|
| :: Previous topic :: Next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rusty shackleford
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 66
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:44 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Fintan wrote: | | Quote: | bardobeing:
I found it intriguing, if I understood what Richard was saying, that
thermate could be sprayed on as a gel under the cover of fireproofing
upgrade. |
I don't think Richard was saying it could be sprayed under fireproofing.
But that it could be applied to columns as a gel. |
"Under the cover of fireproofing upgrade" as in a Trojan horse type psyop, not "under fireproofing".
_________________
Guns don't kill people, the Government kills people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bardobeing
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rusty shackleford wrote: | | Fintan wrote: | | Quote: | bardobeing:
I found it intriguing, if I understood what Richard was saying, that
thermate could be sprayed on as a gel under the cover of fireproofing
upgrade. |
I don't think Richard was saying it could be sprayed under fireproofing.
But that it could be applied to columns as a gel. |
"Under the cover of fireproofing upgrade" as in a Trojan horse type psyop, not "under fireproofing". |
Yes, thanks for clarifying that. I didn't mean literally "under the fireproofing", I meant the thermate gel could have been applied under the guise of a fireproofing upgrade operation.
_________________
"There is only one admirable form of the imagination: the imagination that is so intense that it creates a new reality, that it makes things happen." - Sean O'Faolain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bardobeing
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fintan wrote: |
| Quote: | bardobeing:
That the fire escape exits weren't adequate is a non-issue. |
The point is that not alone were the fire escapes in contravention of
existing bulding codes, but that this obvious escape defect means that
the claim the buildings could deal with a 707 strike was a self-serving
lie by the designers/architects. |
I'm not connecting the logic here. A claim made that the buildings could survive a 707 impact does not preclude the possibility that, upon such an impact, poorly designed fire escapes could leave building occupants trapped in the floors above the impact.
The only way it could be a "lie" is that if they said that the fire escapes could survive a 707 impact. My understanding is that they were claiming that the buildings wouldn't fall to the ground.
I do see how it could be argued that if they were bastards about building inadequate fire escapes, that anything else they say can't be trusted.
| Fintan wrote: | | Quote: | bardobeing:
That the dismembered cap of the ST (or was it NT?) tipped 22 degrees, then suddenly disappeared in a massage explosion has always been something that's pushed me heavily toward CD, and your new arguments do nothing to dissuade me. Where did it go? It should have kept falling off and hit the ground, broken into large chunks, but all of it still there. And it's supposed to be the very pile driver crushing the building below it in perfect symmetry, yet it's in an entirely unsymmetrical position? It's weight would have been pushing down on the outer 1/3 edge of the fully intact building below it. |
If the Towers were solid blocks of steel and concrete.... then yes in that
case if the top cracked off it would slide off the rest of the building.
But the Towers were 70% air.
And gravity operates straight down.
Not sideways.
Once global collapse began, the top would keep it's tilt during the fall.
And disappear into a plume of dust --still largely intact.
The claim is often made that the collapse fields were symmetrical.
Neither of them were. |
They weren't 70% air by mass. Maybe by volume, but that doesn't strike me as relevant. Momentum is momentum, and that cap was moving sideways with only air to resist it's lateral movement. It wouldn't just "keep it's tilt", it would keep it's momentum, too.
The lateral movement/momentum of the cap of the building wouldn't be affected by the sudden collapse of the building below it. It would continue to move laterally while simultaneously falling vertically, though the vertical pull of gravity would eventually produce a vertical descent path. From the looks of it, it should have produced an entirely seperate debris field to the side of the larger debris field create by the collapse of the floors below it. It would have been of a different characteristic, - that of landing on it's side, rather than "pancaking". It would contain nearly 100% of it's original mass and very little of it would have been pulverized into dust.
I accept that I could be way off.
_________________
"There is only one admirable form of the imagination: the imagination that is so intense that it creates a new reality, that it makes things happen." - Sean O'Faolain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
urbanspaceman
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fintan wrote: | | the claim the buildings could deal with a 707 strike was a self-serving lie by the designers/architects. |
| bardobeing wrote: | | I'm not connecting the logic here |
I believe I follow Fintan's argument. The case for controlled demolition of the towers is partly based accepting the architect's claim that the buildings were designed to withstand a 707 strike. If what the architects claim is true, then the planes couldn't have done it, so it must have been something else like planted explosives.
But Fintan is saying that the architect's aren't telling the whole truth, because they have a self serving reason for lying if they had designed unsafe buildings. If they did hide the fact that the buildings couldn't REALLY deal with a plane strike (ie. true they would remain standing after the initial impact, but what did the design cover after that?), then this weakens the case for CD. The architects don't want to appear culpable for the tragedy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusty shackleford
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 66
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Richard Gage interview won't work for me, my comp says it contains corrupted data.
I would also like to add that counting on the fires and crash damage alone to initiate the collapse seems a little too faith based for men who don't seem to have much faith in anything other than their own will. If there were truly no explosives used, I think that would be proof enough that these towers were indeed designed to collapse themselves.
_________________
Guns don't kill people, the Government kills people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 99
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:37 pm Post subject: Don't forget the small print. |
|
|
Post Structure
1 Preamble
2 Constructivism
3 Timing
4 Style vs Substance Sophistry, criticism, credibility
5 An Afterthought
1 Preamble
Hi Everybody,
What we do here requires a lot of thought and consideration. Personally, I compose and edit my posts on a separate word-processing document prior to putting them on the forum.
I find this helps me to weigh my words and balance the message.
Above all, it aids me in distinguishing my philosophy and ideas from those of others, so that the potential for extrinsic manipulation is neutralised.
So let’s rewind the tape, shall we?
2 Constructivism
Constructivism, in education at least, is premised upon the philosoply of creating the conditions for the individual to construct their own meaning using their previous experience.
It was in this spirit that I wrote the following on Friday February 6th 2009.
| Quote: | As a non-prolific poster (a mere 17 posts since joining in August 2006), a visitor to BFN since May 2004, a closet luddite and a writer of Germanically long sentences, it behoves me to make a general comment first of all.
It takes a lot of guts, commitment and dedication to keep a free, not-for-profit website like this going so long and still put food on the table. I know I couldn't do it at the moment.
It takes a bluetooth laptop, a wireless internet connection and 2 or more people with an agenda to ruin it for everyone else.
What are we at now, 8 days and 14 pages of postings already and counting?
One thing I have learnt these past 5 years is how to tell when one of Fintan's shows is dangerous to the Powers That Be.
How?
By the number, frequency and tactical arrangement of what are known as trolls.
And what does one mean by a troll?
Well, those who deliberately, ponerologically and amygdalagically provoke and distract others in the hope of an emotional response.
Do we understand each other now? |
This was intended not to point any fingers but rather to stimulate reflection upon what we do here. As Fintan emphasised at the end of his interview with Ormond on Friday April 27th 2007 entitled ’Psychopaths run our lives’, the key is not to play the game but rather to analyse and understand it.
Thus avoiding using the amygdala 
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2399
3 Timing
As I mentioned above, we had had a considerable use of bandwidth since January 29th 2009 (the date of Fintan’s 9\11 The Verdict Part One- The CIA vs 911 Truth) and also since then.
Imagine my surprise (  ) when I received no reply to my constructivist invitation to reflect upon what it means to be a Transdisciplinary Recriminator Of Litigious Lure or T.R.O.L.L. for short.
Ah....silence is golden. 
A full 9 days had elapsed until...
Sunday February 15th
Fintan’s reply-
| Quote: | Hey, that was a great post by Neil, wasn't it?
Touché
Quote:
Neil:
One thing I have learnt these past 5 years is how to tell when
one of Fintan's shows is dangerous to the Powers That Be.
How? By the number, frequency and tactical arrangement of what are
known as trolls.
And what does one mean by a troll?
Well, those who deliberately, ponerologically and amygdalagically
provoke and distract others in the hope of an emotional response.
Do we understand each other now?
