Just what Is an "independent commission" anyway?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
3

Just what Is an "independent commission" anyway?
Topic Started: Jul 12 2008, 11:47 AM (925 Views)
SPreston	Jul 27 2008, 10:28 PM Post #51
Patriotic American Posts: 1,078 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Headspin so you disagree with this statement from the 911 commission report: Quote: NYPD aviation reported that the top 15 stories of the North Tower "were glowing red" Headspin so lets examine the issue further: here is what the new york times said in july 2002 "About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red" the pilot of one helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed at 10:07 a.m. here is what NIST said : NYPD helicopters hovering near wtc1 to check its condition radios, "About 15 floors down from the top it looks like its glowing red." here is what Inter Press Service reported : "About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red," the pilot of one helicopter radioed. now lets look at how the 911 commission reported it : At 10:04, NYPD aviation reported that the top 15 stories of the North Tower "were glowing red" do you see a difference in how the 911 commission reported the issue, because I do, a BIG difference! In the 1st photo it looks like the 93rd floor (17 floors down) is glowing red - In the 2nd photo it looks like the 93rd and 96th floors (14 and 17 floors down) are glowing red Looks like the 911 Whitewash Commission are a pack of liars doesn't it?



SPreston	Jul 27 2008, 11:02 PM Post #52
Patriotic American Posts: 1,078 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	GoodOlDave Jul 22 2008, 12:03 PM Quote: The nose of the plane just barely broke through the inside of the C ring, so it was extending into A-E Drive a little bit. So that's the extent of penetration of the aircraft. -Lee Evey, Pentagon Renovation Manager Okay, I gotta ask- what's the significance of this quote? That was the original LIE with the flimsy nose cone of the alleged aircraft making the Exit Hole in the C-ring wall, which was later replaced with the 2nd LIE that a landing gear made the Exit Hole in the C-ring wall, even though there was no heavy landing gear to be seen anywhere in the A&E Drive nor was there any damage to the B-ring wall from this mystical landing gear which looked like a tire in some photos and a wheel hub in other photos and was MIA in some photos. You should be used to their LIEs by now; there are so many of them. The Exit Hole was most likely created with a Military Rapid Wall Breaching Kit. Note that the No Parking sign is still intact on the wall even though the kinetic energy of something allegedly hitting the wall at 500+ mph would be transferred through the entire wall. A Military Rapid Wall Breaching Kit would localize the energy applied to the wall and leave the sign undamaged. Military Rapid Wall Breaching Kit



look-up	Jul 28 2008, 08:09 AM Post #53
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	Mackler Jul 26 2008, 02:10 PM Dave It is only the conspriacy theorists who are claiming the fires were hot enough to actually melt the steel. Well yer, because as soon as people start pointing out facts that go against the official theory, there labeled a 'Conspiracy theorists'. Now if u had said, "It is only non experts who are claiming the fires were hot enough to actually melt the steel" that would have made sense, but then we both no that would have been bull shit. And i did catch ur 50,000 people in the towers comment. Where did u get those numbers from? Can i have a link plz? And u like pointing out that the NYPD helicopter saw the steel glowing red and "looked" like it was going to collapse. Well im not going to say "how would they actually no wot collapsing steel looks like" cause that would be undermining, but by ur own terminology, in having faith in the emergency services account, u have to concede that the reports of the FDNY of explosions occurring on the lower levels have to be true, hence there were explosives on the lower levels, hence an inside job. Unless u think there lying that is. Again, if im way of base with this argument i do apologize, and just ignore this post. very nice points... if helicopters flying hundreds of feet away can see weakened beams then firefighters who reached these areas could see "isolated pockets of fire" and firefighters reporting explosions must be entirely accurate. What sux about being a debunker is that you have to prove firefighters are absolutely unreliable at offering testimony about fires and explosions... things firefighters are specificially trained to do in everyday fire investigations.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


look-up	Jul 28 2008, 08:14 AM Post #54
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	SPreston The Exit Hole was most likely created with a Military Rapid Wall Breaching Kit. Note that the No Parking sign is still intact on the wall even though the kinetic energy of something allegedly hitting the wall at 500+ mph would be transferred through the entire wall. A Military Rapid Wall Breaching Kit would localize the energy applied to the wall and leave the sign undamaged. not only that, but the plane is alleged to have impacted at a pretty severe angle onto the building... that means this hole should not be so close to symetrical. It should be more of an oval shape. I think it's all getting more clear for me. They used a breaching kit and had to come up with a story, so the story ended up being a faked FLIGHT PLAN so that they could get an angle out of it that would make both the impacted area and the exit hole on the C Ring plausible.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


GoodOlDave	Jul 28 2008, 11:53 AM Post #55
Posts: 26 Group: BANNED! Member #732 Joined: 07/12/08	Quote: The REASON we bring up these molten pools of metal is not to show that the fires up above the impact zones were hotter than they should have been, but rather to show that the real cause of the collapses couldn't have been the fires in the impact areas, but thermite-induced melting at the base of the structure, which is why this molten metal was found BENEATH the rubble pile, and not near the top of it. This isn't even remotely realistic. How on Earth would thermite at the base of tower one have any impact on the structure at the 95th floor, where AA11 hit? Every video in existence shows this area is where the structural failure began, not down at the base, meaning the area of impact is necessarily where the coup de gras occurred. This fact cannot be refuted so if you have been led to believe otherwise by your conspiracy theories, then you have been lied to. That said, you can't even claim that there was thermite at the 95th floor either. Any fires hot enough to make steel beams glow red would certainly vaporize any thermite. Thermite is just aluminum powder, and aluminum has a lower melting point than steel. I think this is a classic case of reading into the available evidence to see what you yourself want to see in it, more than it is anything else. You're taking individual bits and pieces of different stories according to your own liking and you're trying to put them all together into one, but the facts clearly show that it simply doesn't work that way.
Posts: 26 Group: BANNED! Member #732 Joined: 07/12/08


GoodOlDave	Jul 28 2008, 12:13 PM Post #56
Posts: 26 Group: BANNED! Member #732 Joined: 07/12/08	Quote: In the 1st photo it looks like the 93rd floor (17 floors down) is glowing red - In the 2nd photo it looks like the 93rd and 96th floors (14 and 17 floors down) are glowing red Looks like the 911 Whitewash Commission are a pack of liars doesn't it? All right, then, just for argument's sake let's say that the commission did lie and that it was only 14-17 floors down that had the weakened support beams, rather than the entire top 15 floors. How exactly does that disprove the fact that the area where the structural failure started to occur...the same area where flight AA11 hit... had eyewitness accounts recording that support beams were being weakened by the fires? At most, all you did was show the commission report exaggerated the amount of additional damage to other floors. You didn't prove they were "a pack of liars" becuase the damage they reported to have occurred in critical locations did in fact occur, which you yourself proved with those photos you posted. You're going around in circles arguing about all these other things but the fact remains that it was still the damage from the airplane crash combined with the fires that caused the buildings to collapse, not any secret pre-planned sabotage.
Posts: 26 Group: BANNED! Member #732 Joined: 07/12/08


GoodOlDave	Jul 28 2008, 12:56 PM Post #57
Posts: 26 Group: BANNED! Member #732 Joined: 07/12/08	Quote: very nice points... if helicopters flying hundreds of feet away can see weakened beams then firefighters who reached these areas could see "isolated pockets of fire" and firefighters reporting explosions must be entirely accurate. What sux about being a debunker is that you have to prove firefighters are absolutely unreliable at offering testimony about fires and explosions... things firefighters are specificially trained to do in everyday fire investigations. No, what actually sux about being a debunker is always having to sort out the outright falsehoods the conspriacy theorists always try to slip in among the truths. Do I really need to tell you that skyscrapers are always chock full of inflammable objects- electrical transformers, fuel tanks for emergency generators, pressurized pipes, natural gas lines, etc- that would naturally explode when they catch on fire? Especially in the WTC towers which had maintenance floors spaced throughout the buildings containing all these things? If you have a source which refutes there were explosions then I'd like to see it, becuase witnesses heard explosions, survivors heard explosions, and explosions were even heard during the television coverage of the event. Noone I know is refuting there were explosions. What's being refuted is your single minded zeal to convince everybody the explosions were necessarily explosives when there are enough real world reasons that show that they weren't.
Posts: 26 Group: BANNED! Member #732 Joined: 07/12/08


