99% of your posts are meaningless bullshit, EMP *. And most Teakdoorians would agree.
* Empty of reason; a person who trolls to fill the void inside and desperately attempt to make himself feel real. A sociopath (sic).
Printable View
99% of your posts are meaningless bullshit, EMP *. And most Teakdoorians would agree.
* Empty of reason; a person who trolls to fill the void inside and desperately attempt to make himself feel real. A sociopath (sic).
You say most people agree with you a lot, but all I hear is tumble weed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
Some are already well aware that London's 7/7 Tube bombings were also state orchestrated false flag attacks.
Queue the "Arab/Muslims Did 9/11" shills with their ad-hom attacks & the other "25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION", including the #26 I've informally added- "projection" of their shilly & bogus-logic posts, & endless ad-hom clutter posts, onto their opponents (AKA Chutzpah Maneuver). :chitown:
7/7 Whistleblower Fired For Exposing False Flag - YouTube
Bold and Brilliant: Top Police Intelligence Analyst Challenges the Gov’t 7/7 Narrative
Friday, 29 June 2012 09:01
'Sometimes it takes just one individual to step forward and ‘speak truth to power’ to break the spell of public denial and silence surrounding a tragic and unspeakable event.
One of the key components of maintaining any official government narrative of historical events, is that every member of the establishment must remain on the same page as to who, what, when, how… and why a said event took place.
This could not be any more relevant than in the cases of both 9/11 and 7/7, because maintaining total cohesion of the official narrative is necessary in order to hold in place agreed upon terror threat assessments and the public security policies which follow.'
Read more: Bold and Brilliant: Top Police Intelligence Analyst Challenges the Gov’t 7/7 Narrative
11 months ago,
Tony Farrell: British Whistle Blower Fired for Exposing 7/7, 9/11 as "State Sponsored Terror" 1/3 - YouTube
Good stuff - Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by HansuMan
A vid which will leave no doubt in any objective viewers' mind (that excludes our resident shills) about London's 7/7 FF "attacks" is this, < 1 hour, transcript & more info inside:
7/7 Ripple Effect
7/7 Ripple Effect - YouTube
oh the irony, from such an "educated" man :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
and why do you constantly seek the approval of some local majority ? are you really that insecure ? from an highly "Educated" man, it's very surprising :mid:
he is probably referring to the silent majority,Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert ShagnastierYou say most people agree with you a lot, but all I hear is tumble weed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latindancer
a myth by Right Wingers and RWAs about their good right to promote and believe in disinformation and fairy tales
the assumption is that "if people don't protest to the arguments I promote, then it means they agree to it"
a bit like Quack Quack and his beliefs on Apple superiority, if apple marketing says so and nobody protests their marketing techniques, then it must be true
What happened to unidentifiable human remains from the Pentagon explosions and fire and the Shanksville scenario?
February 28, 2012 7:13 PM
The Pentagon revealed Tuesday that the partial remains of several 9/11 victims were incinerated by a military contractor and sent to a landfill.
The number of victims involved was unclear according to a Pentagon report, but it involved some of those killed when a terrorist-hijacked airplane struck the Pentagon, killing 184, and another crashed in Shanksville, Pa., killing 40, in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
CBS correspondent Wyatt Andrew reports it's the first admission that trace remains of some 9/11 victims have been literally thrown away, just like some of the nation's fallen military heroes.
The Air Force was trying to discuss the larger report on how it would improve its mortuary in Dover, Delaware.
Air Force covered up botched handling of remains
Air Force morgue lost body parts, officials say
It admitted that it had put cremated parts of 274 fallen service members into landfills and avoided telling the families.
The Pentagon said it stopped using landfills in 2008, and today it takes remains that will never be identified - out to sea.
Pentagon says some 9/11 remains in landfill - CBS News
------
This is an example of the expert forensic work undertaken by US military and the Pentagon in identifying the non-existent passengers of the non-existent flights on 9/11.
Even more stupid, is this cover-up statement from the Pentagon;
Pentagon Contradicts Findings on Dover
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon struggled on Wednesday to clarify confusion created by an independent report that said unidentified body parts of some victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were incinerated and dumped in a landfill. Top officials promised a full accounting to the victims’ families.
Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, the chief of staff of the Air Force, told reporters that only some remains from the Sept. 11 attack on the Pentagon — but not remains from the plane crash site in Shanksville, Pa., “as best we can tell” — were ordered incinerated by the Department of Defense in what he described as a common practice at the time.
His words were at odds with the independent report, released on Tuesday, into failings at the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware.
General Schwartz’s comments shifted some responsibility for the failures at the mortuary to top Pentagon officials, rather than just the Air Force, which oversees operations at Dover. He said his staff had found a March 2002 memorandum from the under secretary of defense for personnel at the time, David S. C. Chu, who ordered that “non-associable fragmented remains that cannot be further identified and are mixed with fragments of nonbiological material” from the Pentagon attack be incinerated.
Other unidentified remains from the Sept. 11 Pentagon victims were cremated and buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Remains that were identified as those of the hijackers of United Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, were sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us...e-victims.html
-----
Then the Air Force comes out with this bit;
Air Force morgue lost body parts, officials say
In this Oct. 27, 2003 file photo, visitors leave the new Charles C. Carson Center for Mortuary Affairs at Dover Air Force Base, Del., after opening ceremonies. (AP Photo/Dee Marvin, File)
WASHINGTON - The Dover military mortuary entrusted with the solemn duty of receiving and caring for America's war dead twice lost body parts of remains shipped home from Afghanistan, the Air Force revealed Tuesday.
Three mortuary supervisors have been punished, but no one was fired in a grisly case reminiscent of the scandalous mishandling and misidentifying of remains at Arlington National Cemetery.
The Air Force, which runs the mortuary at Dover, Del., acknowledged failures while insisting it made the right decision in not informing families linked to the missing body parts until last weekend — months after it completed a probe of 14 sets of allegations lodged by three members of the mortuary staff.
Air Force morgue lost body parts, officials say - CBS News
_____
So what sort of identifying is going on there? What level of competence and professionalism do these jackasses display?
This stuff is the shonkiest ten year enquiry and identification process ever heard of!
This is all on top of the Pentagon's earliest claims that they hd teams of forensicists and doctors working 12 hour shifts around the clock ID-ing the remains found at the Pentagon, which they claimed at the time to have done in a remarkably short time.
The "oficial " numbers of dead and injured have changed from report to report, creating a smokescreen of disinformation to keep the public confused.
No Arab body lay on a slab in a morgue either.
Also in question is the quick identity made of all the passengers on board, as the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology supposedly positively identified 176 of the 189 killed at the Pentagon by November 16, 2001, a task several credible pathologists consider remarkable considering the extent of damage.It should be noted that specifics of the autopsy were never revealed, but conducted under cover at a military hospital in Dover, Delaware.
According to an article written by Dr. Thomas Olmsted, the government pathology report was highly inconsistent and filled with many discrepancies. He writes:
"The AFIP (pathology report) suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were "passengers" on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell "victims" bodies from "hijacker" bodies. In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.
"So I figured that the government would want to quickly dispel any rumors. It seemed simple: produce the names of all the bodies identified by the AFIP and compare it with the publicized list of passengers. So, I sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the AFIP and asked for an expedited response, because we were getting ready to send our boys to war on the pretext that Osama/Sadaam had done the deed.
"Fourteen months later, a few US soldiers dead, many Iraqi civilians pushing up daisies, and I finally get the list. Believe me that they weren't a bit happy to give it up, and I really have no idea why they choose now to release it.
"No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three additional people not listed by American Airline sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. I did give American the opportunity to "revise" their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague.
"The AFIP claims that the only "passenger" body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified. The satanic masterminds behind this caper may be feeling pretty smug about the perfect crime, but they have left a raft of clues tying these unfortunates together."
And although Calley was listed as one of the people killed in the crash and her paper ID was supposedly found in the rubble in tact, consider the fact the FBI never provided DNA profiles of the hijackers to medical examiners for identification because the official position was that "there was a giant fireball on impact that not only destroyed the airplane, but actually vaporized the metal."
Another 911 'Passport Miracle' !
https://teakdoor.com/the-teakdoor-lou...ml#post2143500
No more scientistic comments, ENT?
Quote Cthulhu
"Oh, and by the way, despite you repeating that I said scientistic ad nauseam, I actually *never* said that word. In fact, the word I used was scientistically, and it was packed into an entire sentence (9/11 was an inside job), using verbiage "like Numbers and stuff", meant to be easily interpreted by any socially *normal* person as *SATIRE*"
That's right, you made up a word because you didn't know the real one. No scientist ould ever make that mistake.
You haven't a clue about science and your use of English and punctuation is disgusting
he is Austrian, you have to forgive himQuote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Aaahhh! :)
I'll let you in on a secret....Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Ready?
scientistic was some beautiful bait I dangled in front of you, along with the verbage and style of the rest of those posts - you never even noticed that I was pulling your leg with my tangents on time-differences, distances to Mars, etc....
In fact, the word I used was scientistically, and it was packed into an entire sentence, using verbiage "like Numbers and stuff", meant to be easily interpreted by any socially *normal* person as *SATIRE*.
... and, as Koojoo so nicely pointed out:Quote:
This may be the time to remind you that people with Aspergers have difficulty with:
Figurative language
Metaphor and simile
Sarcasm
Facial expressions
Body language
https://teakdoor.com/the-teakdoor-lou...ml#post2143500
Better catch up on your "metaphor and simile" classes, buddy... oh, and you just *might* want to stop while you're not, at least, that far behind... (another metaphor... I bet gears are clicking)Quote:
Originally Posted by Koojo
You're repeating yourself. You don't have to apologise further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
:smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by Koojo
9/11: Explosive Evidence - Psychologists Speak Out
9/11: Explosive Evidence - Psychologists Speak Out - YouTube
Quote:
Published on Jun 23, 2012 by ae911truth
"I don't need to look at the evidence."
"I wouldn't believe it even if it WERE true."
"I refuse to believe that that many Americans could be that satanically treasonous. Someone would have talked."
"These are beliefs. They are not scientific facts. But, these beliefs do keep us from looking at the empirical evidence." - Frances Shure, 20-Year Licensed Professional Counselor, Psychotherapist
(from the movie 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Final Edition - 911expertsspeakout.org - VOD link: http://link.clickstreamtv.net/video/1107033)
Why is it so difficult for people to hear the truth about 9/11?
With their expert understanding of psychology and their extensive experience in counseling working with trauma patients, these professional psychologists explain some of the reasons why.
"When we hear information that contradicts our world view, social psychologists call the resulting insecurity 'cognitive dissonance.' " - Frances Shure, 20-Year Licensed Professional Counselor, Psychotherapist
A majority of the population were heavily affected by the events on September 11, 2001. Many are still affected and challenged by the impacts of trauma without even being aware of it - experiencing fear, denial, and anger when confronted with stories, information and scientific evidence information about 9/11.
This video is part of the documentary "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Final Edition", released in May, 2012, by Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth. The movie features dozens of experts and represents over 1700 architects and engineers who have signed AE911Truth's petition for a new investigation of the 3 skyscrapers that were destroyed on 9/11, killing almost 3000 Americans and initiating a decade of global war and all of its horrors and costs, as well as the increasing loss of liberties in the United States.
