PhD Kevin Barrett in an interview with Russia Today RT about who really did 9/11

reply to post by Alfie1

Sorry but that is a typical truther response. When awkward facts are raised resort to plan B and draw them into the conspiracy. I take it that you are suggesting Industrial Risk Insurers are part of the conspiracy and to hell with their shareholders ?

Can you suggest why they should be happy to be milked of $861 million dollars and to remain forever silent ?

Are you saying it's not possible??
Because it was done..They did pay and quite quickly considering the circumstances..
And when was the last time a company REALLY cared about it's shareholders??

Originally posted by boondock-saint
including the peer-reviewed paper of Dr. Niels Harrit of the
University of Copenhagen

You claim it was peer reviewed, so how about telling us who exactly peer reviewed it. Your refusal to name them just shows that it was NOT peer reviewed!

Originally posted by dereks
You claim it was peer reviewed, so how about telling us who exactly peer reviewed it. Your refusal to name them just shows that it was NOT peer reviewed!

lmao

I can tell u didn't read the article
or maybe you can't read.

u missed the point of the entire post.
WW said only 1 scientist
and I showed a link with 9.
That was the point.

reply to post by Danbones

I did hear silverstein tell Kevin Spacey on a PBS interveiw that they blew the building up

Read em and weep ? Nah , maybe you failed to understand what I posted so , I'll break it down for you . PROVE where Silverstein told Kevin Spacey that they blew the building up , as you stated .

As for the "pull it" statement , I knew that is what you would come back with . As other members have pointed out already , Silverstein's use of those words in no way indicates that he told anyone to pull any buildings , let alone blow them up .

Try again , prove where he said that they blew the building up .

reply to post by dereks

You claim it was peer reviewed, so how about telling us who exactly peer reviewed it. Your refusal to name them just shows that it was NOT peer reviewed!

Gawd, what a load of tripe..Care to show where Boon was even asked, let alone refused??
Do you just make stuff up as you go along???

reply to post by weedwhacker


Somehow your opinion isn't surprising although it is interesting.
I'm starting to realize those who don't believe in alien-visitation are of the same group as those who believe 9-11 went down exactly as depicted.

Please know Weed, this isn't an attack on you rather it's an observation and I am wondering if there's some underlying correlation for this. And although I'm expecting to see '.....that's because you're a conspiracy theorists Human_Alien" but that ain't gonna fly with me so spare the bandwidth.

There has to be something deeper than that. And even if I am half-way correct, I then have to wonder why you're attracted to sites like these in the first place. Is it to expand your mind or to just argue?
Again Weed, not a personal attack at all, Not my intent. Just trying to connect the dots.
Thanks

reply to post by Danbones

i provided a credible demonstrrtion of the common usage of the term "pull it' as it is used in the demolition industry.

Larry Silverstein was not "in the demolition industry" so , prove that he meant "blow the building up" by the usage of those words .

You can't .

reply to post by Human_Alien


No offense to you, but people choose not to believe in (or remain skeptical about) alien visitations or 9/11 conspiracy theories because there is no hard scientific evidence to back up such radical claims. If there was inconclusive evidence that pointed to 9/11 conspiracy theories/alien visitations, then many (if not all) skeptics would shift their views. That should go without saying.

I cant speak for weedwhacker, but I come to this site not to argue or angrily debate, but to exchange knowledge and information, and to learn about what other people believe. Things like this interest me.

reply to post by dereks


I realise that you are hear to debunk...but if your were interested in the truth you might want to listen to an expert
what are your credentials again?

Those criticisms are of Dr. Jones' 2006 paper, not the thermite paper published in 2009.
BYU reviewed the thermite paper and allowed Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, director of the Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU, to site his affiliation with BYU in the paper. No credible rebuttal has been published, just a lot of personal attacks and slander.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


Interview with Physicist Jeff Farrer – One of the Scientists who Found Thermite in the World Trade Center dust
dprogram.net...

guys, it doesn't really matter.
No matter how much evidence
is provided, none will be enough
for some people to let go of a belief
system which has been in place for
9 yrs. I'm done with this discussion.
It's a waste of time til the current regime
falls and we can get a proper investigation
that allows real evidence.

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Danbones

 

i provided a credible demonstrrtion of the common usage of the term "pull it' as it is used in the demolition industry.

Larry Silverstein was not "in the demolition industry" so , prove that he meant "blow the building up" by the usage of those words .

You can't .

The average person IMO would not phrase it like that either way..
I would expect either "pull them" or "blow it" depending on what theory you believe,,
I just don't understand him saying "pull it"

reply to post by okbmd


I showed you the industry standard use of the phrase
you haven't proved it is ever used differently in REALITY

as to the bit about Pull meaning pulling the firemen out....how many firemen were in the building when that statement was made again?

No , you did not . Prove me wrong

yes I did and I have
now I am hoing to light the wood stove with a liitle kerosene and watch my house collapse at freefall speeds in its own foot print like it does every time I light my stove

Originally posted by boondock-saint

No matter how much evidence
is provided, none will be enough
for some people to let go of a belief
system which has been in place for
9 yrs.

And that applies to the truthers that have a belief in nanoo nanoo thermite, silent explosives, the jews did it, holographic planes, missile firing planes, mini nukes etc etc. These are all things that conspiracy theorists have put forward to explain 9/11. They simply ignore the facts and make up stories.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Sorry but that is a typical truther response. When awkward facts are raised resort to plan B and draw them into the conspiracy. I take it that you are suggesting Industrial Risk Insurers are part of the conspiracy and to hell with their shareholders ?

Can you suggest why they should be happy to be milked of $861 million dollars and to remain forever silent ?

Are you saying it's not possible??
Because it was done..They did pay and quite quickly considering the circumstances..
And when was the last time a company REALLY cared about it's shareholders??

Yes, I am saying it is not possible. I don't believe in this vast conspiracy in human terms. I don't believe that , outside of a James Bond film , you can in reality get large numbers of otherwise law-abiding people to risk all and to be implicated in mass murder for a few psychopathic baddies.

So far as shareholders are concerned, it would be a foolish company board that ignored their interests. Shareholders have votes.

As if the perpetrators cared to save the known to be skeptics in the buildings right ? They dont care if you are a known skeptic or not,we would have all been toast that day regardless, quit trying to save them hard time FFS, I bet 1/2 of all those who died in the towers that day would have been skeptics today, some of wich even trying to "debunk" the demolition theory right here,i dont know why i do this anymore, some people just need the ultimate proof i guess

reply to post by dereks

And that applies to the truthers that have a belief in nanoo nanoo thermite, silent explosives, the jews did it, holographic planes, missile firing planes, mini nukes etc etc. These are all things that conspiracy theorists have put forward to explain 9/11. They simply ignore the facts and make up stories.

More of the same tactics..Bring up the whack job theories that were probably started by your mates to muddy the waters..
I only believe in ONE theory, and that is that the OS is a lie..Debunk that!!!!

reply to post by Danbones

I showed you the industry standard use of the phrase

Again , Silverstein was not in the demolition industry so , prove to us that he was attempting to convey the "industry standard use of the phrase" .

And , don't forget to show us where he told Spacey that they blew the building up . I'm still waiting . Should I go ahead and put the coffee on ?

reply to post by okbmd


hope your house doesn't collapse when you light your stove

reply to post by weedwhacker


The term 'pull it' to me, couldnt be used to describe stopping physical efforts at fighting the fire.

It doesnt make sense.

Where as the term pull it, is a commonly used demolition term.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Boon...nope. Sorry.

Your link? "9"?? I see only one name. And a vague reference o eight others. From that ONE source. There is always going to be someone who gets it wrong...like the Jane's editor, and the "missile" in California!! These sorts of claims, of "thermite" --- and in the case Neils Harritt? Self-licking, self-promoting. Fluff and noise.

ALL sides need to be looked at. So, no....what I wrote about Jones' work is not "bunk", it stands. IF a few other self-proclaimed "experts" were also fooled by his incredibly poor investigative and lack of controlled conditions experimental skills, then it reflects very poorly on their credibility and reputations.

BTW...IF there were any merit in the "thermite" (it was paint, actually...as it turns out) then there wouldn't be "ten scientists", there would be hundreds, perhaps thousands!!! ALL clamoring to express outrage...but, only IF there actually was any accuracy in this. There isn't.