JFK	Jul 28 2008, 12:59 PM Post #58
Posts: 2,522 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	GoodOlDave Jul 28 2008, 12:56 PM Quote: very nice points... if helicopters flying hundreds of feet away can see weakened beams then firefighters who reached these areas could see "isolated pockets of fire" and firefighters reporting explosions must be entirely accurate. What sux about being a debunker is that you have to prove firefighters are absolutely unreliable at offering testimony about fires and explosions... things firefighters are specificially trained to do in everyday fire investigations. No, what actually sux about being a debunker is always having to sort out the outright falsehoods the conspriacy theorists always try to slip in among the truths. Do I really need to tell you that skyscrapers are always chock full of inflammable objects- electrical transformers, fuel tanks for emergency generators, pressurized pipes, natural gas lines, etc- that would naturally explode when they catch on fire? Especially in the WTC towers which had maintenance floors spaced throughout the buildings containing all these things? If you have a source which refutes there were explosions then I'd like to see it, becuase witnesses heard explosions, survivors heard explosions, and explosions were even heard during the television coverage of the event. Noone I know is refuting there were explosions. What's being refuted is your single minded zeal to convince everybody the explosions were necessarily explosives when there are enough real world reasons that show that they weren't. Please show me one cite regarding natural gas lines.
Posts: 2,522 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


look-up	Jul 28 2008, 01:10 PM Post #59
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	Quote: Quote: The REASON we bring up these molten pools of metal is not to show that the fires up above the impact zones were hotter than they should have been, but rather to show that the real cause of the collapses couldn't have been the fires in the impact areas, but thermite-induced melting at the base of the structure, which is why this molten metal was found BENEATH the rubble pile, and not near the top of it. This isn't even remotely realistic. How on Earth would thermite at the base of tower one have any impact on the structure at the 95th floor, where AA11 hit? Every video in existence shows this area is where the structural failure began, not down at the base, meaning the area of impact is necessarily where the coup de gras occurred. This fact cannot be refuted so if you have been led to believe otherwise by your conspiracy theories, then you have been lied to. There is no need for such an antagonistic angle to all of your points. None, whatsoever. If you hold us in such low regard, you should not be here. To address your point. You were right. I did not explain myself clear enough. I should have said "thermite is the cause of the molten metal and total collapse of each structure would not have been possible without taking out the base of the core". I did not mean, nor did I actually infer that the collapse initiated from the base. The insinuation, of course, being that even though the collapse began at or near the impacted areas, they were not the cause of the total-nature of the collapse. Taking out the base of the structure must have been necessary (since it was melted) for the tope down demolition to be total, so that a giant core would not be left standing afterwards. Quote: I think this is a classic case of reading into the available evidence to see what you yourself want to see in it, more than it is anything else. You're taking individual bits and pieces of different stories according to your own liking and you're trying to put them all together into one, but the facts clearly show that it simply doesn't work that way. This is a classic case of a debunker proceeding with a discussion as if he understands what the issues actually are, using as many techniques as possible to obscure the facts. Remember, I did not mean for you to read my point as meaning that the collapse began at the base. Hence the issues you raise in your last paragraph are irrelevant.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


