• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We are ALL experts on this bus.....

Menard_K said:
Let me be clear on this subject, the Video of WTC 1 & 2 "collapsing" is most probably reliable,
however the MSM official explanation as to WHY they collapsed, is quite another matter.
NOW do U get it?
Click to expand...

yep, I get it. Once again statement with no links to your sources you use to derive your stance. You may be a free thinker, yet you must use more than msm for information. Interesting you think MSM comes up with an "official explantation". I thought msm only reported what the govt wants them to. So msm really has no "offical" explanation. Is that not correct.

List your sites you use to come up with your views.
 
mike2810 said:
yep, I get it. Once again statement with no links to your sources you use to derive your stance. You may be a free thinker, yet you must use more than msm for information. Interesting you think MSM comes up with an "official explantation". I thought msm only reported what the govt wants them to. So msm really has no "offical" explanation. Is that not correct.

List your sites you use to come up with your views.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it do you?
there are NO sites/links whatever .... I KNOW
what I know because its obvious from seeing the "news" coverage on 9/11/2001.
 
Menard_K said:
You still don't get it do you?
there are NO sites/links whatever .... I KNOW
what I know because its obvious from seeing the "news" coverage on 9/11/2001.
Click to expand...

well that settles it. I am a believer.:mrgreen:

So why do you want links from others? Just to let you know, I also know. :mrgreen:
 
mike2810 said:
well that settles it. I am a believer.:mrgreen:

So why do you want links from others? Just to let you know, I also know. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Do you have a stand-alone argument that supports the notion that the attack of 9/11/2001
was done with hijacked airliners? No referencing the MSM or links now.....
 
I feel like revisiting this bit because I'm very disappointed that the AMERICAN public has not demanded better of its MSM. Note that there has been a silly "documentary" shown on TV that had a scene where they put some quantity of THERMITE around a steel beam and set it on fire and watched it burn and then declared with great fan-fair & "voice of authority" that THERMITE could not possibly have been used in the destruction of the WTC buildings. Contrast that with the experiments performed by Johnathan Cole.
is there anyone who has NOT seen the "compulsive liar" bit from Saturday night live? The MSM is giving us exactly that sort of show with lame excuses for things that should have proper explanations if only the MSM and politicians were not hiding something.
Think about it, the NIST comes out with a taxpayer funded report that states WTC7 could not possibly have been destroyed by explosives because somebody would have heard the explosion.. DUH! lots of people reported hearing explosions all throughout the morning of 9/11/2001 .... WHY is the MSM trying to suppress valid data?

AMERICA is being LIED to! The TV is feeding the public a load of crap!
 
All media should be looked at with a critical eye. Validate everything.

This also applies to vids posted on the web spouting alternative explanations. Especially web sites hosting the vids promoting the sell of CD or other materials. Validate before accepting.

So where is the critical statements against sites that host false information?

There are sites that are corrupting the mind and some are accepting it.


back on topic.
MSM should be held accountable for any information they broadcast. So should those who post crap on the web.
 
Menard_K said:
I feel like revisiting this bit because I'm very disappointed that the AMERICAN public has not demanded better of its MSM.
Click to expand...

I've heard this sentiment before, and I still don't quite understand it, like with reference to congressmen. How would the american public make such a demand? Telephone calls? Letters to the editor? I don't hold any hope that such measures would be effective. There's no mechanism by which such a demand can be made. It's not even so much that they don't care what the people think; it's more that they view their role as telling the people what to think. They know they have the power, and the corporate bottom line dictates that they exercise that power in the manner most politically expedient.

Yes, the people are being lied to--but it's (big) business as usual. The real source of the problem is corporate personhood. And it's not going to go away. We witnessed the death throes of legitimate government quite a while ago. The Corporation is all that remains.

The supreme court decided some years ago that news outlets are under no legal obligation to be truthful. It's all just infotainment. People believe what they want to believe anyway, viewing the truth as an unwanted burden as often as not. "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
All media should be looked at with a critical eye. Validate everything.

This also applies to vids posted on the web spouting alternative explanations. Especially web sites hosting the vids promoting the sell of CD or other materials. Validate before accepting.

So where is the critical statements against sites that host false information?

There are sites that are corrupting the mind and some are accepting it.


back on topic.
MSM should be held accountable for any information they broadcast. So should those who post crap on the web.
Click to expand...

Most certainly! I'm willing to be held accountable for what I post.
Now a question for all who read this, is it valid for the MSM to claim that because they did one very lame demo of allegedly attempting to destroy a steel beam with THERMITE that they then state "THERMITE could not possibly have been used to destroy the WTC buildings because we just demonstrated that you can't melt steel with THERMITE ... Then look at the experiments by Johnathan Cole and THINK! Just like the NIST statement that WTC7 could not possibly have been destroyed by explosives because the sound would have been heard all over lower Manhattan, do tell ... how many witnesses reported hearing multiple explosions that day? Not to mention that some of the witnesses were firefighters & first responders who know a good bit about what may be expected to happen in a building fire. Some reported seeing the blast(s) and being affected by the force or having to evacuate & treat victims of said explosions.

The MSM is guilty of biased reporting and covering up for a HUGE
crime having been perpetrated against all of humanity.

Bust the emperor for indecent exposure!
Lets Roll!
 
Menard_K said:
Most certainly! I'm willing to be held accountable for what I post.
Now a question for all who read this, is it valid for the MSM to claim that because they did one very lame demo of allegedly attempting to destroy a steel beam with THERMITE that they then state "THERMITE could not possibly have been used to destroy the WTC buildings because we just demonstrated that you can't melt steel with THERMITE ... Then look at the experiments by Johnathan Cole and THINK! Just like the NIST statement that WTC7 could not possibly have been destroyed by explosives because the sound would have been heard all over lower Manhattan, do tell ... how many witnesses reported hearing multiple explosions that day? Not to mention that some of the witnesses were firefighters & first responders who know a good bit about what may be expected to happen in a building fire. Some reported seeing the blast(s) and being affected by the force or having to evacuate & treat victims of said explosions.

The MSM is guilty of biased reporting and covering up for a HUGE
crime having been perpetrated against all of humanity.

Lets bust the emperor for indecent exposure!
Lets Roll!
Click to expand...

Its not what you post. It is holding other sources to the same standard you want to hold msm.
You seem to only want to look at msm. Anyone can post on the net. It does not make the vid or writting true.

Like I said, validate.
 
_Markum_ said:
The supreme court decided some years ago that news outlets are under no legal obligation to be truthful. It's all just infotainment. People believe what they want to believe anyway, viewing the truth as an unwanted burden as often as not. "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."
Click to expand...

OK, forgive me if I'm behind the times here, does anyone have a pointer to the actual statements by the Supreme Court Justices on this subject? I'd really like to see it .... My take on the subject is that the "NEWS" when it is presented as NEWS, that is during a broadcast segment that is specifically titled NEWS, the media should have an obligation to be truthful or at least be able to show some measure of DUE DILIGENCE to broadcast TRUTH rather than speculation or outright lies. ... but that is just my $0.02 worth here.
 
Menard_K said:
The MSM is guilty of biased reporting and covering up for a HUGE
crime having been perpetrated against all of humanity.
Click to expand...

Since biased reporting is not a crime, the guilt you attribute to the MSM must be, what, ethical guilt? Maybe the MSM could make a case that, in their duplicity, they've served the common good, eh? After all, most people are far happier to blame heathen brown people than themselves. And what could be a greater good than happy people?
 
mike2810 said:
Its not what you post. It is holding other sources to the same standard you want to hold msm.
You seem to only want to look at msm. Anyone can post on the net. It does not make the vid or writting true.

Like I said, validate.
Click to expand...

Here is the validation: the videos produced by David Chandler or Johnathan Cole
( & indeed many others ... )
are VALIDATED by the laws of physics. There is no trick, no slight-of-hand to be seen in any of the videos
that I have referenced. Validation is simple, does it conform to basic natural laws?
 
Menard_K said:
Here is the validation: the videos produced by David Chandler or Johnathan Cole
( & indeed many others ... )
are VALIDATED by the laws of physics. There is no trick, no slight-of-hand to be seen in any of the videos
that I have referenced. Validation is simple, does it conform to basic natural laws?
Click to expand...

So are all vids about 911 the truth? Or only the ones that comply with your views?
 
Menard_K said:
OK, forgive me if I'm behind the times here, does anyone have a pointer to the actual statements by the Supreme Court Justices on this subject? I'd really like to see it .... My take on the subject is that the "NEWS" when it is presented as NEWS, that is during a broadcast segment that is specifically titled NEWS, the media should have an obligation to be truthful or at least be able to show some measure of DUE DILIGENCE to broadcast TRUTH rather than speculation or outright lies. ... but that is just my $0.02 worth here.
Click to expand...

The Media Can Legally Lie

"In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States."

Maybe it didn't go all the way to the supreme court, but my memory is otherwise validated. But we've always lived in tabloid times. As long as you don't damage someone or their property, you can make any assertion you wish. If you want the bucks, you peddle sensationalism; if you want influence and power, you found that your product should be factual, in order to garner prestige and a reputation for reliability. So, for a long time it's been a face-off between the tabloid "rags" and the responsible press.

But now there's a new player in town: the alternative media via the internet. It used to be that publishing and distribution was an expensive business. You had to have money and power just to get in the game. But now, it's virtually FREE to play. No longer are the tools of propaganda owned exclusively by the rich and powerful! And they are sweating bullets!!
 
Menard_K said:
The alleged videos that would show David Chandler peddling inaccurate data,
do not exist. oops!

InterWebsLand .... we have a problem here......

oh well .....

I stick by my assertion that the videos made by Johnathan Cole & David Chandler are
in compliance with basic natural laws.
Click to expand...

Stick all you want and you can continue to be wrong.

You prove what I have said all along. You only accept that which fits your view. You still have never directly answered the question of do all the CT sites tell the truth?

You do make an entertaining read at times.
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
Stick all you want and you can continue to be wrong.

You prove what I have said all along. You only accept that which fits your view. You still have never directly answered the question of do all the CT sites tell the truth?

You do make an entertaining read at times.
Click to expand...

There is a mix of Propaganda, Truth & Fraud in ALL of the web-sites
including those devoted to baseball ( etc... )
 
Menard_K said:
There is a mix of Propaganda, Truth & Fraud in ALL of the web-sites
including those devoted to baseball ( etc... )
Click to expand...

we now have established that sites links you provide " is a mix of Propaganda, Truth & Fraud ".
Which makes them not trustworthy.
 
mike2810 said:
we now have established that sites links you provide " is a mix of Propaganda, Truth & Fraud ".
Which makes them not trustworthy.
Click to expand...

YOU don't get it because You don't want to get it, some sites have perfectly good data and some do NOT,
how do you sort it out, the laws of physics being a good start.
 
Menard_K said:
YOU don't get it because You don't want to get it, some sites have perfectly good data and some do NOT,
how do you sort it out, the laws of physics being a good start.
Click to expand...

yes all knowing physics person. I don't get your cgi. How does that fit into the laws of physics?

If have been doing any research on 911 you would know that many people still disagree based on the laws of physics.
Come back when you got something new to show us.
 
Menard_K said:
Please people, there are lots of requests for documentation that supports
one argument or another. That is either the Controlled Demolition of WTC 1, 2, & 7
or the "no-planes" bit or whatever it is, and people seem to want some sort of pontification
by a PHD type to somehow bless their position on this subject. HOWEVER
PLEASE GET THIS, there are PHD types who will support the "no-planes" explanation
and Controlled Demolition & whatever you want really after all Dr. Wood has a PHD.
so what it really boils down to, is what do YOU think? and really ( maybe just IMHO )
but it seems to me that no more than high school level science is needed to get this.
9/11/2001 was either a false flag, or not, and even if "experts" put out all sorts of
possible explanations for what happened, the bottom line here is WHAT DO YOU THINK?

I personally do not believe for a second the "19 suicidal fanatics" explanation .....

However, experts aside, WHY do you think as you do?
Click to expand...

I'm convinced of the "19 suicidal fanatics" explanation. Simply because all other explanations are highly unlikely. If it was a false flag or controlled detonation or something like that, it would have to be a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of people, and I think it's virtually impossible to stage such a huge conspiracy, making sure everybody involved keeps silent. There would have to be a whistleblower.

That said, I do believe the Bush government abused this opportunity, the extreme wave of patriotism, fear and calls for revenge post 9/11, to get through very questionable policies and unnecessary wars. But that's not a conspiracy, it's just reckless politics.

Also, I'm not sure what past connections the US government had with the bin Laden clan. The US meddled very much in the Middle East and Afghanistan too in the past, i.e. supporting islamists against the Soviets. So maybe there was not just ideological fanatism behind the attack, but maybe more personal reasons too. Don't know.
 
German guy said:
I'm convinced of the "19 suicidal fanatics" explanation. Simply because all other explanations are highly unlikely. If it was a false flag or controlled detonation or something like that, it would have to be a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of people, and I think it's virtually impossible to stage such a huge conspiracy, making sure everybody involved keeps silent. There would have to be a whistleblower.
Click to expand...

You're saying you are convinced of what you believe to be the least unlikely explanation because it is, in your estimation, the least unlikely explanation. What drives you to believe ANY unlikely explanation? Couldn't you simply withhold a judgement of certaintly (i.e. "conviction")?
 
German guy said:
I'm convinced of the "19 suicidal fanatics" explanation. Simply because all other explanations are highly unlikely. If it was a false flag or controlled detonation or something like that, it would have to be a conspiracy involving hundreds if not thousands of people, and I think it's virtually impossible to stage such a huge conspiracy, making sure everybody involved keeps silent. There would have to be a whistleblower.

That said, I do believe the Bush government abused this opportunity, the extreme wave of patriotism, fear and calls for revenge post 9/11, to get through very questionable policies and unnecessary wars. But that's not a conspiracy, it's just reckless politics.

Also, I'm not sure what past connections the US government had with the bin Laden clan. The US meddled very much in the Middle East and Afghanistan too in the past, i.e. supporting islamists against the Soviets. So maybe there was not just ideological fanatism behind the attack, but maybe more personal reasons too. Don't know.
Click to expand...

You have fallen into logical trap, you see, the argument "it would take TOO MANY people to pull off such a conspiracy & somebody would blow the whistle" can not be used to negate the evidence that is based on physics & photographic evidence that proves the WTC towers & WTC 7 were destroyed by Controlled Demolition.
 
_Markum_ said:
You're saying you are convinced of what you believe to be the least unlikely explanation because it is, in your estimation, the least unlikely explanation. What drives you to believe ANY unlikely explanation? Couldn't you simply withhold a judgement of certaintly (i.e. "conviction")?
Click to expand...

The common explanations seems very convincing to me. Radical islamists have a sound motive, they have the necessary hatred against the US, they tried it before and they claimed responsibility afterwards. So all this should just be a huge conspiracy? No way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom