9/11 Redux - Page 11 - Ajarn Forum

esoteric1 · 22nd April 2008, 02:48

These are the kinds of things that the tragedy of 9/11(and questionable official explantions) and 'anti-terrorism' is being used to justify:

Law enforcement agencies join together for 'anti-terrorism initiative' : Local News : Commercial Appeal

Crime, terror targets for weekend as 6 counties from 3 states team up for initiative : Local News : Commercial Appeal

NewsChannel 5.com - Nashville, Tennessee - Do Tennessee Businesses Have Ties To Terrorism?

WREG-TV Memphis - Law Enforcement Crackdown on Terrorists

Apparently Memphis is chock full of terrorists!

The lies of 9/11 are being used to create a friggin police state I tell ya. First it was at the airports, now they're spreading it out across the land.

How about a "Fusion Center?"

Centers Tap Into Personal Databases

Then there's these gems:

The Raw Story | Documents show Pentagon now using FBI to spy on Americans

American Civil Liberties Union : Newly Unredacted Documents Confirm Lack Of Oversight Of Military's Domestic Surveillance Powers

Feds to collect DNA from every person they arrest - Yahoo! News

American Civil Liberties Union : Bush Administration Memo Says Fourth Amendment Does Not Apply To Military Operations Within U.S.

In case of another false-flag attack here's the plan:
Contingencies for nuclear terrorist attack / Government working up plan to prevent chaos in wake of bombing of major city

I don't really give a shit about the "Well if I'm not doing anything wrong I have nothing to worry about" types either...this is for people who are concerned about real liberty and freedom.

I'm out and on the move for a week. Good luck where ever you are people.

Larkinny · 23rd April 2008, 02:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

No shit sherlock, but you are the one whose been telling us that the NIST is full of shit and now you are using them to support your theory.

You're trolling again.

Farangrakthai · 23rd April 2008, 15:18

interesting article on former Pentagon Comptroller, Rabbi Zakheim, whom some say was one of the main players in a conspiracy to attack the world trade centers and the pentagon.

Following Zakheim and Pentagon trillions to Israel and 9-11

Quote:

Think of this as part two of Recherche du trillions perdu, my Online Journal article on Dov Zakheim, former Bush appointee as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as I mentioned, was buried under 9-11’s rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim’s watch.

According to Conspiracy News.net writers Shadow and ‘Pax’ in Dov Zakheim and the 9/11 Conspiracy, (and I suggest you look at this link) “According to the SPC website (4), a recent customer at that time was Eglin AFB, located in Florida. Eglin is very near another Air Force base in Florida-MacDill AFB, where Dov Zakheim contracted to send at least 32 Boeing 767 aircraft, as part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease agreement. (5)

”As the events of September 11, 2001 occurred, little was mentioned about these strange connections, and the possible motives and proximity of Dov Zakheim and his group. Since there was little physical evidence remaining after the events, investigators were left only with photographic and anecdotal evidence.

“There is a photograph of the Flight Termination System module, from their site.(5). Note it has a cylindrical shape, and is consistent with the size and shape of the object observed under the fuselage of flight 175.

Whether or not you agree in whole or in part with these findings, here is an eye-opening article originally from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette by Milan Simonich. It is titled Army unit piecing together accounts of Pentagon attack, and from it comes this striking information in paragraph six . . ."One Army office in the Pentagon lost 34 of its 65 employees in the attack. Most of those killed in the office, called Resource Services Washington, were civilian accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts. They were at their desks when American Airlines Flight 77 struck.”
Apart from the question of whether it was F 77 that struck the Pentagon, it is more than ironic that accountants, bookkeepers and budgets analysts, the very people who could pick up the financial frauds were struck. Especially since the hit was directed supposedly at the Office of Naval Intelligence.

keeshou · 23rd April 2008, 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

You're trolling again.

I don't troll Larkinny, I just am pointing out your idiosyncrasies. It's obvious to me that you've been accused of trolling on other sites before and now you're accusing me of doing it to defend against the accusation falling on your head.

Now take a breath and think about what you've said:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

Quote:

"I just gave you about NIST, where they said the temperatures didn't get that high."

Yet in all of your previous posts regarding the NIST you point out their incompentacy and now you are using them as a reliable source

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

So explain why NIST has failed to conduct a proper investigation, and why there is still no official report on the collapse of WTC 7.
http://www.ajarnforum.net/vb/soap-bo...tml#post914600 (9/11 Redux)

and this one

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

It is firstly noted that NIST have refused continual invitations to debate these issues, but instead choose to answer their own interpretations of the many unanswered questions. But even in doing so it is apparent that their story is falling apart like an old suitcase.

and this is the one that is the most ironic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

That's the official story, but NIST had to alter the test procedures in order to achieve the desired result. IOW, fixing the facts around the policy. Hardly scientific, eh?

Yet after you've accused them of these things you expect us to accept that in this case (where you want these FACTS to fit your theory) the NIST is correct?

How can you possibly be thick enough to say that I'm trolling or do you just think we are that thick?

Farangrakthai · 24th April 2008, 11:45

I vote for the "evil doer" as Dubya would say to be sent to the dock at The Hague!