look-up	Jul 28 2008, 01:18 PM Post #60
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	GoodOlDave Jul 28 2008, 12:56 PM Quote: Quote: very nice points... if helicopters flying hundreds of feet away can see weakened beams then firefighters who reached these areas could see "isolated pockets of fire" and firefighters reporting explosions must be entirely accurate. What sux about being a debunker is that you have to prove firefighters are absolutely unreliable at offering testimony about fires and explosions... things firefighters are specificially trained to do in everyday fire investigations. No, what actually sux about being a debunker is always having to sort out the outright falsehoods the conspriacy theorists always try to slip in among the truths. Do I really need to tell you that skyscrapers are always chock full of inflammable objects- electrical transformers, fuel tanks for emergency generators, pressurized pipes, natural gas lines, etc- that would naturally explode when they catch on fire? Especially in the WTC towers which had maintenance floors spaced throughout the buildings containing all these things? Yes that is very interesting to hear. Thank you for that insignificant fact. So, let me get this straight. There are transformers that will explode upon being heated in a fire in a 110 story skyscraper? First of all, that is accepted -- that it sometimes DOES happen, but codes and such prevent it from being a rampant problem... and most certainly would not cause workers to hear and feel explosions in the lower levels, where there were presumably NO FIRES. Quote: If you have a source which refutes there were explosions then I'd like to see it, becuase witnesses heard explosions, survivors heard explosions, and explosions were even heard during the television coverage of the event. Noone I know is refuting there were explosions. What's being refuted is your single minded zeal to convince everybody the explosions were necessarily explosives when there are enough real world reasons that show that they weren't. there are enough excuses you can pull out of your * that make them seem like they might NOT be explosives. The issue remains -- HOW THE HELL COULD THERE BE EXPLOSIONS ALL OVER THE STRUCTURES.**
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


GoodOlDave	Jul 29 2008, 11:19 AM Post #61
Posts: 26 Group: BANNED! Member #732 Joined: 07/12/08	Quote: Please show me one cite regarding natural gas lines. I do not need to. In tower one there was a restaurant on the 106th floor called "Windows on the World", and they cooked with natural gas. Edited by GoodOlDave, Jul 29 2008, 12:20 PM.
Posts: 26 Group: BANNED! Member #732 Joined: 07/12/08


GoodOlDave	Jul 29 2008, 12:19 PM Post #62
Posts: 26 Group: BANNED! Member #732 Joined: 07/12/08	Quote: There is no need for such an antagonistic angle to all of your points. None, whatsoever. If you hold us in such low regard, you should not be here. On the contrary, I actually regard you as articulate and intelligent, with otherwise well meaning intentions. My disdain is certainly not directed at you. Who I actually hold in low regard are the outright hucksters and con artists that have intentionally fed you nonsense and stirred up false public unrest concerning the 9/11 attack for their own financial benefit, a sterling example being the Loose Change producers. They produced TWO previous versions which they themselves admit contain flawed information as it had been weeded out from their "final cut" but despite this they continue to sell these flawed versions containing known flawed information, not to mention, hats, t-shirts, sweatshirts, and I forget what else. There web site is a veritable shopping mall, and this bunch is but one of a blizzard of web sites selling such crap. It's painfully clear their main objective is simply to use the 9/11 attack as a vehicle to make a buck off of people. You yourself are merely the victim caught up in all of this. Quote: The insinuation, of course, being that even though the collapse began at or near the impacted areas, they were not the cause of the total-nature of the collapse. Taking out the base of the structure must have been necessary (since it was melted) for the tope down demolition to be total, so that a giant core would not be left standing afterwards. You are right, the fires weren't responsible for the total collapse. It was a domino effect of failures stemming directly from the unique design of the building which allowed it to be so gigantic to begin with. IT was an achilles heel in the design that noone realized was there, and the fires were simply the force that pushed over the first domino. Quote: there are enough excuses you can pull out of your *** that make them seem like they might NOT be explosives. The issue remains -- HOW THE HELL COULD THERE BE EXPLOSIONS ALL OVER THE STRUCTURES. That's just it- I don't think anyone definitively documented what they were, since eyewitnesses were busy hightailing it out of the building. Whatever they were, they weren't explosives. For them to have been explosives it would necessarily mean the towers would have collapsed at that moment the explosives went off, not an hour or so later, and the explosions would have been visible from outside. Besides, the towers had 110 stories, so there'd have been a sh*tload of explosions needed to make it fall, not random explosions going off wothout any pattern here and there. Quote: This is a classic case of a debunker proceeding with a discussion as if he understands what the issues actually are, using as many techniques as possible to obscure the facts. What facts, exactly, have I obscured? I've been aiming to point out and clarify the facts here. I'm discussing eyewitness accounts and what was seen on video that documented what was happening at the point of impact, the spot where the collapse began. You're on the other hand are talking about thermite in the basement.
Posts: 26 Group: BANNED! Member #732 Joined: 07/12/08


look-up	Jul 29 2008, 03:17 PM Post #63
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	GoodOlDave Quote: Who I actually hold in low regard are the outright hucksters and con artists that have intentionally fed you nonsense and stirred up false public unrest concerning the 9/11 attack for their own financial benefit, a sterling example being the Loose Change producers. Look-up: (Cocks back ban-hammer) Quote: They produced TWO previous versions which they themselves admit contain flawed information as it had been weeded out from their "final cut"... What you don't realize is that LTW are not an investigative body fielded with experts in various fields. They took what knowledge was publicly available and made a great series of films attempting to do the best they could with what little information they could get. Some of the theories Dylan heard about and looked into one year, didn't seem so compelling the next year, and were left out of the Final Cut. That is not an admission to willfully deceive in the previous versions. It ONLY means that new information became available, or in some cases, logical and well-mannered debunkers (unlike yourself) showed him that a particular quote was not taken correctly, or a particular piece of evidence misconstrued. The fact that the films changed reflects Dylan's desire to get the information correct, and as more information was made available it was clear that some things needed to be reworded, or in some cases, taken out. The point of Loose Change is not to prove a case definitively of WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED on 9/11. It's to show people that what they were TOLD HAPPENED, absolutely DID NOT happen in the way they were TOLD. Loose Change doesn't ANSWER the questions. It poses them, and then asks the public to demand that the answers be uncovered -- stressing that each of us comes to our own conclusions, and doesn't just believe LC more than the official version. Quote: ...but despite this they continue to sell these flawed versions containing known flawed information... You are misinformed. The 2nd edition was recut to fix some errors. The original cut of the 2nd edition is no longer availalble. That shows integrity. The first edition and 2nd edition recut are both available for posterity and as collectors items. They are the films which spread like wildfires across the web and changed the world in the process. Why should those films disappear just becuase one with a better presentation appeared later? Quote: , not to mention, hats, t-shirts, sweatshirts, and I forget what else. There web site is a veritable shopping mall, and this bunch is but one of a blizzard of web sites selling such crap. It's painfully clear their main objective is simply to use the 9/11 attack as a vehicle to make a buck off of people. You yourself are merely the victim caught up in all of this. People need items to spread awareness about the issue. They need copies of DVDs. BTW, Dylan has expressly given jsut about anyone permission to make copies of LC and distribute for free. How desperately capitalist of him. I've bought a few dvds and shirts in my day. The DVD's cost money to produce. They need to cover costs and make a few bucks extra to finance other projects. These guys do not drive around in Lexus or Mercedes Benz. They work very hard to fight what they feel is a great evil. The reason you accuse them of profiteering is because you cannot or will not see this great evil which has emerged. Quote: Quote: The insinuation, of course, being that even though the collapse began at or near the impacted areas, they were not the cause of the total-nature of the collapse. Taking out the base of the structure must have been necessary (since it was melted) for the tope down demolition to be total, so that a giant core would not be left standing afterwards. You are right, the fires weren't responsible for the total collapse. It was a domino effect of failures stemming directly from the unique design of the building which allowed it to be so gigantic to begin with. IT was an achilles heel in the design that noone realized was there, and the fires were simply the force that pushed over the first domino. Totally incorrect. You are a true noob. That theory has been debunked by everyone and their mother's next-door neighbor's dog. Quote: there are enough excuses you can pull out of your *** that make them seem like they might NOT be explosives. The issue remains -- HOW THE HELL COULD THERE BE EXPLOSIONS ALL OVER THE STRUCTURES. That's just it- I don't think anyone definitively documented what they were, since eyewitnesses were busy hightailing it out of the building. Wrong. Many eyewitnesses have documented explosions going off throughout the buildings. Not just in the moments during collapse... Quote: Whatever they were, they weren't explosives. For them to have been explosives it would necessarily mean the towers would have collapsed at that moment the explosives went off, not an hour or so later Hardly. The preparatory charges needed to weaken the structure up to the point of collapse could be done long before the final sequence. The final sequence is what finally causes a building to give way and totally collapse. Quote: and the explosions would have been visible from outside. They were. THere were flashes and plumes. The thermite in the basement caused loads of white smoke at the base of the buildings... a sign of thermitic reaction. Quote: Besides, the towers had 110 stories, so there'd have been a shtload of explosions needed to make it fall, not random explosions going off wothout any pattern here and there. You do not see a pattern... therefore there must not BE a pattern? Some skeptic you are. One possible pattern is that many of the pre-collapse charges went off at or near the core, and larger explosions seem to appear at the skylobby areas, which were reinforced. The towers were essentially each three buildings stacked on each other... and each section was reinvforced wo connect to the next section. That's where some of the larger explosions seem to have occured. Quote: This is a classic case of a debunker proceeding with a discussion as if he understands what the issues actually are, using as many techniques as possible to obscure the facts. What facts, exactly, have I obscured? I've been aiming to point out and clarify the facts here. It's your attempt to clarify which obscures. I think you already know that. Explosions happened in places they shouldn't have, and you are ignoring that by saying that witnesses have not been documented saying those things, and that there is no evidence of explosives. There is evidence of thermite. That alone causes huge problems for you and your theory that only men with black beards can attack the USA. A guy in a suit certainly cannot. It's basically a prejudice that you and people like you hold. Quote: I'm discussing eyewitness accounts and what was seen on video that documented what was happening at the point of impact, the spot where the collapse began. You're on the other hand are talking about thermite in the basement. You brought up the fact that "conspiracy theorists" argue that steel melted in the impacted areas... no we do not. We are talking about the fact that there IS molten metal in the basement levels -- thus SOMETHING was melted by an extreme heat source -- not a hydrocarbon fire. You and debunkers like you insist on attributing the "steel only needs to be heated to X degree and it looses 50% of its strength" quote to our insinuation that something was melted, but that is a disinfo tactic--- stuff WAS MELTED! So get this straight for when you troll another b oard... and maybe you won't come across as such a noob. We do not say that steel was melted (necessarily) in the impacted areas in order to cause or induce collapse -- although that is a possibility. We say that steel was melted in the basement levels. I spoke about the basement levels because it was clear you were distorting the relevence of the "softened steel" aspect of the fires. ------------------ With all that said, you have broken one of the most important rules of this forum -- to accuse us of doing all of this just to make money. Why don't you go after the military industrial complex if you want to accuse anyone of profiting off of 9/11. Or Rudy Giuliani. You are no longer welcome here.* Edited by look-up, Jul 29 2008, 03:19 PM.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