The experts interviewed in the full version of the movie detail the overwhelming scientific evidence for controlled demolition of all three WTC skyscrapers: the Twin Towers and Building 7. Experts include structural engineers, high-rise architects, demolition experts, mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, physicists, educators, National Award of Science recipient Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., Department of Defense former director of "Star Wars" program under Presidents Ford and Carter / Lt. Col. USAF Robert Bowman (Ret.), and many more.
The full-length documentary is available at Experts Speak Out .
Thank you for watching and supporting Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth.
http://www.ae911truth.org
Thank you for bringing up David Ray Griffin :
Even More DRG Lies exposed « Truthers are Sanity Challenged
Even More DRG Lies exposed
As readers may remember from my previous article I was in the process of debunking many of David Ray Griffins claims in his book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which I found in an article titled “A Comprehensive Analysis of The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie by Dr David Ray Griffin, “ found here http://sites.google.com/site/9. You may remember that in my previous article, I was working on claim 9 of DRG’s book The 9/11 Commission report: Omissions and Distortions from pages 26 and 27 of the aforementioned book and his 10 characteristics of controlled demolition, as well as Burfield’s response. As you recall, I only got to characteristics 1 and 2, freefall and collapsing straight down, respectively (again, for the second one, how else is a building supposed to collapse?) in my previous article. I will now proceed with characteristics 3-10 of controlled demolition as David Ray Griffin tries to “prove,” and Burfield’s responses.
Characteristic 3 of controlled demolition, as claimed by David Ray Griffin is that all the concrete in the WTC was turned to very fine dust (source).
Burfield, however, points out several problems: 1: The intention of controlled demolition is to bring the building down quickly in order to remove the debris as fast as possible. Let’s not forget that the north and south tower were hit at 8:46 am and 9:03 am, respectively and they collapsed at 10:28 am (north tower) and 9:59 am (south tower), respectively. That means it took the north and south tower just shy of two hours and just shy of one hour to collapse, respectively (reference ). That’s not exactly fast. Oh, and let’s not forget the debris was smoldering for about 2 weeks, which made quick removal problematic, to say the least. 2: In point of fact, dust is actually a problem when it comes to controlled demolition and demolition companies will spray debris piles with fire hoses to reduce the amount of dust. In addition, you would need an EXTREMELY large amount of explosives, not to mention it’s easier to remove large pieces of concrete than dust (reference ). As there were people in the WTC 24/7, sneaking enough explosives in there to bring it down without anyone noticing would be IMPOSSIBLE. Also, the WTC was mainly steel and glass- only the floors were concrete and was a little over 11,000 cubic meters or about 14, 387 yards, not to mention the fact that only about 31.8% of the dust consisted of gypsum (plaster), and concrete. Logically, since that is a mixture for gypsum (a component of drywall) and concrete, the amount of concrete in the dust would be LESS than 31.8 %. In addition, Burfield states that the analysis didn’t differentiate between concrete and gypsum, and the latter will also create a fine, white power, so there’s a good chance that that 31.8% was mostly gypsum (reference ). It seems to me that two 110-story office buildings and one 47-story office building will have a LOT of drywall in them. Finally, this quote from Burfield provides this information: “ Further, an estimate of debris at Ground Zero by Phillips and Jordan, Inc. (the company that managed the disposal of debris from the WTC and managed the crime scene support facilities) indicates large quantities of concrete were present:
The initial debris estimate included 125,000 tons of glass, 250,000 tons of steel, 450,000 cubic yards of concrete, 12,000 miles of electrical cable, and 198 miles of ductwork.” Hmm, 450,000 cubic yards of concrete- that would be an awful lot of dust. It seems far more likely that was many chunks of concrete.
Characteristic four, as DRG puts it in his book mentioned in this article, and as found here is : “In the case of the Twin Towers, the dust was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more.”
There are, of course, many problems with this. Burfield provides links here, here, and here showing that any time of building destruction, will produce dust particles, whether or not it is a controlled demolition.
