Skeptic Project

Not if I'm trying to clarify context or reference what was said.

I, as someone who read through all of Edwards article, got the impression, that he was always trying to find proof for the alledged claims on which various conspiracy theories are based, even if its just a quotation which "proofs" the "evil mindset" of a certain individuum. If he found no other evidence for that fact or quote than on conspiracy sites, than he concludes (and I agree) that its very likely made up to support a theory.

About him not using sources that conspiracy theorists claim to be owned by the New World Order,etc.

Lets take 9/11 as an example. The Conspiracy Theorists baiscally claim that the American Gouverment or an shadow organisation that controlls it executed the incident.

If you now cite any scientific publication, gouverment organisation or newspaper which supports the official Osama Bin Laden theory, they denounce it and say: Of course the people who controll the media, the scientists and the goverment planted those evidence, they want you to believe their story. If you want to know the truth, you have to get "independent" informations. What they really mean with independent is strongly pro-conspiracy biased sites.

They basically argue like a sect. They state a fact/theory, and because they know its a lie they can only make people believe in it, if they brainwash them and make them so paranoid, that they start to believe that the media, academic works, goverment organisations, basically everyone who is not supporting their claims, is not what you thought they are, they are controlled by the devil, demons, the NWO, jews or whoever else.

Its a trust noone (but me) brainwash, that makes you believe the biggest bullshit.

The truth is (so I believe), even so I agree, that Massmedia is alot of propaganda and misinformation, even so I agree that the goverment manipulates the public opinion more than it tells the truth, even so I believe that cooperations often fund scientists and they in turn published biased papers, there are also a lot of honest and truthful scientists, journalists and politicians and if you know how to do research and compare informations from different sources you will get a fairly realitic picture. And in 95% of the cases they PROOF CONSPIRACY THEORIES WRONG.

What is the other option anyway, if you don't want to trust the media or even science/academic world? Just believe what is written on prison planet, davidicke.com and the Zeitgeist Forums? Why? Who tells you that they are not biased, that they don't have an agenda? No one other than themselves.

I mean Edward did an AMAZING job of exposing the lies, scams and manipulation of Alex Jones and his likes with his sites and I am sure it was alot of work.

I think they would have a really hard time arguing his research away.

Just some basic questions I want to see proof for from them:
WHO ARE THE ILLUMINATI/NWO gang today? I dont want to hear about their alledged, low-level organisations Bilderberggroup, CFA, Trilateral Commition, etc. I dont want to hear about the usual suspects Rockefeller, Clinton, Kissinger, Obama, etc. How is at the TOP? What are the TOP organisations
HOW is their pyramid organised?
There must be thousands of people involved. Why is there nobody who was involved exposing 9/11 for example?
Where is the REAL Proof for a worldwide conspiracy?

Why do all the things they talk about for the last 20+ years as happening VERY SOON never happen? Martial Law, economic collapse, one world goverment, chipping of the population, third world war, Northern American Union, Amero, World currency?
Where is all of this bullshit they are warning about for centuries? Why does it never happen?

We are not even talking about the really irretional theories here. I even feel downright retarded to ask for any proof other than Anecdotal evidence regarding David Icke's Reptilian Humanoid Theory.
Or does this convince anybody? --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFpes9qWMj4

I mean this is more than pseudoscience, this is more than brainwash, this is just plain delusion, this is madness.

I am so happy that Edward is fighting these sharlatans and scam-artists with rational thinking and reasoning. I really think that the conspiracy theories are dangerous and can fuck peoples worldview up. Some people are really getting brainwashed and develop an irrational, paranoid worldview which is not healthy at all.

Thank you Edward for your work. Your site is AMAZING and UNIQUE. Keep up the good work.

>> http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/jones.html</p>

But still 99% of scientists not seeing a problem with the primary theories of 9/11 doesn't mean anything?

>> http://www.physics911.net/</p>

Pretty much everything here you can find on http://www.debunking911.com/ and my site, and many others in fact.

>> http://www.ae911truth.org/</p>

Then there's this: http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php

It was one of the predictions that came true!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gab0fgLdc1o

Sources, yes this thread is called sources. In a court of law eye witness testemony is consided the most credible evidence, the most valuable of all sources.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related

I rest my case.

Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust

A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.

The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations.

Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm</p>

The paper ends with the statement, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

Ordinary thermite burns quickly and can melt through steel, but it is not explosive. Nanothermite, however, can be formulated as a high explosive. It is stable when wet and can be applied like paint.

The presence of pre-planted explosives in the WTC buildings calls into question the official story that the buildings were destroyed by the airplane collisions and fire alone. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the official government agency that investigated the building collapses, did not test for residues of explosives.

Richard Gage, AIA, said, "This peer-reviewed scientific study of the disturbing contents of the WTC dust is yet another smoking gun proving to the over 600 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) who I represent that a real investigation must be carried out immediately as to the actual cause of the destruction of the 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11."

One of the paper's co-authors is AE911Truth researcher/editor Gregg Roberts. When Roberts signed the AE911Truth petition demanding a new 9/11 investigation, he wrote, "What struck me on 9/11 was how much dust was created." Now, over 7 years later, Roberts has an intimate appreciation for that dust. The steel was removed and destroyed very quickly after the catastrophe, despite loud protests from fire fighters and others. It was destruction of the primary evidence at a crime scene. The dust, however, remains as a key piece of physical evidence.

The nine co-authors are Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Gregg Roberts, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA, James R. Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX, and Bradley R. Larsen, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT

Another good link, scientist abound!

http://911revolution.magnify.net/video/911-Debunked-WTC-Control-Demoli

He predicted that it would'nt be bin laden, after a reporter managed to track him down and interview him lol. After all the american govenment with the largest intellegence budget of all time failed to track him down!!! Well i suppose that was bound to happen, i would never of occured to me that it would be the other way round.

No i will give you that one, it was after all the weakest part of my argument anyway.

Predictions can be viewed in to many diferant ways, but all the questions on the thread still remain unanswered. This is what 25 miltary officers think.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article%20Military%20Officers%20Challenge%20911.pdf

Individuals interviewing bin Laden prior to 9/11 isn't a surprise as bin Laden is a media whore and was constantly on various news channels, most notably Al-Jazeera. Furthermore, when a news person was able to interview him, it wasn't simply "meet me at this address at 2pm," bin Laden was not stupid. It took weeks to get in contact with people to get in contact with him, then reporters were typically blind folded and repeatedly searched, and moved from location to location.

There were three separate times when the US had good intelligence of where Osama bin Laden could be in the 1990s, but each time bombing of the area was called off due to fear of harming innocent individuals (ironic, isn't it?)

It wasn't until 2002 that nanothermite was available in a decent enough particle size to be practical, but even then it took a lot of effort to manufacture it. The theory debunks itself in that it simply wouldn't have been used.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm</p>

The whole nanothermite thing originally comes from a Danish guy who uses the same logic as the original thermite discoverers, basically that "Aluminum and Rust = Thermite" and that's it. Every single piece of residue is something that would have been in the building anyway.

Sky! edwards! hold your trian of thought for a day or two as im going to a wargames convetion very soon and im a bit drunk lol, got to get sober and some sleep. I will get back and continue the debate! this is fun isnt it?!!

A great and noble politician once said (yes there was such a thing lol) "never shy away from controversy", i dont know why because if you don't shy away from it you get branded a heretic!!!

"A" shall we say less venerable politician once said "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories"

OK!

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories

How about sticking to the science?

Where did the energy come from to demolish the towers?

How did all the outside columns and the core of WTC7 fail simultaneously? From the bottom? (Don't forget that structural loads are good for at least 6 times the actual for safety.) And all scientists concur that fire and damage from falling debries, (in any model) BTW! Are impossible to make the building collaps, period!! Let alone the way it happend!

6 of the 10 9/11 commission report writers admitted that the report was a whitewash.

some checkable statements from 9/11 commissioners:

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had - in a way - conflicts of interest“.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

THE 9/11 COMMISSION REJECTS OWN REPORT AS BASED ON GOVERNMENT LIES

By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER

John Farmer’s Book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″ Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive coverup are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8538

Any way guys ive got to be off, talk to you after the weekend.

aww one last thing this is funny you gotta see this lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYeVTokqDOs

I appologise for calling bush an idiot then, he was a really funny guy though. You are right i should stick to the science, bare im mind i was a little tippsy when i posted that up. Hopfully you got a laugh out of it, state of the union adress is dead funny dont ya think?

This proves what ive been saying!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW81Cd7nNH8&feature=related

Not a conspiracy theory, just hard scientific data.

And this is good to watch also! One source of informtion does very little but if you look at all the evidence (all of it) i find it overwhelming.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Obs8PDy6mY

End of the day if a new investigation would clear the whole thing up why not have one! That is all people really want anyway so long as its independent, what is the problem with that. No one can dispute that it doesnt need it!

And just typical bbc conspiracy files aired on mainstream bbc, just appaling behavior on there part and then ........ unreal they allowed themselves to be debunked lol!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nv_rnmGrdg&feature=related

If theres nothing to hide, lets have another inquiry!!! But they do have alot to hide.

None of my questions have been answered, and certainly not directly! Easly proven by reading the entire thread!

Ive looked at the science from both sides, The best bazant can come up with is a progresive collapes theory! I.e the buildings fell at nearly free fall rate because of stuctural failure (due to fire) and gravity, But thats a load of bollocks and can be debunked with a high school physics text book.

Even if in an instant 3 whole floors had been atomised (totally vaporised) and the floors above had crashed into the subsequent floors, the lower floors would have withstood it! And even if they didnt his model still doesnt work because the collapes would have slowed down (eventually to a stop) and the whole building would never (in any model) have completely collaped!!!

Then as the floors collaps though several or many floors because of kenetic energy verses better resistance in diferant parts of the building, it would have went off to one side or as i said earlier stopped altogether!!! Simply no other way in bazants model for any deviation of what i have said, so what he said (is trash) unless he is rewriting the laws of physics he might as well rewrite brownian motion and change the values of pye while he is on doing it!

I dont belive we were fed this garbage in the first place, what is sad though is people belive it. :(

p.s.
SO NO I DONT JUST GET MY INFO OFF YOUTUBE BTW!

p.p.s

And if ever there was a truly independant enquiry, that was open and published its findings in a fair open and unbiased way (i.e nothing like the last one where even the commisoners were sick of all the bs). I would execept it, and i think everyone else would. Some heads would roll for sure! Not get promoted lol

"None of my questions have been answered, and certainly not directly! Easly proven by reading the entire thread!"

I explained some things to you, like the investigations of the collapse, and you just moved on to more questions. What you are doing is throwing as much junk on the wall as possible and hoping some of it sticks. All of your questions have been answered somewhere if you just bother to look.

"Ive looked at the science from both sides"

I don't believe you.

"The best bazant can come up with is a progresive collapes theory! I.e the buildings fell at nearly free fall rate because of stuctural failure (due to fire) and gravity, But thats a load of bollocks and can be debunked with a high school physics text book."

Maybe you are just don't understand what your physics book says.

"Even if in an instant 3 whole floors had been atomised (totally vaporised) and the floors above had crashed into the subsequent floors, the lower floors would have withstood it!"

What evidence do you have for this?

"And even if they didnt his model still doesnt work because the collapes would have slowed down (eventually to a stop) and the whole building would never (in any model) have completely collaped!!! Then as the floors collaps though several or many floors because of kenetic energy verses better resistance in diferant parts of the building, it would have went off to one side"

Why would any one side of the building be significantly more resistant than the others, and why does this not happen in a real controlled demolition either?

"or as i said earlier stopped altogether!!!"

And do what, just float there?

"SO NO I DONT JUST GET MY INFO OFF YOUTUBE BTW!"

Google video?

"And if ever there was a truly independant enquiry, that was open and published its findings in a fair open and unbiased way (i.e nothing like the last one where even the commisoners were sick of all the bs)."

What's wrong with the NIST report?

"I would execept it, and i think everyone else would."

But you already have a problem with scientific papers written by independent sources. I don't believe you.

Sky your last post makes you look like a cheap shot artist BTW, lets just debate and not get like that man! Unless that is the way you want to look, but hey whats the point man. I want a debate not a flame war, so lets play it cool. Lets all just be friends and agree to disagree.