911	Jul 30 2008, 06:55 PM Post #64
Posts: 2 Group: Members Member #773 Joined: 07/30/08	GoodOlDave Jul 12 2008, 11:47 AM All right, I'll be perfectly honest; I find the credibility of you supposed "truthers" suspect because most if not all of the claims you espouse are so preposterously convoluted as to be completely unworkable in reality. Not only is it impossible to rig an occupied building with controlled demolitions without leaving gigantic evidence trails or without the occupants noticing, such a stunt would be utterly beyond the capabilities of a gov't that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels. Don't even get me started on cruise missiles hitting the Pentagon. This is neither here nor there. What I'd like to know is, just what would make an independent commission independent enough that you'd ever accept their findings? To be qualified in the technical fields needed for such an investigation, and to have security clearance to access sensitive gov't information, it necessarily means the investigator would have professional and/or educational connections to the gov't in some form or another which would disqualify them as being independent right there. It seems to me that you're deliberately setting up your criteria to be so untenably strict that it can never be met, which in turn, gives you license to gripe about your conspiracies some more. So, what is an "independent" investigation, anyway? I'm new to this forum but sometimes visit the THC Sept11memorialboard forum and goodoldave is a long-time 9/11-myth supporter of the Govt official story. Today I saw where goodoldave was removed from this forum and he returned to the THC Sept11MemorialBoard to rant about it. He created a new topic and as usual Goodoldave told a half/truth, this time it was about Loosechangeforum terms of use. THC comment board is full of 9/11 disinformation folks like goodoldave in fact I challenged him on his removal and then the topic was removed. Anyway I'm glad he's gone he such a distortion master when it comes to 9/11 truths. Beware of anyone that calls themselves Pops he’s another disinformation poster. Good riddance goodoldave Edited by 911, Jul 30 2008, 07:01 PM.
Posts: 2 Group: Members Member #773 Joined: 07/30/08


