Carl Cameron of FOXNews is a Truther

[kylebisme]

Carl Cameron is a truther, and a bit of a potty-mouth too, so don't click on the link if that might be an issue. This has been exposed by We are Change via a hidden camera video. I highly recommend watching the whole thing, but here are a few of the most notable comments:

it?s really hard to make the case that the buildings just imploded without some sort of an accelerant
....

whether or not that was a deliberate conspiracy, or benign neglect, or just rank government incompetence; you know, my feeling is you are right to bang the drum because we don?t know.
....

every single thing I say has to go though media relations

Since many here are so fond of slagging me of me for saying such things, apparently out of some compulsion to accept the position of our media establishment says as Gospel rather than any ability to to rationally refute my position, I figure this information could provide a bit of perspective which I hope at least some will give proper consideration.

Also, while not directly relevant to the topic of 9/11, there was another rather frank admission in the interview:

I talked to George Bush personally after 9/11. I talked to Harry Reed and John Kerry personally after 9/11. All three of them said Saddam had WMD.
...

Now, unbelievably enough, only two people in the entire Congress adamantly refused, said that that's not true; Bob Graham, the former Democratic chairman from Florida of the intelligence committee who said there was no evidence, and Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi at a dinner one night told me that John Kerry was a fucking liar because he never saw the evidence in that report, and she had looked at it. She was actually one of the ranking Democrats on the intelligence committee.

Now who's gonna believe Nancy freakin' Pelosi from San Francisco? You know, she's a pacifist. But those were the two who said adamantly "I've looked at every page, all the information, and it's just not there...

I get the strong impression that much of our congress argues from their gut rather than actually taking the time to look into the facts, much like many posters here.

---

YABRNECT - Yet Another Boring, Redundant Nine-Eleven Conspiracy Thread. I'm sure there are entire forums devoted to such BS. This does not have to be one of them.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator

 

[JEDIYoda]

nobody gives a f*&^ what carl cameron has to say on anything....

This 9/11 stuff has been reguritated more than enough times.

It saddens me that you actually believe in all this conspiracy crap...

You did know that Carl Cameron claims there is evidence the Israeli`s orchestrated 9/11??

Carl Cameron is even more of a certified goof ball than you are!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
nobody gives a f*&^ what carl cameron has to say on anything....

This 9/11 stuff has been reguritated more than enough times.

It saddens me that you actually believe in all this conspiracy crap...of course your going to say that you don`t believe this crap that you mare just questioning our government...that is such a pathetic excuse...

You did know that Carl Cameron claims there is evidence the Israeli`s orchestrated 9/11??

Carl Cameron is even more of a certified goof ball than you are!

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
It saddens me that you actually believe in all this conspiracy crap...

I'm disappointed you believe the official conspiracy crap, but then you believe all sorts of nonsense you can't back up evidence, so I can't say I'm rightly surprised. For instance:

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You did know that Carl Cameron claims there is evidence the Israeli`s orchestrated 9/11??

This is flagrantly false, yet you believe it anyway. Just like the official conspiracy theory is flagrantly false, yet you believe it anyway. Put simply, you are a textbook falser.

 

[First]

As has been explained to you before, there isn't any evidence of any of this, that's why Truther's are laughed at and ridiculed. If he had something it would have been picked up by someone, somewhere, as is always the case with gov't corruption. It would be the biggest story since Watergate. Yet nada in 8 years. You're through. Having to hold your hand on this is pretty sad.

Bottomline; there is no evidence of thermite. There is tons of evidence (including dead body parts and grieving families) that United 93 existed and crashed in PA. There is tons of evidence that cell phones worked up to 30,000 ft in 2001 (and since airplane phones were used anyway, in addition to the fact that they weren't 30,000 ft up for many of the calls, that point for conspiracy theorists is bunk anyway). The cross-section of the pentagon the plane crashed into was not unusually small, since the wall had just been reinforced and airplane wing material at any speed isn't likely to pierce reinforced Pentagon concrete at shallow angles (and of course you couldn't show evidence to the contrary if your life depended on it). No, squibs from the WTC towers were not visible on video nor is there any physical evidence of it.

All of this stuff has been debunked and requires no more than a good high school education:

http://www.popularmechanics.co...itary_law/1227842.html
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.jod911.com/

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
It saddens me that you actually believe in all this conspiracy crap...

I'm disappointed you believe the official conspiracy crap, but then you believe all sorts of nonsense you can't back up evidence, so I can't say I'm rightly surprised. For instance:

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You did know that Carl Cameron claims there is evidence the Israeli`s orchestrated 9/11??

This is flagrantly false, yet you believe it anyway. Just like the official conspiracy theory is flagrantly false, yet you believe it anyway. Put simply, you are a textbook falser.

Why not? You believe what that goof ball Carl cameromn is saying. In fact you spew all sorts of nonesense that you cannot back up!!



http://whatreallyhappened.com/...raeli_spyring_fox.html

Note in the first segment of the article that a highly placed US investigator states, "evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." This statement suggests that such evidence must exist, since there would be no need for classification if nothing had been found.

In this segment of the report, American terrorist investigators fear certain suspects in the Sept. 11 attacks may have managed to stay ahead of them, by knowing who and when investigators are calling on the telephone; information provided by an Israeli-owned (and IDF funded) telephone company at which several of the arrested Israeli 9/11 suspects worked.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: First
As has been explained to you before, there isn't any evidence of any of this, that's why Truther's are laughed at and ridiculed. If he had something it would have been picked up by someone, somewhere, as is always the case with gov't corruption.

There is evidence all over the place, but many such as yourself are apparently incapable of comprehending it, and ridicule those who present it apparently waiting for our media establishment to tell you what to believe when they are barred from speaking freely about it.

Originally posted by: First
Bottomline; there is no evidence of thermite.

Rather, the government never found any, but then they never even looked. Others have found exactly that, though their chain of evidence is not beyond question, since nobody has been given access to the dust from the official investigation and hence they had to gather theirs from individuals.

Originally posted by: First
No, squibs from the WTC towers were not visible on video nor is there any physical evidence of it.

Can you present a reasonably close video were there aren't any to be seen? I've seen many with, such as this one I just googled up.

That said, how do you explain the fact that WTC7 managed a period of free fall over 100 feet short of some form of controlled demolition? Do you have any comprehension of Newtonian physics, or do you just enjoy condescending those who do?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You did know that Carl Cameron claims there is evidence the Israeli`s orchestrated 9/11??

This is flagrantly false...

Why not?

What you quoted is not Cameron stating a personal belief, but rather quoting a "highly placed US investigator", nor does not substantiate your claim of "orchestrated", and in context your claim is directly contradicted:

reported Cameron:

"A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States. There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are ?tie-ins.? But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, ?evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It?s classified information.?"

So, yeah, you made a flagrantly false claim, as one could only expect from a falser like yourself. By the way, bolding your whole posts doesn't make them any less false, just more unpleasant to read.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: First
As has been explained to you before, there isn't any evidence of any of this, that's why Truther's are laughed at and ridiculed. If he had something it would have been picked up by someone, somewhere, as is always the case with gov't corruption.

There is evidence all over the place, but many such as yourself are apparently incapable of comprehending it, and ridicule those who present it apparently waiting for our media establishment to tell you what to believe when they are barred from speaking freely about it.

Originally posted by: First
Bottomline; there is no evidence of thermite.

Rather, the government never found any, but then they never even looked. Others have found exactly that, though their chain of evidence is not beyond question, since nobody has been given access to the dust from the official investigation and hence they had to gather theirs from individuals.

Originally posted by: First
No, squibs from the WTC towers were not visible on video nor is there any physical evidence of it.

Can you present a reasonably close video were there aren't any to be seen? I've seen many with, such as this one I just googled up.

That said, how do you explain the fact that WTC7 managed a period of free fall over 100 feet? Do you have any comprehension of Newtonian physics, or do you just enjoy condescending those who do?

http://www.blogcatalog.com/sea...4fc387863287615fe4463b

and

youtube comment
Those puffs are caused? by the interior floors collapsing and forcing debris toward the exterior.

Fucking idiots...

 

[Skitzer]

Carl Cameron is just another Fox news moron. A political commentator and a poor one at that.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: nkgreenhttp://www.blogcatalog.com/sea...4fc387863287615fe4463b

That is a once removed ad hominem, attacking not even the authors but rather the publisher, while ignoring argument.

Originally posted by: nkgreen
and

youtube comment
Those puffs are caused? by the interior floors collapsing and forcing debris toward the exterior.

Fucking idiots...

And that is just exceedly naive, but I guess you have to be completely ignorant of the laws of physics to think the towers collapsed under their own weight alone anyway.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Carl Cameron is just another Fox news moron. A political commentator and a poor one at that.

Yeah, he isn't a particularly bright guy from what I've seen of him, but at least not so naive as to buy the official conspiracy theory. That said, my point was to demonstrate that what our media personalities say publicly is under strict control.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

There is evidence all over the place, but many such as yourself are apparently incapable of comprehending it, and ridicule those who present it apparently waiting for our media establishment to tell you what to believe when they are barred from speaking freely about it.

Really, every single media outlet and every single blogger, two bit newscaster, and journalist in the country is "barred" from speaking freely about it? And you wonder why you're called names. The odds of that are pretty much astronomically low. Anyone in this country is absolutely free to report that 9/11 was an inside job if there were any hard evidence. Truthers, after 8 years, can't present a single shred of hard evidence. Their theories revolve around "How do you explain" and "But there's no evidence it didn't happen", essentially supporting the notion that a lack of evidence/explanation = evidence in of itself.

Rather, the government never found any, but then they never even looked. Others have found exactly that, though their chain of evidence is not beyond question, since nobody has been given access to the dust from the official investigation and hence they had to gather theirs from individuals.

Gee, this is shock, chain of custody shot and no one capable of actually producing any evidence it came from on-site WTC. This is truly a stunning revelation.

Sarcasm.

Can you present a reasonably close video were there aren't any to be seen? I've seen many with, such as this one I just googled up.

And you're trying to convince people with grainy video like that, that squibs existed? Again, it's pathetic, there's no evidence for any of it and the video I've seen (and you just linked) is nowhere near clear. The absence of explanations for what those objects are is not evidence in of themselves.

That said, how do you explain the fact that WTC7 managed a period of free fall over 100 feet short of some form of controlled demolition? Do you have any comprehension of Newtonian physics, or do you just enjoy condescending those who do?

Except you don't have a basic understanding of Newtonian physics because nowhere have you shown this is impossible with any demonstrations or mathematics of your own. That's because the shit is beyond your capability and, indeed, the entire Truther community.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: First
Really, every single media outlet and every single blogger, two bit newscaster, and journalist in the country is "barred" from speaking freely about it?

By various means it seems many are, even Amy Goodman can only go so far as to say we need a new investigation and run off. That said, you can find some bloggers and independent media covering the topic if you care to look.

Originally posted by: First
And you wonder why you're called names.

I don't wonder anything of the sort, nor do I wonder why you deluded yourself into believing otherwise. I know damn well that I'm called names by people who don't have rational arguments but rather are overwhelmed by the emotional effect of the events.

Originally posted by: First
Gee, this is shock, chain of custody shot and no one capable of actually producing any evidence it came from on-site WTC.

They can produce evidence, just not indisputable evidence. One would need the dust from the official investigation to do so, and the government has no interest in anything of the sort.

Originally posted by: First
And you're trying to convince people with grainy video like that, that squibs existed?

Rather, I asked you to provide evidence to back your claim of no squibs and tossed in a video I quickly googled up for reference sake. Am I to take it an inability to back your claim has you ignoring my request to attack the image quality of the video I presented instead?

Originally posted by: First
Except you don't have a basic understanding of Newtonian physics because nowhere have you shown this is impossible with any demonstrations or mathematics of your own.

Rather, I've had a basic understanding of Newtonian physics since I was instructed in it back in 5th grade advanced classes, thanks to the DoD. I could easily provide what little math there is to it, but since you seem to believe yourself to know better than me, how about you show me your caculations for mass falling though mass with free fall acceleration?

 

[Genx87]

/facepalm

 

[Atreus21]

Ignore this, fellas.

 

[Robor]

LOL... These are always fun. :laugh:

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: First
Really, every single media outlet and every single blogger, two bit newscaster, and journalist in the country is "barred" from speaking freely about it?

By various means it seems many are, even Amy Goodman can only go so far as to say we need a new investigation and run off. That said, you can find some bloggers and independent media covering the topic if you care to look.

Originally posted by: First
And you wonder why you're called names.

I don't wonder anything of the sort, nor do I wonder why you deluded yourself into believing otherwise. I know damn well that I'm called names by people who don't have rational arguments but rather are overwhelmed by the emotional effect of the events.

Originally posted by: First
Gee, this is shock, chain of custody shot and no one capable of actually producing any evidence it came from on-site WTC.

They can produce evidence, just not indisputable evidence. One would need the dust from the official investigation to do so, and the government has no interest in anything of the sort.

Originally posted by: First
And you're trying to convince people with grainy video like that, that squibs existed?

Rather, I asked you to provide evidence to back your claim of no squibs and tossed in a video I quickly googled up for reference sake. Am I to take it an inability to back your claim has you ignoring my request to attack the image quality of the video I presented instead?

Originally posted by: First
Except you don't have a basic understanding of Newtonian physics because nowhere have you shown this is impossible with any demonstrations or mathematics of your own.

Rather, I've had a basic understanding of Newtonian physics since I was instructed in it back in 5th grade advanced classes, thanks to the DoD. I could easily provide what little math there is to it, but since you seem to believe yourself to know better than me, how about you show me your caculations for mass falling though mass with free fall acceleration?

Dude, you're a fool if you really believe all that you're spewing out. Terrorists flew planes into the buildings. Stop wasting your time.

/thread.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: nkgreenhttp://www.blogcatalog.com/sea...4fc387863287615fe4463b

That is a once removed ad hominem, attacking not even the authors but rather the publisher, while ignoring argument.

How about a whole thread on it?

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ght_key=y&keyword1=wtc

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: nkgreen
and

youtube comment
Those puffs are caused? by the interior floors collapsing and forcing debris toward the exterior.

Fucking idiots...

And that is just exceedly naive, but I guess you have to be completely ignorant of the laws of physics to think the towers collapsed under their own weight alone anyway.

Since you're the one making these outrageous claims about squibs, how about you make the case instead of us doing the leg work? Let's see what your advanced 5th grade physics can teach us. :laugh:

 

[BeauJangles]

Hello!

Okay, here are some easy questions for you.

1) If planes did not bring down the WTC, what did? How did it get there? A controlled demolition on the scale required by the WTC would have required thousands of pounds of explosives, miles (miles!) of detonation cord, and months of preparation. Have you ever seen videos of buildings when they're wired to come down? There is wire and explosives everywhere. In the WTC there was nothing. I hate to break it to you, but it would be nearly impossible for all of that stuff to be hidden.

2) What exactly blew up the building? Thermite? Thermite doesn't explode and, if this was a controlled demolition, why didn't the terrorists or whoever use real explosives rather than relying on something that has never been used to demolish a building before?

3) Who exactly was involved? At first glance, any sort of conspiracy greater than the planes implicates at least hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Knowledge of demolition, especially on the scale required to bring down the WTC is a rare commodity and would have been done by an expert. Again, that doesn't make it an impossibility, but if the "government" is involved are you accusing the NIST, FEMA, the military, the president, FDNY, the thousands of experts (both government and employed and not) who have independently concluded that the government is right, the NYPD, the hijackers, etc? Really? 21 guys versus thousands?

4) If the government is going to blow up a building, why do they concoct a complicated plan that involves hijacking a plane and slamming it into the building? There is WAAAY too much that could go wrong. What if the hijackers fail to take control of the plane? What if the plane misses the building? Why would they not make the cover story easier -- terrorists snuck truckloads of explosives into the building and blew it up? I mean, we already had an attack on the WTC which was exactly that, why not replicate it? PLUS, if you're going to go to the trouble of hijacking planes and slamming them into the building, why bother planting explosives? Why not load the planes with explosives? Why are there two high-risk operations being conducted simultaneously? This makes zero sense.

5) Finally, I would ask you to simply outline a coherent theory about what happened on 9/11. The beauty of the true story is that it is a complete story. We know who was where and when. We know what they did, why they did it, and when they did it. Conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are laughable because they aren't theories at all, they simply try to insert shadowy agents and figures into the gaps in our knowledge, they attack what they can and ignore the mountain of evidence that they cannot disprove. When one element of their charade is disproved, they simply flash to the next. We've seen this over and over again, so all I ask is that you explain to us who did it and why. Please. Once you attempt to do this, you'll realize that there is no coherence to your theory and that it's not a theory at all.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Hello!

Okay, here are some easy questions for you.

1) If planes did not bring down the WTC, what did? How did it get there? A controlled demolition on the scale required by the WTC would have required thousands of pounds of explosives, miles (miles!) of detonation cord, and months of preparation. Have you ever seen videos of buildings when they're wired to come down? There is wire and explosives everywhere. In the WTC there was nothing. I hate to break it to you, but it would be nearly impossible for all of that stuff to be hidden.

2) What exactly blew up the building? Thermite? Thermite doesn't explode and, if this was a controlled demolition, why didn't the terrorists or whoever use real explosives rather than relying on something that has never been used to demolish a building before?

3) Who exactly was involved? At first glance, any sort of conspiracy greater than the planes implicates at least hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Knowledge of demolition, especially on the scale required to bring down the WTC is a rare commodity and would have been done by an expert. Again, that doesn't make it an impossibility, but if the "government" is involved are you accusing the NIST, FEMA, the military, the president, FDNY, the thousands of experts (both government and employed and not) who have independently concluded that the government is right, the NYPD, the hijackers, etc? Really? 21 guys versus thousands?

4) If the government is going to blow up a building, why do they concoct a complicated plan that involves hijacking a plane and slamming it into the building? There is WAAAY too much that could go wrong. What if the hijackers fail to take control of the plane? What if the plane misses the building? Why would they not make the cover story easier -- terrorists snuck truckloads of explosives into the building and blew it up? I mean, we already had an attack on the WTC which was exactly that, why not replicate it? PLUS, if you're going to go to the trouble of hijacking planes and slamming them into the building, why bother planting explosives? Why not load the planes with explosives? Why are there two high-risk operations being conducted simultaneously? This makes zero sense.

5) Finally, I would ask you to simply outline a coherent theory about what happened on 9/11. The beauty of the true story is that it is a complete story. We know who was where and when. We know what they did, why they did it, and when they did it. Conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are laughable because they aren't theories at all, they simply try to insert shadowy agents and figures into the gaps in our knowledge, they attack what they can and ignore the mountain of evidence that they cannot disprove. When one element of their charade is disproved, they simply flash to the next. We've seen this over and over again, so all I ask is that you explain to us who did it and why. Please. Once you attempt to do this, you'll realize that there is no coherence to your theory and that it's not a theory at all.

haha awesome. the truther loon that started this thread will COMPLETELY ignore this and go on telling us why we should prove to him why it WASN't an inside job.

 

[FaaR]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, I asked you to provide evidence to back your claim of no squibs and tossed in a video I quickly googled up for reference sake. Am I to take it an inability to back your claim has you ignoring my request to attack the image quality of the video I presented instead?

Dude, fsck's sake... Here's what a REAL controlled demolition of a high-rise tower looks and sounds like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Note that this structure is considerably, I repeat: CONSIDERABLY smaller than either of the two WTC towers, yet note how many demolition charges are required to make it collapse. In a vastly bigger building, you'd need even more charges of course. Note how incredibly loud the explosions are.

Did anyone.... ANYONE... report ANYTHING of that nature at the WTC site? No, they did not. And no, I don't accept the so-called testimony of various rescue workers and whatnot who claim to have heard explosions inside the tower; if you'd been inside the Landmark building when those charges went off in there, you'd come out deaf as a doorknob.

Finally: note that this building drops from the ground up, so to speak. The WTC started collapsing at the points of impact. That means they fell from the top down.

Why would you even need demolition charges or thermite under such conditions? You have 20, 30 floors pressing down on a severely heat-weakened and deformed steel structure. Once the top floors start moving the building's structure isn't strong enough to withstand the forces involved. It's coming down no matter what.

All this truther talk about a controlled demolition is just bullshit. Look at your fuvking videos, all 1000 of em that you got saved away on your harddrive. On every single one the buildings start collapsing at the points of impact. At the floors that had been on fire for like two hours straight. What does that tell you?!

That there were super explosives hidden on those floors that can withstand 1000+ degree C heat for hours without going off prematurely, and that the planes were precision-guided to hit precisely on those floors?

Or that the entire building was wired up with such super explosives without anyone noticing it?

Or that the building fell on its own, because heat from fires, impact damage and mechanical stress caused it to collapse?

I say again: Occam was a smart guy.

Rather, I've had a basic understanding of Newtonian physics since I was instructed in it back in 5th grade advanced classes, thanks to the DoD. I could easily provide what little math there is to it

Right. You use your 5th grade physics education to set up an accurate mathematical model of a 110-story skyscraper. Please, show us... You learnt how to do it in school you say.

how about you show me your caculations for mass falling though mass with free fall acceleration?

That statement is a contradiction in of itself. Mass doesn't fall through mass. Anyway, it's your job to back up your own claims... Not anybody else's.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: FaaR

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, I asked you to provide evidence to back your claim of no squibs and tossed in a video I quickly googled up for reference sake. Am I to take it an inability to back your claim has you ignoring my request to attack the image quality of the video I presented instead?

Dude, fsck's sake... Here's what a REAL controlled demolition of a high-rise tower looks and sounds like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Note that this structure is considerably, I repeat: CONSIDERABLY smaller than either of the two WTC towers, yet note how many demolition charges are required to make it collapse. In a vastly bigger building, you'd need even more charges of course. Note how incredibly loud the explosions are.

Did anyone.... ANYONE... report ANYTHING of that nature at the WTC site? No, they did not. And no, I don't accept the so-called testimony of various rescue workers and whatnot who claim to have heard explosions inside the tower; if you'd been inside the Landmark building when those charges went off in there, you'd come out deaf as a doorknob.

Finally: note that this building drops from the ground up, so to speak. The WTC started collapsing at the points of impact. That means they fell from the top down.

Why would you even need demolition charges or thermite under such conditions? You have 20, 30 floors pressing down on a severely heat-weakened and deformed steel structure. Once the top floors start moving the building's structure isn't strong enough to withstand the forces involved. It's coming down no matter what.

All this truther talk about a controlled demolition is just bullshit. Look at your fuvking videos, all 1000 of em that you got saved away on your harddrive. On every single one the buildings start collapsing at the points of impact. At the floors that had been on fire for like two hours straight. What does that tell you?!

That there were super explosives hidden on those floors that can withstand 1000+ degree C heat for hours without going off prematurely, and that the planes were precision-guided to hit precisely on those floors?

Or that the entire building was wired up with such super explosives without anyone noticing it?

Or that the building fell on its own, because heat from fires, impact damage and mechanical stress caused it to collapse?

I say again: Occam was a smart guy.

Rather, I've had a basic understanding of Newtonian physics since I was instructed in it back in 5th grade advanced classes, thanks to the DoD. I could easily provide what little math there is to it

Right. You use your 5th grade physics education to set up an accurate mathematical model of a 110-story skyscraper. Please, show us... You learnt how to do it in school you say.

how about you show me your caculations for mass falling though mass with free fall acceleration?

That statement is a contradiction in of itself. Mass doesn't fall through mass. Anyway, it's your job to back up your own claims... Not anybody else's.

Don't waste your time anymore. The guy is obviously a troll making shit up about obviously ignorant and stupid theories. No actually intelligent person would be arguing his points. It's just a troll, so we waste time typing responses.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
You did know that Carl Cameron claims there is evidence the Israeli`s orchestrated 9/11??

This is flagrantly false...

Why not?

What you quoted is not Cameron stating a personal belief, but rather quoting a "highly placed US investigator", nor does not substantiate your claim of "orchestrated", and in context your claim is directly contradicted:

reported Cameron:

"A handful of active Israeli military were among those detained, according to investigators, who say some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States. There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are ?tie-ins.? But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, ?evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It?s classified information.?"

So, yeah, you made a flagrantly false claim, as one could only expect from a falser like yourself. By the way, bolding your whole posts doesn't make them any less false, just more unpleasant to read.

All that proves if that Carl Cameron is a pathological liar.
He cannot even get is story straight...sort of like the OP!!!

Any credibility that you thought you had is out the windoiw.
You just shot your wad with this thread!
It also explains why you refuse to listen to reason on any subject that concerns Israel and also why you believe that everything that happens in the middle east is Israel`s fault!!

God I just love these goof ball conspiracy theorists!!

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Since many here are so fond of slagging me of me for saying such things, apparently out of some compulsion to accept the position of our media establishment says as Gospel rather than any ability to to rationally refute my position

Your position is nutso. Here's why:

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.