Characteristic 5, as claimed by DRG is, as we see here, is “The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.” However, go about one-half to 3 quarters of the way down the page here, and you will see a post-collapse photo that clearly indicates otherwise.
Characteristic 6, as DRG tries to “prove,” is, as shown here: “Videos of the collapses reveal “demolition waves,” meaning “confluent rows of small explosions.”
The problem is, as Burfield points out, that Griffin cites Jeff King, who claims that the tower collapses produced pyroclastic flows. There’s just one tiny little problem with that: Pyroclastic flows ONLY OCCUR DURING A VOLCANIC ERUPTION (source)!
I don’t recall any volcanic eruptions in New York, and since volcanoes can only occur at convergent (coming together) plate boundaries, such as Italy, where the African tectonic plate is going under the European one (this is called subduction), divergent (moving apart) plate boundaries, such as the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, or in hot spots (a weak point in the earth’s crust where magma forces its way up) such as Hawaii, I doubt we ever will have volcanic eruptions there anytime soon.
Characteristic 7 as DRG claims is that “Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long,” however, as Burfield indicates and shows by a photo here, the steel came down relatively intact.
Claim 8 of Griffin’s is that many people heard explosions in the building. While technically true, what Griffin doesn’t mention is explosions don’t necessarily come from explosives and Burfield provides this link to 911myths.com, which I myself have used many times and goes into much greater detail.
Characteristic 9, as found here is: “Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions).” However, Burfieldhttp://sites.google.com/site/911guide/griffin29 refers us to Brent Blanchard, who goes into much greater detail, as well as Columbia University.
And, last but not least, we have characteristic 10 as claimed by Griffin in his book I am citing in this article, found here: ” Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in “hot spots” that remained for months.”
This quote from Burfield indicates the problem with Griffin’s claim quite nicely: “Explosives work by producing enormous amounts of over pressure in a very short space of time, shattering and breaking steel and concrete. Explosives do not generate significant amounts of heat, and what heat is produced is quickly dissipated.
Explosives simply cannot produce enough heat to liquefy steel, which melts at around 1,500degreesC depending on the precise composition of the alloy.
On the other hand, when the towers and WTC7 collapsed they had raging infernos inside them as we previously saw. They were also full of large quantities of flammable material which was buried.
Underground fires can burn for very long periods of time, at very high temperatures.”
As you can see, the only omissions and distortions are coming from David Ray Griffin.
Even More Lies from David Ray Griffin « Truthers are Sanity Challenged
Even More Lies from David Ray Griffin
Continuing from my May 26, 2011 article, it is time to continue exposing some more of David Ray Griffin’s lies in his book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. As you may recall, I left off with claim # 10 in the aforementioned article. I will now deal with claims 11 – 15 as pointed out by Andrew Burfield’s article “Distortion of Fact” found here.
First, we have claim # 11 from page 28 of The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, which states, “The omission of Larry Silverstein’s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to “pull” Building 7.” (reference )
This is of course, the usual deliberate misquote of Silverstein by “truthers.” Burfield provides the following quote from the PBS interview that “truthers” use as their “proof:” “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” Burfield further points out that it was the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) that made the decision, NOT Silverstein. Furthermore, in firefighting terms, “pull” refers to getting the firefighters out of the danger zone, as confirmed by FDNY chief Daniel Nigro (source ). Also, if the “truther” claim were true, that would mean that Silverstein would have admitted to insurance fraud on national television- why would ANYONE admit to committing insurance fraud on national TV? The dumbest person on the face of the earth aren’t THAT dumb; hell, even “truthers” aren’t THAT dumb. The following quote by Burfield makes the point quite nicely: “Consider two alternative explanations:
‘pull’= explosively implode, ‘it’ = WTC7
Or
‘pull’ = withdraw, ‘it’ = fire-fighting operations around WTC7
The two alternative statements, therefore, are:
‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is explosively implode WTC7.’
Or
‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is withdraw fire-fighting operations around WTC7.’
One of the above quotes is logical and makes sense. The other is utterly absurd.” Logic, something that escapes DRG and “truthers” in general” dictates that the latter explanation is much more logical.
This particular claim is full of more holes than Swiss cheese.
Next we have claims 12 and 13 from page 30 of the aforementioned book of David Ray Griffins, which are, “12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives(30), “ and “13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel – that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel – made no sense in this case (30).” (reference ). Burfield states that he put these two claims together because they have the same response.
First of all, the 9/11 Commission’s job was to deal with the attack, NOT the cleanup (source). Second, as I pointed out earlier, with respect to claim 12, the WTC rubble was smoldering for 2 weeks, which would make quick removal a bit difficult, to say the least. As for claim 13, that is an assumption- David Ray Griffin and “truthers” in general would do well to remember the old adage about why one should never assume. Of course, the first 3 letters of assume are an accurate description of what “truthers” keep making of themselves.
Claim 14 from pages 30-31 of DRG’s book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions is, “14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani’s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).” (source ) However, as we see here, one of the firefighters said the UPPER FLOORS COULD collapse. Notice the word could. Could implies a POSSIBILITY, NOT a certainty. For example, if I buy a lottery ticket, I COULD have the winning numbers, but more than likely I don’t. It is merely a possibility and a rather slim one at that, although the odds of winning the lottery are far better than seeing anything even remotely resembling honesty from “truthers.”
Go about a quarter of the way down the page here and you will see what Giuliani REALLY said.
Last, but not least, we have claim 15 from pages 31 and 32 the aforementioned David Ray Griffin book, “15. The omission of the fact that President Bush’s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).” (reference ).
As usual, there are problems with this claim. For one thing, while Marvin Bush is George W. Bush’s brother, there is no evidence whatsoever that Wirt Walker III is related to GWB ( reference ). Also, as we see here, Marvin Bush’s last term on the Securacom board of directors ended in June of 2000 and nobody could have known in June of 2000 what would happen in November of 2000 with the election or in September of 2001. In addition, Burfield points out that there were 50,000 people working in WTC 1 and 2 alone and some of those offices were occupied 24/7, which means that there is NO WAY IN HELL they could have wired the buildings for controlled demolition without anyone noticing. Then again, “truthers” probably think the Starship Enterprise beamed the explosives in.
There is also one other tiny little problem with this claim as well. Securacom was NOT the main security contractor at the WTC- they were hired AFTER the 1993 WTC bombing as a response to said bombing and did not even start work at the WTC until 1996. In point of fact, the two main security contractors for the WTC were the Port Authority and Kroll Inc, a private security company (reference ).
Once again, we see that David Ray Griffin’s claims make about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.
Even More Lies from David Ray Griffin « Truthers are Sanity Challenged
Even More Lies from David Ray Griffin
Continuing from my previous article, I will now point out some more lies in David Ray Griffin’s book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. My last article dealt with claims 11-15, so I will now deal with claim16 ( I have to stop with claim 16 as so far, the article stops there) as provided by Andrew Burfield’s “Distortion of Facts.”
Claim 16 from pages 33 and 34 of the aforementioned DGR book, “16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).” (reference ). First of all, as Burfield points out, the report does not indicate how likely each side of the building was to get hit. When you take into account that the Pentagon has five sides ( which is why it’s called the Pentagon), that means that each side had a 1 in 5 chance of being hit, which is the same chance.
Second, David Ray Griffin is contradicting himself. Burfield reminds us that David Ray Griffin does not believe that Al Qaeda carried out the attack, yet he also claims to know Al Qaeda’s intentions when the attack was carried out. Anyone else see the problem here?
Go just past halfway down the page here and you will see that the terrorists simply aimed for the first side of the Pentagon they saw- simply put, they took the path of least resistance.
Burfield points out that Griffin is using a logical fallacy known as the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy,” which is found here: “The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy in which information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning. The name comes from a story about a Texan who fires several shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.”
Also, as we see here, David Ray Griffin contradicts himself yet again as he thinks Hanjour would hit the Pentagon right where he wanted to, when a few pages previously in his EXACT same book, he says Hanjour was such a poor pilot that he could not have hit the Pentagon in the first place. Which one is it? As you can see, Griffin is clearly contradicting himself, which means that he is, by definition, LYING.
^Jesus Christ man, just go down to your car, connect a pipe to the exhaust and run it inside. Start her up, take a seat and breathe deeply. If you don't fucking die you'll be out ya head so bad maybe it will cure you.
^^ gee who'd've guessed the head "Arab/Muslims did 9/11" deceiver would come back with an irrelevant 3-post ad-hom attack? :sleeping:
from the Final Edition of AE911Truth.org's premier vid released around a month ago, 4 mins,
9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out - Trailer - AE911Truth.org
9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out - Trailer - AE911Truth.org - YouTube
Quote:
Published on May 13, 2012 by ae911truth
This is the trailer for the much-anticipated Final Edition of the expert-packed 90-minute documentary by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The powerful documentary takes its cross-country World Premiere Tour of 30 cities with AE911Truth founder and the film's director, Richard Gage, AIA, from May to July 2012.
Please send this YouTube link far and wide and share it with your Facebook friends.
The film, which has been edited over the last six months since its "Pre-Release v1.3" and which has now been packed with over a hundred new photos and videos, while still being cut down to 90 minutes, will be ready for viewing/download by May 21, 2012. It can also be ordered in our online store now and it will ship to you 5/29/12.
Order the DVD today at http://shop.ae911truth.org/DVD-Cased-9-11-Explosive-Evidence-Experts-Speak-Ou...
Feature-length 9/11 Documentary:
http://www.911ExpertsSpeakOut.org
http://www.AE911Truth.org
Join 23-year architect Richard Gage, AIA, in this feature length documentary with cutting-edge 9/11 evidence from more than 50 top experts in their fields -- high-rise architects, structural engineers, physicists, chemical engineers, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, controlled demolition technicians, and more. Each is highly qualified in his/her respective fields. Several have Ph.D's -- including National Medal of Science awardee Lynn Margulis. She, along with the other experts, exposes the fraud of NIST and discusses how the scientific method should have been applied and acknowledges the "overwhelming" evidence of high temperature incendiaries in all dust samples of the WTC.
9/11 family members and psychologists round out the professional showing and tie it all together in this milestone production.
^^^ and ^^^^ and ^^^^^All bolix.
No aircraft or missile hit the pentagon building.
If one had, there would have been a seismic evidence to verify that.
There is none.
There is evidence of an electrical disturbance at that time, compatible with an electronically generated trigger for a series of explosions that occurred there, but none were grounded.
The four aircraft that were supposed to be involved were not identified at any of the four sites either.
A neanderthal redded me for the above post, commenting:Quote:
Originally Posted by HansuMan
"[...] the worst part of it is that your constant dribble is an affront to the families of those that lost their lives. "
PFFF! :rofl:
Here's the only constant dribble which is
an affront to the families of those who lost their lives:
Remember Building 7 - 10th Anniversery TV Ad - YouTubeWTC 7 — Remember Building 7 Commercial (9/11 Truth)
Remember Building 7 | Stand with the 9-11 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?
^ but that surely won't stop our "Arab/Muslims did 9/11" deceivers around here from a'swingin and a'missin with their constant dribble, ;):chitown:
I'd love to know who Red'd you, so I can Green them... but like everything else you say, you can't even support and substantiate that.
Well, there you go, folks. An expert psychologist is going to tell you why there is a government conspiracy. What could put your mind more at ease?Quote:
With their expert understanding of psychology and their extensive experience in counseling working with trauma patients, these professional psychologists explain some of the reasons why.