The Final Tamb 9/11 Thread

[ParisInAKilt]

7 minutes ago, McTeeko said:

Pretty sure dandydunn's post wasn't aimed at you/your thread specifically 

Haha you're probably right, I just read cover up and assume it's about 911

[phart]

It takes literally dozens and dozens of hours to become familiar enough with all the events of 9/11 to even start to understand the deception points. Also it was called from the start by loads of people.

Just like Armstrong (my other "conspiracy theory") I used to bang on about on here all the time. That was called out at the time too, they even covered up a failed test, but you had to read loads and loads of stuff to form the picture that he was actually a total psycho cheater.

[Scotty CTA]

On 9/14/2017 at 6:18 PM, kumnio said:

No, you brought warped nonsense to the TAMB, you didnt bring truth at all. 

9/11 was an inside job!

A very unpopular truth, but the truth none the less.

9/11 was an inside job!

On 9/14/2017 at 7:09 PM, DonnyTJS said:

Very few truths can be described as 'self-evident'...

Not at first, no, but that's the point of the quote.

On 9/15/2017 at 3:51 AM, ParisInAKilt said:

If by theorists, you mean people like Noam Chomsky, then establishing the truth about 911 has never been their aim. It's career suicide to question the offical narrative of 911, it's makes people angry as your post proves. 

Posters like Phart, Thplinth and even Scotty and others have shared some really valuable stuff on 911 and other shady dealings by governments that I know I've found interesting and helpful. 

The media won't that's for sure. 

You are very welcome (and I'm not finished).

On 9/15/2017 at 4:04 AM, ParisInAKilt said:

Maybe the next reincarnation of the board can limit free speech ?

Or offer an intense tutorial on how to avoid threads that don't interest you

And no thinking outside the box!

6:00 to 6:20...

 

[DonnyTJS]

16 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Not at first, no, but that's the point of the quote.

 

A self-evident truth means one that isn't reliant on proof. The use in the quote makes it a synonym for 'obvious', which is how I knew Schopenhauer couldn't have said it.

Edited September 17, 2017 by DonnyTJS

[Scotty CTA]

On 9/14/2017 at 2:44 PM, Eisegerwind said:

Thanks for the reasoned reply. 

(Surprised you knew what one was.)

On 9/14/2017 at 2:51 PM, thplinth said:

Getting the truth about 9/11 out there is an incredibly hard sell in itself. Stupidly hard...

Attaching literal bible creationism to it and now hilariously Flat Earth bullshit to it is the precise way to mock and ridicule every thing you ever said you believed in.

No, I've never directly connected 9/11 and flat earth.

The flat earth being discussed separately on a 9/11 thread is probably what you are thinking.

The illuminati build safety nets into their schemes to the point where if the actual script were uncovered the person relaying that info would sound crazy and be discredited. 

On 9/14/2017 at 3:00 PM, thplinth said:

Listen up Tambers.

Scotty CTA is a self appointed arsehole when it comes to 9/11.

Phart is your man. He actually does the homework. 

Phart will admit that he (after loads and loads of prompting) finally took his cue from me.

On 9/15/2017 at 9:49 AM, Larky Masher said:

The conspiracy industry driven by deluded f*ckwits that surrounds the event.

The official lie of 9/11 is itself a conspiracy.

On 9/15/2017 at 3:37 PM, mariokempes56 said:

Scotty, we have never met but I believe you to be a genuine really good guy (I have heard so from others).

If you remove "religion/God" from of your arguments it'd have a chance.

I like to meet people from the TAMB and was annoyed that I didn't get to meet you when we were in the same bar in Jacksonville.

i was rooming with 'Willfaeswindon' and only after we got back to our hotel he told me that he was speaking with you.

(My only interest is the truth. The need for popularity and acceptance is a weakness that only gets in the way. God and the truth are inextricably linked.)

On 9/15/2017 at 5:42 PM, andymac said:

He is either on a long term wind up and needs to get a life or he believes this crap and needs to get a life or is desperate for attention and needs to get a life or it's the truth and he already has a life.

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Scotty CTA

[Scotty CTA]

9 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

A self-evident truth means one that isn't reliant on proof. 

Once the baggage is removed and people come out of their cognitive dissonance they will see the truth for what it was all along.

(It's not about proof. It's about perception.)

[Scotty CTA]

On 9/14/2017 at 2:05 PM, Eisegerwind said:

 I've not read alot of 911 stuff...

 

On 9/15/2017 at 8:03 AM, Larky Masher said:

That sums it nicely.

 

[Scotty CTA]

On 9/15/2017 at 5:31 PM, thplinth said:

My feeling is there were a lot of really decent 9/11 threads on here strangled at birth by the Scotty Show.

You only feel that way because you disagree with me.

On 9/15/2017 at 9:21 PM, DonnyTJS said:

No, you don't question everything (and you have very little understanding of logic). You do not question the nature of the text upon which your entire subsequent worldview is based and that inability to question undermines all that follows as it is built on sand.

...um...

24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man (SCOTTY) who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man (DONNY) who built his house on the sand. Matthew 7

(You can't reduce God to some zone within the boundaries of your pseudo science.)

[DonnyTJS]

2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

...um...

24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man (SCOTTY) who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man (DONNY) who built his house on the sand. Matthew 7

(You can't reduce God to some zone within the boundaries of your pseudo science.)

Aye, I was aware of the  source of the metaphor ... it is a metaphor, the Bible is rich with them, and therein lies one of the problems with 'certainty' for 'Bible-believing Christians'. How do you know that God inscribing a circle on the waters, or John the Revelator's vision of four angels standing at the four corners of the earth are not also metaphors? You take them as literal, and so find yourself having to suggest a bizarre way to square a circle, and then disclaiming it when it doesn't fit in with your water-finding-its-own-level definition of flat.

And your warning about reducing "God to some zone within [my] pseudo-science" simply shows that you do not (or choose not to) understand my argument - I place the existence or otherwise of God outside science. The post you selectively quote from also explained the difference between science and pseudo-science. You're too intelligent not to understand it, so you simply evade it, just as you evade biffer's refutations of your daft claims. If it's all you've got, then crack on, but it doesn't make for much of a discussion.

[Scotty CTA]

On 9/15/2017 at 9:21 PM, DonnyTJS said:

Faith is a perfectly fine way of approaching knowledge of metaphysics, in fact it is the only sensible way, but it's a crap way to approach physics. 

Science isn't based on faith and the false 'certainty' that faith inspires. Science is based on doubt. Theories, to have scientific validity, have to be testable. Heliocentricism, relativity, big bang have all, so far, passed the tests that make them continue to be viable. They all enable prediction, and those predictions have, so far, been shown to be sound. Bible-based cosmology is a hotch-potch of lies, evasions, mysticism and bullshit.

 

Without God, both you and I are dirt, however, in your case you are dirt that vainly and defiantly believes he doesn't need God because everything about Him is B.S. 

You start with the false premise that we are (impossibly) complex from being fantastically random which allows you to be your own (fool) god.

"I'll just believe 'this' and attach the label science to it and no one can argue as there is nothing higher."

God created the laws of science but He isn't bound by them.

God Trumps science.

God created all things, including science.  He imparted the laws of science into people’s minds.  I think God created science to work according to His will and purpose, to make us stand in awe of Him, not to make us stand in awe of ourselves and our achievements.  We’ve taken a hold of scientific knowledge and have basically shoved God into a box.  We’ve taken our scientific studies and data and have told God, “You can only work within these walls.  Anything outside of that is off-limits.”  The thing is, God doesn’t fit nicely into this box.  In fact, God resides outside of any box made by humans.

Truth is, science testifies to the Creator; it speaks of His brilliance, complexity, and fame.  See, while God loves science and uses it to reveal Himself through, I don’t think we should use science to try and trump God.  I think, in every case, God should trump science.  Why?  Cause our God is greater than science.

 

[Scotty CTA]

On 9/15/2017 at 9:21 PM, DonnyTJS said:

One reason you make few contributions to the 9/11 debate these days is...

The number one reason would be time.

The number two reason is that I'm content with what I believe happened that day. (I don't think that I can take it any further but would love for something new to come up.)

[DonnyTJS]

5 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

 

Without God, both you and I are dirt, however, in your case you are dirt that vainly and defiantly believes he doesn't need God because everything about Him is B.S. 

You start with the false premise that we are (impossibly) complex from being fantastically random which allows you to be your own (fool) god.

"I'll just believe 'this' and attach the label science to it and no one can argue as there is nothing higher."

God created the laws of science but He isn't bound by them.

God Trumps science.

God created all things, including science.  He imparted the laws of science into people’s minds.  I think God created science to work according to His will and purpose, to make us stand in awe of Him, not to make us stand in awe of ourselves and our achievements.  We’ve taken a hold of scientific knowledge and have basically shoved God into a box.  We’ve taken our scientific studies and data and have told God, “You can only work within these walls.  Anything outside of that is off-limits.”  The thing is, God doesn’t fit nicely into this box.  In fact, God resides outside of any box made by humans.

Truth is, science testifies to the Creator; it speaks of His brilliance, complexity, and fame.  See, while God loves science and uses it to reveal Himself through, I don’t think we should use science to try and trump God.  I think, in every case, God should trump science.  Why?  Cause our God is greater than science.

 

https://www.quora.com/Which-is-greater-God-or-science?share=1 (source). Do you think he really needed to include 'Trump' quite so often? (The bit that follows the chunk you lifted is quite interesting.)

It's empty verbiage, to be honest.

 

[Scotty CTA]

27 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Aye, I was aware of the  source of the metaphor ... it is a metaphor, the Bible is rich with them, and therein lies one of the problems with 'certainty' for 'Bible-believing Christians'. How do you know that God inscribing a circle on the waters, or John the Revelator's vision of four angels standing at the four corners of the earth are not also metaphors? You take them as literal, and so find yourself having to suggest a bizarre way to square a circle, and then disclaiming it when it doesn't fit in with your water-finding-its-own-level definition of flat.

No, that never happened (as you well know).

I found and posted an image for the purpose of showing how a flat earth could still be both a 'circle' and have '4 points' only.

You (being low) then went and tried to apply that image to what had been said after the conversation had progressed (and here you are trying to do it again).

Once again.I do not subscribe to that model but it was all that I could find in an attempt to show you what you asked.

[DonnyTJS]

3 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

The number one reason would be time.

The number two reason is that I'm content with what I believe happened that day. (I don't think that I can take it any further but would love for something new to come up.)

Fair enough (though I think my suggestion still stands, given the attitude to physical evidence you've been espousing for a while).

I'm going to attempt to follow calmac's sound advice and try to stop arguing with fundamentalism for a bit.

 

[Scotty CTA]

6 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

It's empty verbiage, to be honest.

You are so superior. 

(O to be there when it all comes crashing down for you.)

[Scotty CTA]

4 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Fair enough (though I think my suggestion still stands...

Of course you do.

5 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

...given the attitude to physical evidence you've been espousing for a while)

Like what?

(And if it's the shape of the plane we live on then please go to the appropriate thread as we wouldn't want 'tuppence' to have any more tantrums.)

7 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

I'm going to attempt to follow calmac's sound advice and try to stop arguing with fundamentalism for a bit.

The two of you in one place could wipe out a small city with the vibe off your smugness alone.

(Welcome back btw, Egghead.)

[Scotty CTA]

 

[DonnyTJS]

2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

You are so superior. 

(O to be there when it all comes crashing down for you.)

Ah, feck it ...

I believe in the centrality of doubt. I self-identify as (deeply) agnostic. I distrust certainty. I wish you no harm. It's a topsy-turvy world.