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54483#54483
Oh yeah, Neil. We all understand each other |
.
Good for you Fintan! 
A further 3 days went by until the following riposte appeared-
| Quote: | Wednesday February 18th Rusty Shackleford Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 49
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba
I say:
So where's the substance in calling me a troll? You didn't address a single point that I raised. Weak. Perhaps I should post my questions in crop circles instead, then you could decode them. Is that something that might interest you?
P.S. The idea that more criticism=more credibility, pure sophistry.
Calling someone a troll may be a good way to evade a debate, but it's not very next level, is it? |
4 Style vs Substance; Sophistry, criticism and credibility
Let us attempt to use deconstructivism in order to attain constructivism.
A cursory glance at my posts will reveal to the casual reader that I specialise in larger-scale geopolitical trends rather than the minutiae of criminal investigation.
A- Because I don’t have the time
And B- Because I tend to record mentally and later link diverse events over the medium term, so that they synthesise with current events as they unfold.
When troll-watching, I observe style not substance; the motivation behind and delivery of a given message.
i.e. The messenger.
Question: Was any particular person accused of being a troll in my last post? 
An important point is that like with the CIA fakes, one can also unwittingly become a troll. This is similar to how sociopaths recruit accomplices who later become their victims.
It would be instructive for all concerned here at BFN to get together and role-play scenarios involving provocative bullies, victim-bullies and provocative victims etc. Just to get a handle on the dynamics at play. I see it in my classroom every day.
They probably do this sort of training in intelligence agencies anyway (with IT interface of course). 
I didn’t raise anyone’s points because frankly, as a peer and wearing my juror’s hat, I wouldn’t know where to start with all the reading I’d have to do. I would prefer to compare evidence that will fit inside my briefcase and provide me with a comprehensive and logical overview of the case, before I give a verdict and send people to prison.
As for the suggestion of crop circles, this would interest me immensely but let’s wait for the technology to catch up... 
As a student of History of Ideas and avid dictionary reader from the ages of 8 to 16, I always read the small print.
| Quote: | http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism. |
Subtle I may be, but tricky? Me thinks Madam doth flatter too much...
As for the Criticism-Credibility idea, I will quote from page six of that most learned of tomes and soon-to-become BFN standard text;
’Inappropriate Treatment- Instructions for preventing and dealing with harassment and inappropriate treatment at work’. Occupational Safety and Health Guides and Instructions 42.
Published by the ’Team for work-related well-being’ of the Occupational Safety and Health Inspectorate of Uusimaa (Southern Finland).
Finnish Occupational Safety and Health Administration 2007.
| Quote: | | ’Instances where a problem becomes personalised are for example, cases where an employee’s working manner differs from his collegues, and the problems are, therefore, considered to be caused by this person instead of the working methods in general. If focus is put on what people say and do instead of searching for solutions the situation gets easily confused and the observation and development of working methods will be neglected’. |
This document goes on to give an example of where an employee is blamed for inefficiency at work because others are hiding their own shortcomings.
So does criticism necessarily indicate credibility? That depends on the manner, style and tone of the criticism. Is it constructive? Is it personalised? Is it inaccurate? Is it provocative and intimidatory?
5 An Afterthought
Just in case I have evaded debate and in order to push us onto the next level.
Let’s put my definition to the test. Let’s compare what I have written with an example.
And here we go................................................................................................................................... 
| Quote: | dimedr Friday February 13th dimedr
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 18
Fintan, I appreciated you having Gage on ... you got owned throughout the discussion and sounded like a naive shill trying to match wits every minute of it, I'd list them but i would have to translate the entire thing ... many thanks for exposing yourself http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4936 |
Does anyone smell adrenalin?
This post took 4 hours by the way, so my dear Rusty Shackleford, you might have to reply to me in Old Entish to get a dialogue going.
Peace and Love Brudder! Keep it constructivist! 
P.S. Maybe it’s just an Irish Solidarity thing but this is the only place on the net I trust. 
