23
   

Shep Smith: Journalists are not the enemy of the people

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2018 01:46 pm
@OldGrumpy,
If you don't understand what I posted earlier, there's no hope for you.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2018 01:59 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

Quote:
I don't cling to anything, really.


You have made a 180 degree turn, solely because, the science and the evidence against the USGOCT was too damning .

You did exactly what vikorr did, your intellectual cowardliness and the high levels of cognitive dissonance had you two, and others do your 180s.

Quote:
I read and contemplate all possibilities that come to my attention, ...


A total lie. You never once addressed any of the impossibilities of the USGOCT. You, and everyone else, knows that to do so means eliminating the impossible, the USGOCT.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. -- Arthur Conan Doyle

The lie about hijackers is impossible, so we can eliminate them from the 9/11 scenario. What remains is the unimpeachable evidence against whatever portion of the US government it was that blew up WTCs 1, 2 & 7 with US nanothermite.

We know this was the case on 9/11 because both unreacted particles of US nanothermite and the by products of those explosions were found in abundance in WTC dust.

You do know that nanothermite can be painted or sprayed on and ignited by various remote control signals. It can be tailored to be as noisy or as quiet as one likes.

What your post fails to reflect is that the planes could have been hijacked AND there could have also been people in government collaborating with them. What's more, the people collaborating in government might have been doing so covertly, so it would then be incorrect to suggest it was some kind of conspiracy where everyone in the government was involved.

You keep talking in terms of collective unity of macro entities like "the US attacking the US" or "the government was in on it," but in reality, there could have been US citizens, governmental and non-governmental, as well as people holding other citizenship and other jobs. People working in the towers themselves could have been in on it, and they could have done so because they were in big financial trouble following the stock market crash and someone offered them a role in the attacks to offset the losses that their families, etc. would have sustained otherwise.

Really you could go in enumerable directions with this conspiracy theorizing, so you have to take any and all of it with a grain of salt. It is interesting to contemplate and theorize by whom, how, and why it might have been orchestrated, but you should assume that anything leaked or published can just as easily be decoy/disinformation as actual progress toward the truth.

camlok
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2018 02:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
See what I mean, ci. You can do the little digs but you can't rationally discuss anything of importance.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2018 02:12 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
What your post fails to reflect is that the planes could have been hijacked AND there could have also been people in government collaborating with them. What's more, the people collaborating in government might have been doing so covertly, so it would then be incorrect to suggest it was some kind of conspiracy where everyone in the government was involved.


Wow, talk about tall tales. What is it that prevents your brain from focusing?


Quote:
You keep talking in terms of collective unity of macro entities like "the US attacking the US" or "the government was in on it," but in reality, there could have been US citizens, governmental and non-governmental, as well as people holding other citizenship and other jobs. People working in the towers themselves could have been in on it, and they could have done so because they were in big financial trouble following the stock market crash and someone offered them a role in the attacks to offset the losses that their families, etc. would have sustained otherwise.


You just get wackier and wackier.

Quote:
Really you could go in enumerable directions with this conspiracy theorizing, so you have to take any and all of it with a grain of salt. It is interesting to contemplate and theorize by whom, how, and why it might have been orchestrated, but you should assume that anything leaked or published can just as easily be decoy/disinformation as actual progress toward the truth.


Now you are at totally wacky. All this time to now you have been totally comfortable with the totally impossible USGOCT.

And remember no one, including you, has provided one piece of evidence for the USGOCT. I don't have to provide any evidence as you all are sinking the USGOCT all by yourselves.

0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2018 02:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
If you don't understand what I posted earlier, there's no hope for you.


You do understand what I wrote to you earlier, ci. Why are you acting like such a coward?

Why do you pretend to be a supporter of science, a believer in science when you can't even address the science put right in front of you?

The US government proprietary nanothermite was able to continue melting WTC steel for months afterward, even when it was buried under large quantities of concrete dust, which would have prevented any normal office fire from continuing.

Another impossibility that shows the USGOCT is totally false.

The US government nanothermite couldn't be suffocated/extinguished and it continued to melt steel until as late as February 2002.

See the testimony of Joe O'Toole Firefighter below.

Quote:
Witnesses of Molten Metal at Ground Zero
Chris Sarns September 1, 2016
The following is a compilation of documented eyewitness accounts of molten metal at the World Trade Center.

Reports from Direct Eyewitnesses
Leslie Robertson, structural engineer for the design of the World Trade Center
"[T]hey pulled out the big block of concrete and there was like a little river of steel flowing."

https://youtu.be/rjmHqES_lto?t=46s

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY
Told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020905195530/http:/www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMI C_/new_seismic_.html

Richard Riggs, debris removal specialist
Quoted in The History Channel's “World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an American Icon”:

"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up."

https://youtu.be/3Ogrupgt4mI?t=36s

Abolhassan Astaneh, professor of civil engineering at the University of California, Berkeley
One of the leading structural engineers who studied the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11:

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

https://youtu.be/syXpA6B85Ek

Mark Loizeaux, founder of Controlled Demolition, Inc.
"There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being 'dipped' out by the buckets of excavators."

https://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=30926&Disp=4#C4

Capt. Philip Ruvolo, FDNY
"You get down below and you'd see molten steel—molten steel running down the channel rail, like you're in a foundry, like lava."

https://youtu.be/nsw2j-3MCMg

Joe O'Toole, firefighter
"Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. 'It was dripping from the molten steel,' he said."

