A new theory on 9/11?

Alarm · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:48 pm

Must be worse trying to justifiably account for something you cannot.

ABCwarrior · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 7:58 pm

Oh, so if it's got "official" stamped on it then it really is right? Look at those fannies at the UEA caught tampering with climate data to further the governments carbon tax myth. If they're doing that ON BEHALF of a government to secure funding then what outcome other than "Osama and a bunch of fanatics pulled this off" do you think you'll get when it's investigated internally by US agencies?
Same F*cking whitewash we get with every "public enquiry" here that's dragged out so long they hope most people don't give a f*ck by the time it's published.

joinerjohn · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:10 pm

ABCwarrior wrote:

Oh, so if it's got "official" stamped on it then it really is right? Look at those fannies at the UEA caught tampering with climate data to further the governments carbon tax myth. If they're doing that ON BEHALF of a government to secure funding then what outcome other than "Osama and a bunch of fanatics pulled this off"

But the UEA did this to fool the government into ensuring continued funding ABC. They quite literally told the government what the govt wanted to hear. They weren't told by the govt to manipulate the data, but did so of their own free will.
Nowt so blind as them that don't want to see.

ABCwarrior · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:26 pm

Yes JJ, point taken. When I was at Uni I was told by a few of the lecturers that if departments that rely on government funding don't keep an eye on current "policy" and tailor their courses and research to suit them(and the outcomes) then funding is usually lost- they get well played off each other in different uni's.
One of the senior professors who was overseeing my dissertation at the time and he was livid about CO2 being blamed as the cause of any significant changing of the climate, yet after the summer he'd done a 180 about turn and it was the root cause of all our woes yet he wouldn't be drawn as to why his opinions had changed.

I'm sure the UEA took the hit for that regardless of whether it was a carrot or stick affair.
My (ex) sister-in-law started uni doing the same course one year later and has clung to academia, now has a doctorate(one up from my MSc), and is back lecturing at that very same uni. I've read numerous books on climate change that challenge the CO2 myth, but will she even read them(i've offered)? No, because she has to stick with this departmental line and she knows if she puts her head up over the parapet it's over career wise, so she would rather not know the content it seems.
Oh sh*t, is that another conspiracy!!!!? They're everywhere I tell ya, once you've seen one, the floodgates are open!!!!

TheOriginalTonkaToy · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:51 pm

Eh? The UEA didn't tamper with any data. No less than *eight* independent inquiries found that there was no evidence whatsoever of scientific misconduct. What *did* happen was that the scientists managing the data failed to release it to sceptics - what they should have done was publish it wholesale and let them pick over it. The refusal was understandable, but wrong.

TheOriginalTonkaToy · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:55 pm

ABCwarrior wrote:

I've been outside all night with a golf club trying to hit a coke can through a steel girder....it'll never happen will it, let alone pass through it and come out the same shape.

Maybe they'll start making aluminium drill bits for drilling steel next, who knows?

Has anyone replicated this remarkable feat of anti-science? I sincerely doubt it? I mean why invest in anti-tank/DU technology(well apart from poisoning your enemy but that's another issue) when you can just use aluminium at 4-500mph, well below the mach 2-3 it takes a missile to bust a tank?

They wouldn't need the lame excuses for the cost etc, just a fraction of the side of the WTC replicated and fully braced against a rock face or something, an old plane of similar size on an auto pilot setting and we''d get the truth alright. But we couln't have that could we?

There's more than aluminium in airliners. Titanium, depleted uranium and steel for instance.

In any event it's all about kinetic energy - do the maths.

namsag · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:16 pm

Wobs /softus just a quick summary.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html

alumni · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:20 pm

ABCwarrior wrote:

It must be awful having so much sand in your ears and a sore back. It must be truly awful to be so naive you believe every piece of sh*te our governments fabricate to con the public into backing so many terrible deeds done in our name....

You seem to be suffering a similar sort of affliction. did you read the tale about the fairies and goblins at the bottom of gardens - all true you know.

namsag · Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:31 pm

Yep and the world used to be flat and if you dared to suggest otherwise you where executed.
Yep Everything you are told must be true

wobs · Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:01 am

namsag wrote:

Wobs /softus just a quick summary.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html

From your link:

Quote:

Admiral Thomas Moorer, insisted the Israeli attack was deliberate and designed to sink 'Liberty.'

Which is nonesense, as it was mostly attacked with only two waves of two aircraft each to attack the Liberty, and these were armed with rockets and napalm, which are totally unsuitable for sinking a ship. Further, the Israeli torpedo boats, rather than boring straight in and attacking immediately, attempted to communicate with the Liberty and to establish her identity before they attacked. This is borne out by survivors' testimony.

Your link also refers to the CIA investiagtions. Here is the report from one of them:
http://www.ussliberty.org/ciareports.pdf

Quote:

"we conclude that our previous statement that "the Israelis did not identify the Liberty as a US ship until some 44 minutes after the attack" is in error. The Liberty had been identified prior to the attacks, but the Israelis were apparently not aware they were attacking the Liberty. The attack was not made in malice toward the US and was a mistake, but the failure of the IDF Headquarters and the attacking aircraft to identify the Liberty and the subsequent attack by the torpedo boats were both incongruous and indicative of gross negligence

Which actually contradicts what your link claims it says. Funny that.

Of course there have been repeated investigations into the incident, which are listed here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/liberty2.html
Feel free to look up some facts for a change.

Oh, and your link is written by a twoofer, so hardly a reliable source is he.

So, as ever, where a CT is claimed, its nearly always human error. Communication breakdowns in war can cost lives, and as we have seen, often do.

wobs · Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 10:05 am

namsag wrote:

Yep and the world used to be flat and if you dared to suggest otherwise you where executed.
Yep Everything you are told must be true

When would that have been then?