3 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

 

Without God, both you and I are dirt, however, in your case you are dirt that vainly and defiantly believes he doesn't need God because everything about Him is B.S. 

 

No, I don't believe everything about God is bullshit, and nor do I believe that humanity is nothing but dirt (that is bullshit). Many of the world's greatest works of art, music, moral philosophy, architecture, literature and philanthropy / charity only exist because of a belief in one god or another.

Quote

 

You start with the false premise that we are (impossibly) complex from being fantastically random which allows you to be your own (fool) god.

"I'll just believe 'this' and attach the label science to it and no one can argue as there is nothing higher."

Again, no. I attach the label science to theories that are testable and/or have proven predictive power. No scientific theory is complete and unalterable. Nor does any scientific theory disprove the existence of God.

3 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

God created the laws of science but He isn't bound by them.

Then why create them? Again, you are unclear on what you mean by 'laws' of science, but I assume these are the same 'laws' that have shown us that we live on a planet that is approximately spherical, in a heliocentric system, within an expanding universe. And yet you go on to say that we have been deceived. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote

 

 

God created all things, including science.  He imparted the laws of science into people’s minds.  I think God created science to work according to His will and purpose, to make us stand in awe of Him, not to make us stand in awe of ourselves and our achievements.  [...]  In fact, God resides outside of any box made by humans. See, while God loves science and uses it to reveal Himself through, I don’t think we should use science to try and trump God.  I think, in every case, God should trump science.  Why?  Cause our God is greater than science.

 

 

As I said, empty verbiage. "Imparting the laws of science into people's minds"? That's meaningless. So God gave us something but doesn't like it when we use it? That makes no sense. God doesn't have to trump science because science can't disprove the existence of god - except when the existence of god is tied inextricably to readings of the Bible that conflate literary metaphor with mythic cosmologies of a community of semi-nomadic middle-eastern goat-herders and later accretions of Hellenic philosophy. And that's a bit of a shoddy box in which you've squeezed God.

 

[Eisegerwind]

7 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

(Surprised you knew what one was.)

 

I'll tell you what a reasoned reply isn't.  One that's full of bonkers god bothering pish.

[phart]

Scotty did set me off, my investigating took me off in other directions eventually, but aye it was arguing against 9/11 with Scotty on here for ages, that made me finally dive in and read everything, and i found while i disagreed on a lot of things, the proposition that not all as it seems is undeniable now.

There were bombs in the basement, of both towers. Folk don't even realise that the FBI organised the 1993 WTC bombing and that's way past reasonable doubt. (depending on what constitutes reasonable i guess).

[Ally Bongo]

1 hour ago, phart said:

Scotty did set me off, my investigating took me off in other directions eventually, but aye it was arguing against 9/11 with Scotty on here for ages, that made me finally dive in and read everything, and i found while i disagreed on a lot of things, the proposition that not all as it seems is undeniable now.

There were bombs in the basement, of both towers. Folk don't even realise that the FBI organised the 1993 WTC bombing and that's way past reasonable doubt. (depending on what constitutes reasonable i guess).

What about this response ?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/basementbomb.html

Edit - ignore

The same site has conflicting responses

Edited September 17, 2017 by Ally Bongo

[phart]

10 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

What about this response ?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/basementbomb.html

I'm just waiting on food as just back from a stag-do. I'll come back to it tomorrow. Too much typing out for tonight.

 

But from that response.

" Theories that basement bombs were causative in the collapses should not be confused with theories that bombs damaged the basements and lobbies of the Towers at around the times of the plane crashes. "

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by phart

[Ally Bongo]

6 minutes ago, phart said:

I'm just waiting on food as just back from a stag-do. I'll come back to it tomorrow. Too much typing out for tonight.

The initial link only focuses on seismic data and eyewitness reports 

However the main page of the site has two links on thermitic pyrotechnics/explosives found in WTC dust

Both are in response to the paper published in The Open Chemical Physics journal in 2009

There is more on this here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories#NIST_report