_________________
'Essayons de ne pas rire avant la fin d'Hamlet'-'Let us try not to laugh before the end of Hamlet'- Pierre Desproges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusty shackleford
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 66
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:22 pm Post subject: Re: Don't forget the small print. |
|
|
| Neil wrote: | Post Structure
1 Preamble
2 Constructivism
3 Timing
4 Style vs Substance Sophistry, criticism, credibility
5 An Afterthought
1 Preamble
Hi Everybody,
What we do here requires a lot of thought and consideration. Personally, I compose and edit my posts on a separate word-processing document prior to putting them on the forum.
I find this helps me to weigh my words and balance the message.
Above all, it aids me in distinguishing my philosophy and ideas from those of others, so that the potential for extrinsic manipulation is neutralised.
So let’s rewind the tape, shall we?
a writer of Germanically long sentences,
coolest adverb ever. RS
It takes a lot of guts, commitment and dedication to keep a free, not-for-profit website like this going
or a fat government paycheck RS
It takes a bluetooth laptop, a wireless internet connection and 2 or more people with an agenda to ruin it for everyone else.
change "ruin" to expose and I confess RS
What are we at now, 8 days and 14 pages of postings already and counting?
One thing I have learnt these past 5 years is how to tell when one of Fintan's shows is dangerous to the Powers That Be.
How?
By the number, frequency and tactical arrangement of what are known as trolls.
And what does one mean by a troll?
Well, those who deliberately, ponerologically and amygdalagically provoke and distract others in the hope of an emotional response.
Do we understand each other now? |
This was intended not to point any fingers but rather to stimulate reflection upon what we do here. As Fintan emphasised at the end of his interview with Ormond on Friday April 27th 2007 entitled ’Psychopaths run our lives’, the key is not to play the game but rather to analyse and understand it.
Fintan does indeed play the troll game, his ad hominem attacks and numerous strawmen testify to that. Not to mention the years of bizarre shenanigans here. RS
T
Question: Was any particular person accused of being a troll in my last post?
Yes, Fintan used your post to lamely imply that I am a troll. RS
An important point is that like with the CIA fakes, one can also unwittingly become a troll. This is similar to how sociopaths recruit accomplices who later become their victims.
I didn’t raise anyone’s points because frankly, as a peer and wearing my juror’s hat, I wouldn’t know where to start with all the reading I’d have to do. I would prefer to compare evidence that will fit inside my briefcase and provide me with a comprehensive and logical overview of the case, before I give a verdict and send people to prison.
My questions and comments were addressed to Fintan, not you. He used your post to attack me. Ask him why. RS
As for the suggestion of crop circles, this would interest me immensely but let’s wait for the technology to catch up...
The crop circles reference is about Fintan's 2001 article wherein he claimed to have decoded an alien language in crop circles. If you had "Dunne" your research on your hero you would know that. RS
As a student of History of Ideas and avid dictionary reader from the ages of 8 to 16, I always read the small print.
| Quote: | http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism. |
Subtle I may be, but tricky? Me thinks Madam doth flatter too much...
WTF? RS
As for the Criticism-Credibility idea, I will quote from page six of that most learned of tomes and soon-to-become BFN standard text;
Try using logic to prove how more criticism=more credibility. RS
5 An Afterthought
Just in case I have evaded debate and in order to push us onto the next level.
I refer to Fintan, not you. You could have saved yourself four hours by simply asking me if I was speaking to you. RS
Let’s put my definition to the test. Let’s compare what I have written with an example.
And here we go...................................................................................................................................
| Quote: | dimedr Friday February 13th dimedr
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 18
Fintan, I appreciated you having Gage on ... you got owned throughout the discussion and sounded like a naive shill trying to match wits every minute of it, I'd list them but i would have to translate the entire thing ... many thanks for exposing yourself http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4936 |
I hope you're not suggesting that dimedr is me. RS
Does anyone smell adrenalin?
This post took 4 hours by the way, so my dear Rusty Shackleford, you might have to reply to me in Old Entish to get a dialogue going.