Lin Kuei	Jul 30 2008, 10:23 PM Post #65
logical progression Posts: 691 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	Moved to skeptic's section



SPreston	Jul 31 2008, 08:04 AM Post #66
Patriotic American Posts: 1,078 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	911 I'm new to this forum but sometimes visit the THC Sept11memorialboard forum and goodoldave is a long-time 9/11-myth supporter of the Govt official story. Today I saw where goodoldave was removed from this forum and he returned to the THC Sept11MemorialBoard to rant about it. He created a new topic and as usual Goodoldave told a half/truth, this time it was about Loosechangeforum terms of use. THC comment board is full of 9/11 disinformation folks like goodoldave in fact I challenged him on his removal and then the topic was removed. Anyway I'm glad he's gone he such a distortion master when it comes to 9/11 truths. Beware of anyone that calls themselves Pops he’s another disinformation poster. Good riddance goodoldave Thanks for the info 911. Yes indeed good riddance to another pseudoskeptic. ats September 11 Memorial Board Why is THC mods removing post and new topics? Posted: Jul 30, 2008 4:09 PM (1 of 1) Report THC mods are removing posts again and now they've hit gooldaves new topic. -- Edited by ats at 07/30/2008 9:49 PM http://boards.historychannel.com/forum.jspa?forumID=74 pseudo = phoney Quote: 1. not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham. 2. almost, approaching, or trying to be. Noun 1. pseudo - a person who makes deceitful pretenses faker, imposter, impostor, pseud, role player, sham, shammer, pretender, fraud, fake beguiler, cheater, deceiver, trickster, slicker, cheat - someone who leads you to believe something that is not true name dropper - someone who pretends that famous people are his/her friends ringer - a contestant entered in a competition under false pretenses Adj. 1. pseudo - (often used in combination) not genuine but having the appearance of; "a pseudo esthete"; "pseudoclassic" combining form - a bound form used only in compounds; "`hemato-' is a combining form in words like `hematology'" counterfeit, imitative - not genuine; imitating something superior; "counterfeit emotion"; "counterfeit money"; "counterfeit works of art"; "a counterfeit prince"



SPreston	Jul 31 2008, 08:47 AM Post #67
Patriotic American Posts: 1,078 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	SPreston In the 1st photo it looks like the 93rd floor (17 floors down) is glowing red - In the 2nd photo it looks like the 93rd and 96th floors (14 and 17 floors down) are glowing red Looks like the 911 Whitewash Commission are a pack of liars doesn't it? GoodOlDave All right, then, just for argument's sake let's say that the commission did lie and that it was only 14-17 floors down that had the weakened support beams, rather than the entire top 15 floors. How exactly does that disprove the fact that the area where the structural failure started to occur...the same area where flight AA11 hit... had eyewitness accounts recording that support beams were being weakened by the fires? At most, all you did was show the commission report exaggerated the amount of additional damage to other floors. You didn't prove they were "a pack of liars" becuase the damage they reported to have occurred in critical locations did in fact occur, which you yourself proved with those photos you posted. You're going around in circles arguing about all these other things but the fact remains that it was still the damage from the airplane crash combined with the fires that caused the buildings to collapse, not any secret pre-planned sabotage. Because Mr Phoney Skeptic I said looks like they are glowing red. We all know a single floor of structural steel could not possibly be glowing red from puny office fires don't we? We all know that the entire structural steel framed WTC1 is a gigantic heat sink don't we? We all know that all the structural steel including the heavy core is all joined together with welds and bolts and most of the heat would be drawn away from any heat spots don't we? We all know that steel framed skyscrapers do not collapse from puny office fires don't we? Those towers were explosive top-down demolitions and you know it Mr Banned Phoney Skeptic GoodOlDave. Those 9-11 Whitewash Commission political hack members are a pack of liars and you are a liar also. They refused to address the demolition of WTC7 and they refused to punish and expose the NORAD and US Military commanders they knew were lying to the Commission. That was a political whitewashing and you know it. You have been CONned Mr Banned PseudoSkeptic GoodOlDave or you are one of the NeoCONers. Bombs going off in the WTC towers? (click photo) Melted steel? (click photo)



