View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby Nostradamus » 19 Oct 2009, 20:17

NinjaPuppy after the Warren Commission came out a number of independent groups including CBS News did investigations. The results of the CBS News study was shown on 60 Minutes. One of the tests they did was to ask a number of Texas police sharpshooters to shoot at a vehicle. The vehicle was a car on a track that moved with the same speed as the vehicle Kennedy was in. The sharpshooters shot from an elevated position to replicate the height, distance, and angle to the car. Amazingly everyone repeated the shootings: hit, miss, and hit. This laid to rest some claims of the day: inaccurate weapon, could not be fired fast enough. Yes, there have been independent studies and their results were made available and scarily the results matched the WC.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08






Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Oct 2009, 21:51

Nostradamus wrote:NinjaPuppy after the Warren Commission came out a number of independent groups including CBS News did investigations. The results of the CBS News study was shown on 60 Minutes. One of the tests they did was to ask a number of Texas police sharpshooters to shoot at a vehicle. The vehicle was a car on a track that moved with the same speed as the vehicle Kennedy was in. The sharpshooters shot from an elevated position to replicate the height, distance, and angle to the car. Amazingly everyone repeated the shootings: hit, miss, and hit. This laid to rest some claims of the day: inaccurate weapon, could not be fired fast enough. Yes, there have been independent studies and their results were made available and scarily the results matched the WC.

Agree. As I don't want to muddy up the waters with this assasination topic, I did want to relate that something such as this, which can be easily reproduced is still being debated. This excerpt from Wikipedia about the Kennedy assasination investigation is very similar to what the CT's also want to know:

The Committee found the Warren Commission's investigation equally flawed: "[T]he subject that should have received the Commission's most probing analysis — whether Oswald acted in concert with or on behalf of unidentified co-conspirators the Commission's performance, in the view of the committee, was in fact flawed." (footnote 13)

The Committee believed another primary cause of the Warren Commission's failure to adequately probe and analyze whether or not Oswald acted alone arose out of the lack of cooperation by the CIA. Finally, the Committee found that the Warren Commission inadequately investigated for a conspiracy because of: "[T]ime pressures and the desire of national leaders to allay public fears of a conspiracy."


If there are still nagging questions about this after all these years, it will be impossible to determine the answers that CT's want in the WTC evidence. It's impossible for any of us (fourm members) to prove anything and we can debate this until our fingers fall off. I am open to new information but it's getting a bit time consuming to consistently debate whether a YouTube video is worthy of viewing or if it's factually accurate.

I very much enjoyed watching these videos. While I can't personally jump onboard with some of what was presented, it was certainly more than I knew before I watched them.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby Scepcop » 22 Oct 2009, 19:29

Not much time, but a few points.

First, thanks Ninjapuppy for watching the films I recommend. Whether you agree with them or not, at least you enjoyed them and do not regret watching them :) Nothing is perfect or flawless, but it doesn't have to be to have value, some lesson, meaningful content or inspiration in them. I'm sure you agree.

ProfWag:

A few points. Look, no film or book on controversial and hotly contested subjects is flawless and free of errors. That includes your sources too. Popular Mechanics made a number of errors for example. And you know the guy who wrote "Case Closed" defending the official story of the JFK assassination, Gerald Posner? Some of the generals he claimed to have interviewed came out and said they never even met Mr. Posner! A flat out lie! But of course, you skeptics for some reason never direct your skepticism at those debunking conspiracies. Even when they lie, you don't have a problem with it. I wonder why that is. It's like you have a blind spot toward one side only. That's not skepticism.

The problem is who to believe. Your sources and mine will not agree on many facts. The thing is, when it's their word against another's, you tend to choose to believe the side that defends the establishment. Isn't that right?

The reality is that you and I are spectators. There are many disputed facts that we can't check. It's merely a matter of who we choose to believe. For that, we have to make a judgment call and decide which side makes more sense, which side is more credible, which side has more experts, etc. Agreed?

Both sides can name facts, evidence and experts who agree with them, but some facts we simply don't have the power, resources or time to try to verify or get to the bottom of.

For example, what Zeitgeist claims about the Federal Reserve is very different than what the Fed's charter says. And what ex-CIA whistleblowers say is very different from what the CIA website says about itself. So who you going to believe? Both sides can claim the other is wrong or lying. But how do you know who's telling the truth? You don't. People lie, governments lie too. There is no logical reason to automatically assume that official sources are always correct. They have lied more times than you know. But for some reason, you can't understand that and you have a strong bias toward them. Deep down, you probably trust official sources more than those who expose them.

Jesse Ventura is very honest, as you can see, whether he's right or wrong. Do you think he would make up a story when he said that the CIA had infiltrated his Minnesota government in key positions and he was made aware of it, which goes against what the CIA charter said?

Zeitgeist is not flawless. No one claims that. But if it's right about the main things, is generally in the "ball park" and contains many inspirational messages and is very progressive thinking, then it's worth a look. Even the Bible has parts that are of value and contain wisdom. No institution, person or organization or film is flawless. Besides, even if Zeitgeist was fiction, the way it's presented is a masterpiece. It flows and captivates you, and does very well at holding your attention. It was made to be exciting and easy to understand, it is not boring or flat and dry.

And of course, the spiritual messages at the end apply to everyone, regardless of whether you believe the conspiracies or not. It is true that our materialistic capitalistic culture divides people, encourages greed and self-interest, etc. It fragments people's souls. When I'm in America, I feel more fragmented and disconnected inside, than I do in any other country. And many of my friends agree. Some of the spiritual lessons may be beyond some, but if you really understand them, they are very beautiful... beyond words.

Not everyone can understand such messages of course or see the beauty in them that I do. People have different levels of insight. It also depends on what resonates with you.

Nostradamus:

Um, yeah I heard about that. But I also heard that many tests were done to replicate Oswald's feat, and they all failed. I can cite these studies if you want. Again, it's a case of my sources against yours. Of course, you are going to side with anti-conspiracy sources, cause you do have a bias toward them. Please be honest and admit that. No one is 100 percent objective here. Biases exist in all of us.

Did you also know that the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in the late 1970's that JFK was "probably killed by a conspiracy"? But of course, there are certain upper levels of government that no one can touch, not even the Supreme Court. Up to a certain level, there is no messing of power.

Or do you skeptics honestly believe that there are no conspiracies and no evidence exists for them? And that the only things that are true are on CNN?

I look forward to reading more of your reviews Ninjapuppy. And thanks for being willing to examine evidence and arguments. Wait til you see "Zeitgeist Addendum". That one blew me away and gave me a mental/intellectual/spiritual "orgasm" :)
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby NinjaPuppy » 22 Oct 2009, 21:20

Since we seem to have covered much of the discussion about the actual Zeitgeist film, perhaps highlighting this question might be appropriate at this time.
SCEPCOP wrote:The thing is, when it's their word against another's, you tend to choose to believe the side that defends the establishment. Isn't that right?

Is there anyone out there who can say that they have NEVER wondered about possible government involvement to many of the so called conspiricy theories? Do you all have so much blind faith in another human being or group of people to think that they're every action is pure as the driven snow? Or that someone so high up on the food chain doesn't have any personal motives that could result in some really disasterous and/or asinine decision making?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby Nostradamus » 22 Oct 2009, 21:42

The thing is, when it's their word against another's, you tend to choose to believe the side that defends the establishment. Isn't that right?


If something cannot be resolved then it remains an unresolved issue. An example of an unresolved issue is the matter of the Patterson bigfoot film. Did the person film something they saw or did they stage a man in a suit event? This is an unresolved issue. Was the WTC a controlled demolition? That's not an unresolved issue. No explosions, no explosive residue, no squibs, the building fell the path of least resistance, no detonator pieces located.

which side has more experts


Numbers do not mean correctness, although overwhelming numbers likely mean correctness. Correctness is not a democratic issue.

Um, yeah I heard about that. But I also heard that many tests were done to replicate Oswald's feat, and they all failed. I can cite these studies if you want.


All is a strong word. I think you should open a new thread and posts these tests. The original claim about Oswald was the gun. It wasn't accurate enough, and it could not be fired fast enough. These claims were clearly demonstrated to be wrong and laid to rest.

Or do you skeptics honestly believe that there are no conspiracies and no evidence exists for them? And that the only things that are true are on CNN?


Of course there are conspiracies. They up in courts all the time and people go to jail for conspiracies all of the time. Don't believe me just use your favorite search engine and look up conspiracy cases and you'll see more ads for lawyers that handle conspiracy charges than you want to believe.

Here's a link to a typical conspiracy: http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvcrime/2009/01/florencia-13-gang-members-guil.html
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby Nostradamus » 22 Oct 2009, 21:54

Is there anyone out there who can say that they have NEVER wondered about possible government involvement to many of the so called conspiricy theories? Do you all have so much blind faith in another human being or group of people to think that they're every action is pure as the driven snow? Or that someone so high up on the food chain doesn't have any personal motives that could result in some really disasterous and/or asinine decision making?