Peace and Love Brudder! Keep it constructivist!
P.S. Maybe it’s just an Irish Solidarity thing but this is the only place on the net I trust. [/quote]
Skepticism is warranted always, why is yours suspended here, of all places? RS
sorry for the messed up post, my comments are in bold with initials. RS
_________________
Guns don't kill people, the Government kills people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Boss
Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 771
Location: Outer Heaven
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fintan, anymore plans for further 9/11 'Final Verdict' audios? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fintan
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6170
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | P.S. Maybe it’s just an Irish Solidarity thing but this is the only place on the net I trust. |
There's enough intelligent contributions not hamstrung by ideology.
That makes this the place it is.
| Quote: | Big Boss:
Fintan, anymore plans for further 9/11 'Final Verdict' audios? |
You bet!
I think the ideas covered so far needed time to gell.
And they now have. But it's good to stand back and
let an idea settle to see how it looks. I will follow up.
About to do an audio out imminently on another topic.
_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Boss
Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 771
Location: Outer Heaven
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That is great great news and I definitely understand your angle, I look forward to them! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rusty shackleford
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 66
Location: The Frozen Waste of Manitoba
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fintan wrote: | | Quote: | First, we're not talking about "US Government".
We're talking about Lockheed freekin Martin, dude. |
I see. Everybody who works for Lockheed Martin is a covert NWO
operative --even the secretaries and the guy who sweeps the car
park. And every LM contractor is automatically an Intel Stooge.
Or something..... |
This is just one example of Fintan's army of strawmen.
Fintan makes blanket statements about internet fakes, guilt by association, etc., however when a charter member of the MIC is brought up he invokes secretaries and janitors to defend it. That's some brilliant analysis. I guess the Pentagon lacks the janitors needed for absolution in Fintan's eyes.
_________________
Guns don't kill people, the Government kills people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dik909
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 14
Location: North Earth
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:08 pm Post subject: Re: Don't forget the small print. |
|
|
| rusty shackleford wrote: |
| Quote: | http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sophistry
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism. |
Subtle I may be, but tricky? Me thinks Madam doth flatter too much...
WTF? RS
|
_________________
Giving is exchanging... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Boss
Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 771
Location: Outer Heaven
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok Fintan, listening to Part 2 of the very informative audio again today and here I am just attempting to understand and piece together what happened to the buildings myself  . I am taking your analysis into full context of the events and learning something new almost everytime I listen . Well, I DEFINITELY am not trying to 'pick you apart' as many idiot trolls do here out of spite and ignorance but simply, and at best, trying to understand your angle, which I do find interesting and informative. Therefore, i have a few questions/thoughts, or maybe a couple lol.
Now in this audio, you mentioned that using controlled demo. in general would have left much evidence, and the perps. would definitely not want to leave such a trail, but I immediately thought back to a past audio, I believe it was 9/11 Without tinfoil Part 1, or 2, cannot remember but it was concerning the passport and how it was intentionally tossed there by the perps. to basically affect 3 kinds of individuals. I then tried to reconcile what you said then and attempted to apply it to the buildings being demolished, then I stopped there because....I mean come on, IF they used a classic (I am assuming classic, which could be bad lol) controlled demo. then you'd have to shut up many people from what they've seen and heard (shaped cutter charges, etc). So just my crazy mind going along (and gladly so lol) listening to your audios. Thank you so much for them anyway and please keep it up.
My second question/thought (I guess they're just thoughts lol) is, what do you make of the smoothed out diagonally 'cut' steel beam photos that are rather infamous for the pro controlled demo. positions? Putting the pieces together.....slowly but surely. Thanks again and take care. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bri
Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 2890
Location: Capacious Creek
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big Boss wrote: |
what do you make of the smoothed out diagonally 'cut' steel beam photos that are rather infamous for the pro controlled demo. positions? |
I personally have yet to see any cut beams in photos from before the clean up began. You can be sure a lot of cutting was done during the cleanup process however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Boss
Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 771
Location: Outer Heaven
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Good point Bri, thanks for your view/response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
