11 of 23
11
Inside Job—9/11 Truth and other 9/11 Discussion (Merged)
Posted: 16 March 2008 02:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 151 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05

This is really an absurd collection of arguments.  You have repeatedly held your grammar school understanding of physics in higher regard than the expertise of people who are clearly more qualified to make a call on this topic than you are.  Are you a certified Civil Engineer?  Architect? Demolition expert?

It’s not my fault that you weren’t building and launching rockets in grammar school.

Here is what someone else said about my equations in that same post:

psikeyhackr wrote:

d = 1/2 a t^2
  Since gravitational acceleration is 32 ft per seconds squared the data for this problem yields:
  60 = 16 * t^2
  Therefore the time is about 2 seconds.
  1.936491673 sec = t

Nice to see some calculations. I’ve written a simplistic but long article on collapse timing considering momentum based on a ‘top block’ and tower with no integrity.

Who are you blaming for math-o-phobia?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2008 04:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 152 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-03-19

I just listened to the Point of Inquiry podcast with P.J. Grothe interviewing Norm Allen. Little did I expect to have the discussion stray into the connections between religion and 9/11, but it did.

Grothe put forth the prevailing opinion that religious extremists were fundamentally the cause of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Of course, Allen didn’t take issue with that widely accepted point, but rather got into why some leaders in the African American religious community suggest God was somehow behind the attacks as some form of punishment.

My issue is with both Grothe and Allen for accepting, unexamined, any connection between religion and 9/11 in the first place.

I urge any thinking person to read David Ray Griffin’s latest book, “9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.” Therein, Griffin raises 25 questions that represent major contradictions involving 9/11. Three of these questions (8, 16, & 17), I think, are critical to any presumption that there is a connection between religion and 9/11.

What follows are the summary paragraphs from the book on the questions of interest:

8. With regard to whether Ted Olson received two phone calls that morning from his wife, Barbara Olson, reporting that Flight 77 had been hijacked: Olson’s claim that he did is contradicted by the FBI report presented to the Moussaoui trial, according to which an attempted call from Barbara Olson to the Department of Justice was “unconnected” and hence lasted “o seconds.” Olson’s claim that the calls were made from a passenger-seat phone was contradicted by American Airlines, which said that Flight 77 had no such phones.

16. With regard to the question of where the treasure trove of evidence reportedly left by Mohamed Atta was found: The 9/11 Commission’s claim, that it was found in luggage that failed to make the transfer to American Flight 11 from the Portland-to-Boston commuter flight, was contradicted by news reports from the initial days after 9/11, according to which it was found in a Mitsubishi that Atta had left in the Logan Airport parking lot.

17.  With regard to whether the presence of hijackers on the airliners was reported by passengers using cell phones to call relatives: The claim by the press and the 9/11 Commission that such calls were made was contradicted by the FBI report provided at the Moussaoui trial in 2006, which entailed that no passengers used cell phones to call relatives.

Now, me speaking again, these three questions may seem unrelated to the larger question that grabbed my attention—is there a connection between religion and 9/11?

Here is the relationship: the passenger calls to relatives, and Barbara Olson’s call to Ted Olson (now U.S. Solicitor General) is the only eyewitness evidence that hijackers who looked to be Muslim men, had, in fact, taken control of the airliners. And, the treasure trove of evidence of question 16 supposedly contained the list of hijackers, by name.

If the calls could not have been made, and if the treasure trove of evidence is suspect because of contradictions between reports as to where it was found, then there is no evidence of any connection between religion and 9/11.

Dwain

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2008 06:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 153 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2008-03-18
dadeets - 19 March 2008 04:31 PM

I just listened to the Point of Inquiry podcast with P.J. Grothe interviewing Norm Allen. Little did I expect to have the discussion stray into the connections between religion and 9/11, but it did.

Grothe put forth the prevailing opinion that religious extremists were fundamentally the cause of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Of course, Allen didn’t take issue with that widely accepted point, but rather got into why some leaders in the African American religious community suggest God was somehow behind the attacks as some form of punishment.

My issue is with both Grothe and Allen for accepting, unexamined, any connection between religion and 9/11 in the first place.

I urge any thinking person to read David Ray Griffin’s latest book, “9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.” Therein, Griffin raises 25 questions that represent major contradictions involving 9/11. Three of these questions (8, 16, & 17), I think, are critical to any presumption that there is a connection between religion and 9/11.

What follows are the summary paragraphs from the book on the questions of interest:

8. With regard to whether Ted Olson received two phone calls that morning from his wife, Barbara Olson, reporting that Flight 77 had been hijacked: Olson’s claim that he did is contradicted by the FBI report presented to the Moussaoui trial, according to which an attempted call from Barbara Olson to the Department of Justice was “unconnected” and hence lasted “o seconds.” Olson’s claim that the calls were made from a passenger-seat phone was contradicted by American Airlines, which said that Flight 77 had no such phones.

16. With regard to the question of where the treasure trove of evidence reportedly left by Mohamed Atta was found: The 9/11 Commission’s claim, that it was found in luggage that failed to make the transfer to American Flight 11 from the Portland-to-Boston commuter flight, was contradicted by news reports from the initial days after 9/11, according to which it was found in a Mitsubishi that Atta had left in the Logan Airport parking lot.

17.  With regard to whether the presence of hijackers on the airliners was reported by passengers using cell phones to call relatives: The claim by the press and the 9/11 Commission that such calls were made was contradicted by the FBI report provided at the Moussaoui trial in 2006, which entailed that no passengers used cell phones to call relatives.

Now, me speaking again, these three questions may seem unrelated to the larger question that grabbed my attention—is there a connection between religion and 9/11?

Here is the relationship: the passenger calls to relatives, and Barbara Olson’s call to Ted Olson (now U.S. Solicitor General) is the only eyewitness evidence that hijackers who looked to be Muslim men, had, in fact, taken control of the airliners. And, the treasure trove of evidence of question 16 supposedly contained the list of hijackers, by name.

If the calls could not have been made, and if the treasure trove of evidence is suspect because of contradictions between reports as to where it was found, then there is no evidence of any connection between religion and 9/11.

Dwain

Ohh please this has nothing to do with the podcast. Also Olson is no longer the solicitor general so your copy and paste job is pathetic. I hope the mods on this forum will not allow this type of drivel to be allowed to clog good dialogue on a rational forum. I for one will leave this place if it becomes a den of junk gossip.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2008 06:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 154 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-03-19
rationaljeff - 19 March 2008 06:04 PM

Ohh please this has nothing to do with the podcast. Also Olson is no longer the solicitor general so your copy and paste job is pathetic. I hope the mods on this forum will not allow this type of drivel to be allowed to clog good dialogue on a rational forum. I for one will leave this place if it becomes a den of junk gossip.

Sorry, I didn’t realize I made such a major mistake. So, Olson was Solicitor General at the time, rather than now, as I incorrectly stated. Interestingly, I now find out via a check of wikipedia, Sept. 11 is his birthday.

As to having nothing to do with the podcast—for Humanists and Freethinkers of all ilk, it should have something to do with whatever is going on anytime someone presumes, unchallenged, that radical religion had anything to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2008 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 155 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  339
Joined  2008-02-27

What is your central point here?  Is it that the 19 Muslims who hi-jacked the planes on 9/11 were acting for secular reasons, not out of extreme Islamic fundamentalism or that the 19 who hi-jacked the plane were not Muslim at all?  Or is it both?  The points you raise imply that there was some sort of cover up and that phone calls were not made off the plane. 

What is your theory on why the hi-jackers took the plane?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2008 05:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 156 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-03-19
JRM5001 - 20 March 2008 11:43 AM

What is your central point here?  Is it that the 19 Muslims who hi-jacked the planes on 9/11 were acting for secular reasons, not out of extreme Islamic fundamentalism or that the 19 who hi-jacked the plane were not Muslim at all?  Or is it both?  The points you raise imply that there was some sort of cover up and that phone calls were not made off the plane. 

What is your theory on why the hi-jackers took the plane?

I thank you for responding in a serious manner. This is a subject that warrants serious consideration.

1.  If there is a significant contradiction between two official positions on a matter, then there is no hard evidence on that matter.
2.  If there were hijackers, there is no hard evidence they were Muslim.
3.  If they were not necessarily Muslim, there is no hard evidence the attacks had a religious motive.
4.  If there is no hard evidence the attacks necessarily had a religious motive, then secularists (Humanists, atheists, etc.) should not use religion-motivated attacks on 9/11 as one of their talking points.


And, maybe as an aside:

There is no hard evidence there were hijackers in the first place, let alone 19 of them.

As to my theory, I don’t have a theory—maybe a hypothesis, but not a theory.

And, to expand on that, I can’t begin to form a hypothesis until after I have considered the other 22 contradictions raised in Griffin’s book.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2008 07:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 157 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-03-19

I object to moving my recent posts to a thread labeled “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.”  That is a pejorative phrase used by those opposed to any objective discussions on this matter.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2008 08:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 158 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2006-04-03

dadeets
8. With regard to whether Ted Olson received two phone calls that morning from his wife, Barbara Olson, reporting that Flight 77 had been hijacked: Olson’s claim that he did is contradicted by the FBI report presented to the Moussaoui trial, according to which an attempted call from Barbara Olson to the Department of Justice was “unconnected” and hence lasted “o seconds.” Olson’s claim that the calls were made from a passenger-seat phone was contradicted by American Airlines, which said that Flight 77 had no such phones.

From Wikipedia

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty two confirmed air phone calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight undetermined). There were reportedly three phone calls from Flight 11, five from Flight 175, and three calls from Flight 77 which American Airlines later confirmed did not have airphones fitted; only two calls from these flights were recorded, placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11. Various anomalies have been claimed relating to the nature of the phone call transcripts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#cite_note-91

People were able to make calls on AA 77.  Ted Olsen reports receiving a call from his wife.  A call was placed, registered “0” seconds, true.  But that could simply mean the call didn’t last a full minute.  I’m not a Republican, but I wouldn’t call Ted Olsen a liar in this situation.  It was the last contact with his wife, for the sake of the Ceiling Cat!!

A simple Google search on David Griffin show that he is a conspiracy believer.  If you take him to be serious, sorry—you belong on this thread.  But don’t worry.  As you see, psik has refused to answer questions and the site has gone quiet.  You won’t last long, either.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2008 07:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 159 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  174
Joined  2007-02-21
dadeets - 20 March 2008 07:49 PM

I object to moving my recent posts to a thread labeled “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.”  That is a pejorative phrase used by those opposed to any objective discussions on this matter.

I’ve updated the title to 9/11 Discussion

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2008 08:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 160 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-03-19
Thomas Donnelly - 21 March 2008 07:06 AM

I’ve updated the title to 9/11 Discussion

Greatly appreciated.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2008 08:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 161 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2424
Joined  2007-07-05

It was Muslims that defied the laws of physics after all.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

ROFL

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2008 12:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 162 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2008-03-18
dadeets - 20 March 2008 05:46 PM
JRM5001 - 20 March 2008 11:43 AM

What is your central point here?  Is it that the 19 Muslims who hi-jacked the planes on 9/11 were acting for secular reasons, not out of extreme Islamic fundamentalism or that the 19 who hi-jacked the plane were not Muslim at all?  Or is it both?  The points you raise imply that there was some sort of cover up and that phone calls were not made off the plane. 

What is your theory on why the hi-jackers took the plane?

I thank you for responding in a serious manner. This is a subject that warrants serious consideration.

1.  If there is a significant contradiction between two official positions on a matter, then there is no hard evidence on that matter.
2.  If there were hijackers, there is no hard evidence they were Muslim.
3.  If they were not necessarily Muslim, there is no hard evidence the attacks had a religious motive.
4.  If there is no hard evidence the attacks necessarily had a religious motive, then secularists (Humanists, atheists, etc.) should not use religion-motivated attacks on 9/11 as one of their talking points.


And, maybe as an aside:

There is no hard evidence there were hijackers in the first place, let alone 19 of them.

As to my theory, I don’t have a theory—maybe a hypothesis, but not a theory.

And, to expand on that, I can’t begin to form a hypothesis until after I have considered the other 22 contradictions raised in Griffin’s book.

LOL, you already proved completely incompetent on this subject by not even knowing about Olsen and that he is no longer the Solicitor General and you had to use Wikipedia to find out about him, after you use him as ‘evidence’ to prover your troofer points.

Hey pal, how about the videos that were made by Al Queda of each of the high jackers praising them as great martyrs and using their heroic sacrifice for Allah as recruiting tools to get more ignorant men to join their cause.

Also pal, if you think the United States government is competent enough to pull off murdering 3000 people in it’s own country then I suggest you buy a pair of Air Jordan’s and jump off the tallest building because then there is no point to anything in this country. That means every election is a fraud, every event in our country has been predetermined by the mysterious men behind the curtain controlling all the events.

There are mountains of hard evidence, and decades worth of global history that supports the events that took place on that day. This troofer nonsense is an exercise is the absurd.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2008 02:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 163 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-03-19
HappyHumanist - 20 March 2008 08:12 PM

People were able to make calls on AA 77.  Ted Olsen reports receiving a call from his wife.  A call was placed, registered “0” seconds, true.  But that could simply mean the call didn’t last a full minute.  I’m not a Republican, but I wouldn’t call Ted Olsen a liar in this situation.  It was the last contact with his wife, for the sake of the Ceiling Cat!!

A simple Google search on David Griffin show that he is a conspiracy believer.

Let’s see if I understand this correctly.

Griffin states a fact pertaining to an official record. For example, related to the question, Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?

Griffin says in his book, “According to the 9/11 Commission, the 2001 FBI report entitled ‘American Airlines Airphone Usage’ said, in reference to the four ‘connected calls to unknown numbers,’ that they ‘were at 9:15:34 for 1 minute, 42 seconds; 9:20:15 for 4 minutes, 34 seconds; 9:25:48 for 2 minutes, 34 seconds; and 9:30:56 for 4 minutes, 20 seconds.’ By comparing this summary with the report entitled ‘American Airlines Flight #77 Telephone Calls’ that was part of the government’s report presented at the Moussaoui trial in 2006, we can see that they are identical.”

Now, you do a Google search and conclude Griffin is a conspiracy believer. Thus, you reject what ever Griffin says.

What exactly are you rejecting? Here are some possibilities:

1.  You reject the fact that the two FBI reports are identical.
2.  You reject the information on the four “connected calls” in the FBI report entitled “American Airlines Airphone Usage,” but not the information on the “American Airlines Flight #77 Telephone Calls.”
3.  Visa versa to possibility no. 2.
4.  You reject that the report entitled “American Airlines Flight #77 Telephone Calls” was part of the government’s report presented at the Moussaoui trial in 2006.
5.  Something else.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2008 04:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 164 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  150
Joined  2006-04-03

What exactly are you rejecting?

I’m rejecting the parsing of minute and inconsequential information when the details of the day are NOT a mystery.

We know that 19 mostly Saudi men hijacked 4 planes.  Their intention was to hit the WTC, the Pentagon, and either the White House or the Capitol.  They did this because Osama Bin Laden and his network wanted to make a statement that American presence in Saudi Arabia is an insult (among other reasons).

The passengers on those planes called their loved ones (and, despite your contention, Ted Olsen did receive a call from his wife—because he said so.  That’s good enough for me).  The passengers described the takeover of the planes by Arabs.

Two planes hit the towers.  The fires from the fuel and the interiors of the towers caused the supports to weaken (not melt, as psik’s latest link demand), and the towers to fall.  We all saw it happen.  Some saw it live.

Twoofers search in the tiny places for anomolies.  When they see a crack, they pounce.  Ah-ha!  If this small thing counters the big thing, then the big thing needs to be discounted or analyzed some more.  Ignoring totally the weight of the real truth against the tiny anomoly.

The facts of that day are incontravertable.  There was no conspiracy to hide the truth.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2008 06:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 165 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  30
Joined  2008-03-19
HappyHumanist - 21 March 2008 04:24 PM

I’m rejecting the parsing of minute and inconsequential information when the details of the day are NOT a mystery.

Unfortunately, it does take parsing of minute information to figure this puzzle out. But no, it is not inconsequential.

HappyHumanist - 21 March 2008 04:24 PM

We know that 19 mostly Saudi men hijacked 4 planes.  Their intention was to hit the WTC, the Pentagon, and either the White House or the Capitol.  They did this because Osama Bin Laden and his network wanted to make a statement that American presence in Saudi Arabia is an insult (among other reasons).

And the question here—how do you know? If there are major contradictions in official information pertaining to all of this, then how can anyone say, they know, unless those contradictions are resolved?

Profile
 
 
   
11 of 23
11
 
‹‹ Eveyone a humanist?      Your Work and You ››