Good point NinjaPuppy.
1. Let's list governors that have been kicked out of office for criminal acts. Let's see Illinois is 2 in a row. Then we have Connecticut. We also have Tennessee at one point. What about South Carolina?

2. Senators that get in trouble? I can think of Idaho. I can think of West Virginia and Illinois.

3. The House has so many people there is always trouble there.

4. Presidents? There are always investigations going on about what presidents do. I don't think any president has avoided serious inquiry into their actions either from the news or Congress. The biggy of course was Nixon.

Are there those in government too high to touch? Well the evidence says NO!
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby NinjaPuppy » 22 Oct 2009, 22:14

Exactly. Many years ago I was asked who I intended to vote for in an upcoming presidential election and I responded, "when they give me a candidate worth voting for, I'll let you know. Since then, I haven't really been able to say that any of the chosen few have been any better. It's the same ol', same ol' every four years. But that's just my opinion.

I must admit that our current President is quite a refresing change of pace from the string of geezers generally paraded around the polls.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby ProfWag » 22 Oct 2009, 22:35

NinjaPuppy wrote:Exactly. Many years ago I was asked who I intended to vote for in an upcoming presidential election and I responded, "when they give me a candidate worth voting for, I'll let you know. Since then, I haven't really been able to say that any of the chosen few have been any better. It's the same ol', same ol' every four years. But that's just my opinion.

I must admit that our current President is quite a refresing change of pace from the string of geezers generally paraded around the polls.

Sorry to get off topic, but don't forget that "We, the people of the United States" don't actually vote for the President.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby NinjaPuppy » 22 Oct 2009, 23:43

ProfWag wrote:Sorry to get off topic, but don't forget that "We, the people of the United States" don't actually vote for the President.

Yeah, yeah.... I know. We are nothing but insignificant, invisible pawns in all of this and our opinion means even less.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby Scepcop » 25 Oct 2009, 23:46

Nostradamus wrote:If something cannot be resolved then it remains an unresolved issue. An example of an unresolved issue is the matter of the Patterson bigfoot film. Did the person film something they saw or did they stage a man in a suit event? This is an unresolved issue. Was the WTC a controlled demolition? That's not an unresolved issue. No explosions, no explosive residue, no squibs, the building fell the path of least resistance, no detonator pieces located.


Wrong on all counts. There were explosions. Tons of witnesses heard them and mentioned them. I posted many videos of them. It's ridiculous that you just ignore them and rationalize them away. There are squibs. They are on film, remember? Geez. The building did not fall in the path of least resistance, it fell in the path of greatest resistance. You call millions of tons of steel and concrete "the path of least resistance"? My God, you are blank wasting my time. Jesus Christ. Why do you do that? You are like a kid arguing about whether the sky is blue or not. That is not an intelligent conversation, it's a butthead one. It's like you're playing a total game here and not even serious.

The thermite is evidence too, it's scientific forensic evidence. You have not debunked it. You only quote cop out sources.

Furthermore, you have not proven that the official fire induced theory is correct, so it IS an unresolved issue. The films I cite make irrefutable points and solid logical arguments, many of them.

I challenge you to explain how the WTC can collapse at the rate they did, at near free fall speed. How did so much concrete and steel suddenly become like air and offer no resistance to the cap of the tower falling down? Explain that one. Or else run away and don't come back please.

You didn't answer the other question: When it's one person's word against another's, why do you ALWAYS take the word of the official non-conspiracy side?

Of course there are conspiracies. They up in courts all the time and people go to jail for conspiracies all of the time. Don't believe me just use your favorite search engine and look up conspiracy cases and you'll see more ads for lawyers that handle conspiracy charges than you want to believe.

Here's a link to a typical conspiracy: http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvcrime/2009/01/florencia-13-gang-members-guil.html


Are there any conspiracies that the government and media doesn't admit to? Any that are secret?

Explain this then. If no one is above the law and all presidents are under media scrutiny, then how come the media or the Democrats never brought into public the fact that George Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, helped funded Hitler and the Nazis? You'd think the Democrats would use that in their campaign ads against Bush. But they didn't. Why? And why was such a big thing not mentioned by the media?

How come the media doesn't divulge the fact that the US funded Al Qaeda during the Afghan War, if there are no secrets that haven't been exposed by the media?

How come the media doesn't expose the crimes, assassinations and drug trafficking by the CIA, which many insiders have exposed? Do you even know about this?

Do you know what Al Qaeda means in Arabic? And where the term came from? Intelligence people know what it means and where it came from, but you won't hear about it from the mainstream media.

The media's job is to misinform you and dumb you down. They exist to serve the establishment. You can only find out real news from independent sources. Do you even study independent sources? If so, you should be able to answer the questions above.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby Scepcop » 25 Oct 2009, 23:56

ProfWag wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:Exactly. Many years ago I was asked who I intended to vote for in an upcoming presidential election and I responded, "when they give me a candidate worth voting for, I'll let you know. Since then, I haven't really been able to say that any of the chosen few have been any better. It's the same ol', same ol' every four years. But that's just my opinion.

I must admit that our current President is quite a refresing change of pace from the string of geezers generally paraded around the polls.

Sorry to get off topic, but don't forget that "We, the people of the United States" don't actually vote for the President.


Very true. How did you know that?

We are given an illusion of democracy to appease us. We are given a duo of preselected candidates to vote for. But we are not allowed to participate in policy and decision making, and not given a choice about going to wars either. That's not democracy. There never was a true democracy. As long as money can be used to corrupt officials, it's never really a fair democracy.

Besides, democracy assumes that the majority is always right, so it is like three wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner, as critics charge.

Remember that saying by a judge:

"You can have democracy or you can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few, but you can't have both."
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby WhiteTiger » 26 Oct 2009, 00:24

I believe what profwag was referring to is that the US is a constitutional republic, was never intended to be and never has been a democracy. You know, as in "and to the republic for which it stands" ;)



Tiger
Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever
WhiteTiger
 
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 19:53

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby ProfWag » 26 Oct 2009, 19:02

Scepcop wrote:
Very true. How did you know that?

We are given an illusion of democracy to appease us. We are given a duo of preselected candidates to vote for. "

No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the people of the United States do not vote for the President. The Electoral College votes for the President. That College can put anyone they want in office without the popular vote of the people of the United States. Oh, and we are given more options than two on ballots. My last ballot had around 8 names on it. I voted for Ralph Nader because I thought the other two options were not want I thought would be best in office so I offered a protest "vote."
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby ProfWag » 26 Oct 2009, 19:07

Scepcop wrote:
The thermite is evidence too, it's scientific forensic evidence. You have not debunked it. You only quote cop out sources.
.

Here's your thermite story debunked:
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.
The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off. "Gee debunking, you're so dumb."

Update:

Steven Jones:

Actually, the metal-cutting device employing thermite is well known and documented; see the paper by Robert Moore published three months ago (January 2007) in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
Furthermore, there is a demonstration of a “device employing thermite” cutting through a metal rod, here.
Yet another absurd comparison from Jones. A small metal rod is NOT the same as a large column. See how large that canister is compared to that small metal rod? The canister in that video, while being enough to cut the vertical rod, will only cut a small hole into a vertical WTC column. (Something I said long ago. See bold text above) For the towers columns to have been cut by a similar device you would need much larger canisters wrapped around the buildings at this scale. Absurd!

If Jones wants to salvage what credibility he thinks he has left, he MUST show us a working device which uses thermite and cuts a sizable hollow column. It MUST also be small enough to do the job yet hide from the average World Trade Center worker. Anything less is an attempt to deceive the public
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Ninjapuppy, check out Zeitgeist about 9/11 and the Fed

Postby WhiteTiger » 26 Oct 2009, 20:48

There is a logical flaw in the argument above. The key term here is "box beam column". These are rectangular hollow structures, hence no visible placement exterior to the columns is needed whatsoever.

Thermite reaction is indeed chaotic in it's spread through the reactive mass, however the super heated iron liberated segregates extremely rapidly into a homogeneous pool at the bottom of the containment while the aluminum oxides form a slag roof which serves to retain the majority of liberated heat energy in the lower Fe pool.

No super sophisticated device is required to breech the walls of the box beam columns from within, simply a conical or pyramidal shaped refractory floor under the charge which will force the Fe pool to rest against the inside of the column walls as it forms. Igniting the charge from that lowest perimeter point will greatly enhance the effect of such a charge on the walls of the columns. If strip or string ignition is used at that lowest point the reaction will progress up through the mass of the charge, so that from the initial formation of liberated Fe it is in optimal placement for effect on the beam structure.

Notice that there is needed only a simple flooring containment to maximise the effect, and the strength of that flooring is the only immediate limit on the weight of charge which can be placed above the refractory, none of which is visible from outside the column.

If we're going to argue technicalities, lets try to keep it accurate and logical.



Tiger
Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever
WhiteTiger
 
Posts: 55
Joined: 04 Oct 2009, 19:53

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron