dougplumb

Please state a reason to support belief, an objective reason not a subjective one such as "George Bush said it wasn't" or "It was on TV and everyone else believes it"

Forget this one, I will redo it. It didn't post the whole poll I set up. Admin pls erase

Lets hear some objective reasoning to back up votes. No blind votes here please

"Global warming is accepted by many. This is why when debunking it, I take the point that I have the burden of demonstrating the theory to be false. What is your point???" My point is that public opinion on scientific matters does not form an argument.

"This is a false claim about "none of you." It's the kind of thing I was talking about. It presumes an argument where none exists." By none of you, I mean the people who will argue the official version without giving a single thread of evidence and use "popular opinion" instead.

Bill P. I read your profile and I know you are a scientist. Here is my explanation for believing 9/11 was an inside job ************************************* Three buildings collapsed straight down through a path of greatest resistance, this is impossible by the second law of thermodynamics which dictates that objects fall through the path of least resistance. Fire does not burn hot enough to make this happen [steel buildings collapse], many fires in steel framed structures have occurred both before and after 9/11 and none of them collapsed. The world trade center building (one of the towers) was on fire for 4 hours in 1975 and there was NO structural damage. That fire burned hotter and longer than the 9/11 fires. Fuel doesn't burn very hot at STP. (standard temp and pressure) The buildings were solid after the crashes, they remained standing perfectly upright. There was no damage on anywhere near the scale that would cause the buildings to fall. By far, the greatest force buildings like this experience is that from wind, not gravity. They are built incredibly strong and the designer of the buildings considered that a plane may crash into them one day and allowed for this contingency. Several planes could have crashed into those buildings and they still would have stood. The building designer did not consider the affect of the fuel as he stated, probably because it wasn't worth considering, not because he forgot to. The number of experts supporting this hypothesis is too many to even list here- far greater than the number of experts supporting the NIST theory. NIST is in no way qualified to investigate the incident. If the gov was interested in truth they would have had the FAA and Fire Marshall conduct the investigation. ************************************* Now, lets hear why you think I should believe the official version. Else I could argue that the Easter Bunny exists because millions of people believe that, and demand you to prove that it doesn't. I am looking for one reason, one piece of evidence that would suggest the official version was actually true (never mind that the official version has been espoused by people that are in fact, known liars. We know this because they are trying to sell us on man made global warming. Never mind all the lies and cover ups around 9/11. Give me just one piece of evidence.

Bill P. "I urge you - - - take a specific conspiracy theory, perhaps your favorite one. Stick to that one. Build the case with facts, specific ones." I have. Try reading my posts.

Bill P. "The notion that 19 terrorists did it has been pretty well accepted. It is clearly the incumbent theory." So is global warming. In fascism accepted facts mean nothing. If you think that because the public believes it and its on TV gives the theory any weight in argument than you are plain crazy and its as simple as that. None of you can come up with a single reason why the official version of 9/11 should be accepted as truth other than "it was on TV". "It is popular opinion" is not in any way, shape, or form remotely connected to any kind of logical argument. Its pure bullshit from people that have absolutely no argument and no evidence to support their claim. Its insulting to the other readers of this forum. You cannot successfully argue anything with me with that kind of thinking. I have stated my reason for believing 9/11 was an inside job in scientific terms and in terms of other experiences with building fires. - in less than a page of writing. How else would you like it ? Save me your academic 'baffle them with bullshit and false argument' techniques and show me some evidence. Have any of you actually read Atlas Shrugged ? Do you like Ayn Rand ?

How about this as a starting point: The government did 9/11, you must prove that 19 terrorists did it with supporting evidence. So far this thread has no evidence supporting the official version and piles of it supporting the alternative. You wish to spike the debate with an assumption that has no known basis in reality. This is how a responsible citizen should look at it, always being suspicious of government. Governments should NEVER be trusted.

Selene:"The status quo of the "9/11 incident" [which is the most objectively that I can phrase it, but would be willing to "re-term" the "event" for the goal of having a better proposition] is that four commercial airliners were intentionally flown into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania by nineteen (19) agents of al-Qaeda causing the deaths of 2,974 individual human beings." If that is to be the status quo, then why ? Where is the supporting evidence ? Should we believe it because George Bush tells us it is so ? Where is the grounding for this story ? Does it rest on the unassailable character of the US government ? Three buildings collapsed straight down through a path of greatest resistance, this is impossible by the second law of thermodynamics which dictates that objects fall through the path of least resistance. Fire does not burn hot enough to make this happen, many fires in steel framed structures have occurred both before and after 9/11 and none of them collapsed. The world trade center building (one of the towers) was on fire for 4 hours in 1975 and there was NO structural damage. That fire burned hotter and longer than the 9/11 fires. Fuel doesn't burn very hot at STP. (standard temp and pressure) The buildings were solid after the crashes, they remained standing perfectly upright. There was no damage on anywhere near the scale that would cause the buildings to fall. By far, the greatest force buildings like this experience is that from wind, not gravity. They are built incredibly strong and the designer of the buildings considered that a plane may crash into them one day and allowed for this contingency. Several planes could have crashed into those buildings and they still would have stood. The number of experts supporting this hypothesis is too many to even list here. Fires would not have weakened the steel to failure. The government story on what happened is loaded with contradictions. Only controlled demolition can make this happen. It was a controlled event.

Jim Hoffman does a great job in explaining how the gov theories around wtc1 and wtc2 collapse cannot be correct.

I am not formally schooled in the art of debate, nor am I a mathematician but I know 2+2 isn't 5.

So Selene, you are saying that the government version should be accepted as true unless otherwise proven ? I always thought it was the governments job to prove their theory since it is their theory that is being disputed. Or do we start with the axiom "government is good" ? and work from there ? My case rests on the speed and manner in which wtc1 & wtc2 collapsed and the collaborating expert testimony. My case rests on the fact that wtc7 looks exactly like a conventional controlled demolition in every aspect such as that presented on www.ae911truth.org. This has always been why I have believed 9/11 to be an inside job from the start. My case rests on the fact that the official version of events has absolutely no evidence and a story that is constantly changing. Jim Hoffman explains this in the Guns and Butter interviews. My case rests on the fact that the other side has done nothing but cheat and steal to enrich their own friends and pocket books and that their word is not reliable. I do not believe Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush or Barrack Obama. I think they are obviously untrustworthy.

Maybe you will come up with some evidence that supports your position on things. Check out Mike Riveros' "WhatReallyHappened.com". I think he knows a little bit about video.

Johnathan: "Now that's interesting. Douhg doesn't believe anything that he sees on TV, but he does believe what conspiracy theorist have told him to see in lossy, compressed images which are about one-eighth to one-fourth the resolution of what was shown on TV." No, I don't watch many of them. I read and research mostly for myself - things like the Club Of Rome Documents, bits of Tragedy and Hope, writings of HG Wells, Bertrand Russell. Its all right there is front of you if you choose to look. Johnathan: "If I were to shoot four separate videos of the same person, and in the third one I used a different angle, different lighting, and a different exposure, which resulted in the image being darker and having more contrast, do you think that it would be objective and rational for someone to claim that the third video is not of the same person because his beard is darker than in the other videos? Or would such analysis reveal the analyst's ineptitude?" I think if one of the shots showed someone with a smaller nose then that would suggest that it was a different person than the rest. That video is a whole other topic. They guy in the video is right handed and bin Laden is left handed - or visa versa. There is a huge list of problems that expose that video as a fakery. Plus there is no audio so it doen't mean anything anyways. Johnathan: "Likewise, no one has proven to me that the WTC towers actually fell. In fact, no one has proven to me that the buildings ever existed in the first place, and a lot of know liars were among the people who claimed that they existed. Reports of their existence and destruction could have been a huge conspiracy to trick the American people." I suppose that is possible ... I saw the world trade center buildings in NY before they were blown up. I know of people personally that have seen the place where they were before that evil terrorist mastermind bin Laden attacked. Mostly the media doesn't lie, in fact they lie by omission. They talk about only one theory of what happened on 9/11 and not the rest of the theories that are better supported in the scientific community.

I wouldn't find any more evidence supporting the official version of 9/11 there than I could here.

I get your point: Its OK for me to be insulted by other posters on the forum, but if I point out the absurdly ridiculous and what some may call obscene behaviour of this "system" I get called out. There is nothing I have said that I cannot back up, I have nothing to be ashamed of in my posts. A lot can be seen about a system in how it treats its children, and when you get cops strip searching 8 year olds and arresting them for having plastic knives something is seriously wrong and people had better wake up. If you need to kick me off this forum for saying that, then fine.

Exactly what don't you like about my post ? What did I say exactly that you dis approve of ? Are you offended by how I expose how these cops treat children ?

"In any case I wonder if the Campaign For Liberty would qualify as a conspiracy." Its not on TV so it must be a conspiracy.

On the topic of money, Greenspan has an essay called "Gold and Economic Freedom" its posted at several places on the web. I have studied this stuff for a while and I believe government should create money to pay police, roads, etc - stuff that everyone uses and requires big planning and long term planning. This money could be literally printed off to increase currency supply as needed for growth. If growth slows due to overpopulation, the money can be taxed back as excise taxes. We would need armies to stop the banksters from taking over other countries and for floods, etc. - national emergencies. Government could be local - local people would decide agenda for education and police policies as per necessary in each community. We would of course have to get out of the UN. That place is beyond corrupt - man made global warming and the carbon tax hoax proves that beyond any doubt. Lots of scientists have spoken out about UN corruption.

"One of the most serious downsides for me is the actual solution presented: the idea that if we take issuing money out of the hands of bankers and put it in the hands of politicians, the politicians will act honorably and in the best interests of the citizens. I find that position to be... er... not in alignment with the nature of the politicians that I have observed." That is because politics and big business are in the sack together. Stop that and politicians will have to act differently. A different type of person will go for politics while the existing crop would probably join some underground satanic organization or be thrown in jail. I sat in student politics, everyone there wanted to do the right thing, there was no money involved.

I can prove what I say. I don't care if you don't like it. Its been in the news - what about that little girl that got arrested for bringing a plastic knife to school to prepare her lunch?. The police thought she may be working with bin Laden I guess, given that she had a plastic knife. I can find the link to a video where the home owner was invaded by Health Canada and one of their goons kept a gun trained on his little girl as they tore apart his house. He was a homeopathic doctor. Codex Alimentarius stikes again! Its that ridiculous. So pardon me for ridiculing the ridiculous.

OK Mike, lets talk about the evidence that supports the official version of 9/11. If anyone insults me I'm calling the police. That is cyber-terrorism and you could be shipped off to Guantanamo 8-) If you have little kids, watch out. These guys get a big charge out of pointing guns at 8 year olds and strip searching them.

They tried to establish The League of Nations after world war 1, but we didn't have TV back then and propaganda was an art rather than a science. The attempt for the League of Nations failed. With 50 years of television experience, propaganda has become a science and they can make 92% - 93% of the population believe whatever they want. There is a small percentage of people that are completely immune to it [Jaques Ellul "Propaganda"]. No one knows why as far as I can tell. The whole idea is to create a world government with interdependent nations and interdependent armed forces so that any one nation cannot rise up against the Money Lenders. All the wars have been because some leader somewhere wants out and they paint him as a torturous & corrupt dictator so that US forces and people can be lead into war with him. They keep telling the American public that these dictators rise and threaten the USA, - no they threaten the banking system as we know it and that cannot be tolerated. The USA has practically institutionalized torture, calling it "pain compliance". The US president has the right to order torture of children in front of their parents using pliars on genitalia of children. This is sick and there are some very sick people running the USA. Everyone knows torture doesn't work. What are all these people doing in Guantanamo ? This is what the banks want, they do not want a single powerful nation that could rise against them, this is why the USA is being converted to a 2nd or 3rd world country through Sustainable Development. A large police force will be required once people learn about what Sustainable Development really is. The economy isn't coming back - its impossible with the current debts. The physical (real) economy is being sent off shore (with approval because of environmentalism) to leave us with an army/police/prison based economy to police the world for the banks. To do this the establishment must put psychopaths in power. Psychopaths crave power because power protects them from being found out and stopped. This is why we have torture and lots of child molestation and satanic rituals. See "The Finders" by Ted Gunderson (a PDF document). Gunderson has exposed the satanic rituals and was the head of 800 FBI agents before he learned that the US government was bringing in all the drugs.

Judith: "I've never seen anyone come out against fractional banking before; it strikes me as a radical idea. Why would anyone go into banking under those terms? Wherein would lie the profit? What would the world be like without any banking at all?" That is a whole other topic and there is quite a bit to think about. I ran for the Canadian Action Party and thought we had the best monetary policy. The problem with banking in a nutshell is that we have private banks creating money from OUR ability to pay for it and lending it to governments. This puts the banks in control of governments and as you saw from The Money Masters, the banks have had a gun to the heads of government. Who ever finances a project runs the project. Banks finance government and therefore run government. Governments could create their own money instead of borrowing from banks and commercial banking could operate the way it does now, but there is nothing in that that could prevent banks from taking over governments. Ultimately gold and silver are the only "honest" money but no one lends gold or silver at 10 % interest - more like 30 %. This puts the power in the hands of families that have money to lend and average folks on the same tread mill. The thing about our current system of banks lending money to gov is that the economic system MUST collapse. Its a mathematical fact. If governments created their own money they could inject money into the economy as necessary and tax it back out to control money supply. More money is owed than exists in the economy and this gap just gets bigger and bigger with time as we have it today. Booms and busts are great opportunities for war which is to add to the income tax and take a larger portion of the economic output of the nation. Reagan was shot by Hinkley because he exposed the Federal Reserve in a document that is online. It was a congressional report done while Reagan was pres. Kennedy was going to print 4 billion worth of government notes. All the assassinations go back to presidents standing up to the bankers. The UN was never voted for, it was put into place by the banks to help the banks print their money for all governments all over the world and have it controlled from one source - world government.