TPMCafe | Talking Points Memo | Georgetown University Terminates Douglas Feith

Quote:

By M.J. Rosenberg - April 23, 2008, 12:53PM
It's not much but it's something. Georgetown University has decided not to renew Doug Feith's contract.
Word from campus is that both students and faculty had pretty much had it with the arch war criminal walking around campus although I also heard that he is such a goofy, pathetic guy that some students felt sorry for him. One told me, "he's like the nerdiest loser I ever saw. He cannot have done the things he's accused of. He's too obtuse."
I told her to read Arendt's "The Banality of Evil."
In any case, the Jesuits have done themselves proud by, at long last, giving Feith his walking papers. I wonder where we'll turn up next. In a McCain administration or in the dock at the Hague?

Larkinny · 25th April 2008, 01:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

I don't troll

I was being kind there. I should have just called a spade a spade.

Quote:

How can you possibly be thick enough to say that I'm trolling or do you just think we are that thick?

You obviously have no idea what the idiom black or white means (I hope you're not an English teacher). In this context, it means I am saying that just because political forces interfered with the investigation to achieve the desired conclusion, it does not automatically follow that ALL the technical data presented in the report is false.

Only a fool would assert otherwise. And that's what you're doing. The fact that you can't see that shows you're the thick one.

In fact, you're so thick you make a brick look like a wafer.

keeshou · 25th April 2008, 06:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

it does not automatically follow that ALL the technical data presented in the report is false.

So when you wrote this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny
That's the official story, but NIST had to alter the test procedures in order to achieve the desired result. IOW, fixing the facts around the policy. Hardly scientific, eh?

you weren't saying that the NIST had altered test procedures?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

Only a fool would assert otherwise. And that's what you're doing. The fact that you can't see that shows you're the thick one.

Next time read the posts that I've quoted from you. You stated (not me) that the NIST "had to alter the test procedures in order to achieve the desired result." and then you try to accuse me of not knowing the difference between "Black and White".

Science is Black and White, you don't return results from an experiment with a grey result or an altered result and expect anyone to take you seriously. I've not accused the NIST of this, you have and you are too thick to realize that after you did this you made their scientific credibility suspect.

So, you either feel they are reliable or you don't feel they are a reliable source for information and FACTS. Unless you are contending that FACTS don't need to be BLACK or WHITE, which is what I suspect in your case.

Larkinny · 27th April 2008, 01:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by keeshou

So, you either feel they are reliable or you don't feel they are a reliable source for information and FACTS.

Sigh...

Do you realize that NIST's critics do not dismiss everything that is in the report? For example, Prof. Steven Jones said, "I agree with some of the NIST report".

If you're really serious about understanding the problems with the report read his paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? Particularly Section 12 where he describes how the computer models where tweaked until the building collapsed.

Otherwise, I'm wasting no more time on you.

keeshou · 27th April 2008, 07:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

Do you realize that NIST's critics do not dismiss everything that is in the report? For example, Prof. Steven Jones said, "I agree with some of the NIST report".

You talk as if you are a scientist that knows which of the information is legitimate, but we both know that isn't true. So please drop the condescending attitude and be man enough to admit you've made a mistake.

You've stated uour opinions of the NIST on numerous occasions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny
That's the official story, but NIST had to alter the test procedures in order to achieve the desired result. IOW,fixing the facts around the policy. Hardly scientific, eh?

Now that you are trying to use their information to bolster your argument you find yourself in the position of trying to defend the very organization that you've been spending years finding fault with.

This is why I don't take your theories seriously, because you are more interested in appearing right than you are in being factual. You are leading with your ego instead of your reasoning. This is why you resort to condescending and even belligerent diatribe when you are discussing these issues with anyone who doesn't agree with every word you state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

I was being kind there. I should have just called a spade a spade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

You're trolling again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

Hey, simple mind, it's not all black or white, you know.

You think that if you make this a personal argument, that I'm going to either follow suit (so you can point out that I've attacked you) or run away scared. I just see that you don't want to discuss the facts, because you want everyone to believe what you've written based on faith.

Farangrakthai · 27th April 2008, 10:42

agree that personal atacks are not "kosher"

in a debate, though also agree with Larkinny that the NIST report has some true statements in it along with false ones, IMO.

keeshou · 27th April 2008, 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farangrakthai

though also agree with Larkinny that the NIST report has some true statements in it along with false ones, IMO.

And we are qualified to tell the difference?

My point is that one of the areas Larkinny disagrees with is the temperature of the fire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600ºC for as long as 15 min.” (NCSTAR 1, 180)

And he's said that this forensic evidence is what he is basing the temperature of the fire on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkinny

when the forensic evidence shows the temperatures weren't high enough to provide molten metal samples, yet that's what we have, then you would conclude that there must have been another source of energy

The problem with that premise is that the "molten metal samples" are part of forensic evidence and if you include them into the pool of evidence, then you are also saying that the fire could (or even should) have been higher than 600 degrees. It's not a separate issue until you find evidence of the fuel that caused that temperature or you conclude that it was an anomaly in temperature, friction, wind velocity or a combination of unknown factors that caused it.