs did to innocents in the name of Allah? Why else would anyone try and blame the Bush government other than to further their own agenda?
OPP @ Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:07 am
Scrappy Scrappy:
What I'd like to know is why OPP is so obsessed with the US being responsible and why he wants it to be the US not the Mad Dogs of Islam? An agenda of his own perhaps? Like maybe he's of Arab decent and a Muslim who can't live with what those vile dogs did to innocents in the name of Allah? Why else would anyone try and blame the Bush government other than to further their own agenda?
HAYou are just priceless.. It never crossed your mind that there might be honest moral people out there somewhere on the planet who believes in right and wrong? Never crossed your mind, did it?
Not once... you're soooo sad!
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16 Next