SPreston	Jul 31 2008, 10:19 AM Post #68
Patriotic American Posts: 1,078 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	GoodOlDave That's a puzzle to me, too, as everything I said only certifies what the History Channel's own documentary stated- these conspriacy theorists (the producers of Loose Change in particular) aren't even remotely trying to "seek the truth". They simply want to trick people into believing what they themselves want to believe and they're willing to resort to outright censorship of any criticism in order to do it. It also shows Rachael's supposed Hearst-PM-HC triangle of influence to be bogus as well. It's no secret that the Loose Change people are out gunning for Popular Mechanics ever since they published that book of theirs, and my showing that the Loose Change producers have no credibility only supports PM's stance, and yet the History Channel moderators removed it anyway. At any rate, I have to thank you, too, ATS. Your using a different username to sign back into the HC boards gave me the idea to sign back into the Loose Change board with a different username too, and I left them a going away present. If it leaves even an ember of doubt in the minds of the posters there as to the true motives of the Loose Change hucksters it will be worth it. http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=510006175&tstart=0&mod=1217515067513 Mr Banned Phoney Skeptic GoodOlDave is up to no good.



look-up	Aug 1 2008, 02:26 PM Post #69
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	yep... that's what the hardcore OCT apologists do. They play games and treat this stuff like it's funny. No, it's about the deaths of 3,000 innocent men and women, and we are the ONLY one's (the movement as a whole) who are doing ANYTHING to get them any justice. Everyone else knows what they are doing... and that's obstructing that justice. I wonder how they sleep at night, really.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


look-up	Aug 1 2008, 02:28 PM Post #70
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	Do any OTHER skeptics have anything respectful to add about our desire for a new investigation? Any advice, criticism? This thread needs to get back on track or be closed. Thanks in advance to all friendly skeptics.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


911	Aug 4 2008, 12:41 AM Post #71
Posts: 2 Group: Members Member #773 Joined: 07/30/08	THC forum keeps removing this post goodoldave was whining about censorship HUM Here is the post that has been removed five times now at the THC sept 11 memorial board Topic: is Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite Goodoldave, I wonder why you never provide a link to this interview http://mosnas2.blogspot.com/2007/09/former-chief-of-nists-fire-science.html Sunday, September 02, 2007 Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation By Alan Miller Aug 22, 2007 James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11 http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/431216/1/#new GoodOlDave Jul 12 2008, 11:47 AM Post #1 So, what is an "independent" investigation, anyway? Posts:26 Group:BANNED! Member#732 Joined:07/12/08 Goodoldave, You rail against calls for an Independent Investigation and I like how you try to label those calling for the new investigation as a group of people solely made up of supposed "truthers". That is a misrepresentation of the fact. You know darn well that 9/11 victims families, friends, 9/11 first responders, US citizens and people around the world are asking for a new Independent investigation into 9/11 and you didn't say a thing when James Quintiere Nist fire chief called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11s. "I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," explained Dr. Quintiere. Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said. Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services and law enforcement veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report or have made public statements that contradict the Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. CBC video interview transcript regarding Without Precedent a book about the 9/11 Commission authored by Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton 8/21/06: Lee Hamilton: I don’t believe for a minute that we got everything right.
Posts: 2 Group: Members Member #773 Joined: 07/30/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3