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evidence/messengerinquirer_recoveryworker.html

Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc.
"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel."

http://gcn.com/articles/2002/09/09/handheld-app-eased-recovery-tasks.aspx

Richard Garlock, a structural engineer for LERA
"Going below, it was smoky and really hot. . . . The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html

James Glanz, writer for The New York Times
"A three-foot stalagmite of steel, which looks for all the world like a drip candle, sits next to one of the immense steel columns that held up the north face of the tower."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/15/nyregion/a-nation-challenged-the-site-below-rubble-a-tour-of-a- still-burning-hell.html

Lee Turner, paramedic
Turner himself crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow — molten metal dripping from a beam.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140106090807/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm

William Langewiesche, journalist
"In the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.”

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865476756/centerforcoop-20 (pp. 31-32)

Ron Burger, public health advisor at the CDC
"Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen's and the thousands who fled that disaster.”

http://www.brazoshealth.org/sites/all/themes/health/images/pdfs/messages_in_the_dust.pdf

Mike Donoho, interim Bryan Fire Department chief
"What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals."

http://web.archive.org/web/20021104073017/http://www.theeagle.com/septanniv/091102firefighter.htm

Tom Hickey, union ironworker
With no special protective gear, he worked within a few feet of still burning fires, [which were] "like a volcano," hot enough that molten steel could be seen dripping down. "My boots melted every night," he recalled. "You just didn't stand in one place too long."

http://www.riverreporter.com/issues/02-09-05/wtc.htm

David Long, Merrill Lynch
"I went outside and saw a large hole in the left-hand tower, approximately 80 stories up. There was smoke coming out, but not a lot of fire. I could also see streams of molten metal coming from undamaged areas of the building, in three different places."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-09/eyewitness-accounts-of-september-11/2866958

Lee Turner, Boone County Firefighters
"He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow— molten metal dripping from a beam—but found no signs of life."

https://web.archive.org/web/20020913065755/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/9_11/articles/911memories.htm

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/442-witnesses-of-molten-metal-at-ground-zero

0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 10 Sep, 2018 04:56 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
What your post fails to reflect is that the planes could have been hijacked


Of course the "planes" were hijacked, livinglava, by elements of the US government.

Why hasn't the MSM asked Mr Robertson about his baldfaced lies, livinglava?

In 2002, Leslie Robertson, one of the lead engineers/designers of the twin towers, freely and openly, even cheerfully described the molten steel at the B1 level of the twin towers.

Leslie Robertson, structural engineer for the design of the World Trade Center: "[T]hey pulled out the big block of concrete and there was like a little river of steel flowing."

Come 2006, that same Leslie Robertson was denying molten steel. He went from a truth teller to a liar sometime in the intervening 4 years.

9/11 Contradictions: Leslie Robertson and Molten Metal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLCwq3-RzZs

These are the kinds of occurrences that cause a justice system that respects the rule of law to open investigations.

John Gross of NIST also denied the existence of molten steel even though he knew that FEMA had cataloged it and done a study of WTC molten/vaporized WTC steel.

That same gross liar, John Gross of NIST, was also photographed touching the end of a molten/vaporized WTC steel member.

These are the kinds of occurrences that cause a justice system that respects the rule of law to open investigations.

Why hasn't the MSM asked Mr Gross about his baldfaced lies, livinglava?

The USGS also described iron microspheres found in WTC dust, which are one of the major by products of thermitic reactions.



livinglava
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2018 05:37 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

Of course the "planes" were hijacked, livinglava, by elements of the US government.

You were complaining about lies, lies of omission, etc. but do you realize when you say, "of course," you are asserting certainty that you are not providing conclusive evidence regarding. It is posturing, which is very similar to lying.

Quote:
Why hasn't the MSM asked Mr Robertson about his baldfaced lies, livinglava?

You should add people's names at the ends of questions. It's very aggressive and adds nothing to the meaning of your sentence.

Quote:
In 2002, Leslie Robertson, one of the lead engineers/designers of the twin towers, freely and openly, even cheerfully described the molten steel at the B1 level of the twin towers.

And have you considered the possibility that that person was lying or reporting false information given to them somehow without their knowing?

Quote:
Leslie Robertson, structural engineer for the design of the World Trade Center: "[T]hey pulled out the big block of concrete and there was like a little river of steel flowing."

Have you considered the possibility that heat rises, and that with a building that large and tall, the rising heat could concentrate in the upper portions of the building and by the time melting temperature was reached for the steel, the force of collapse would further compound the heat as the hot embers are compressed downward. The effect could be similar to a piston compressing a cylinder of hot, partially burnt fuel-air mixture - only a piston usually compresses using bottom-up motion instead of moving from the top down.

Quote:
Come 2006, that same Leslie Robertson was denying molten steel. He went from a truth teller to a liar sometime in the intervening 4 years.

It's possible that these people were lying, but it is also possible they were giving their best testimony based on what they knew and thought at the time.

camlok
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2018 07:05 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
You were complaining about lies, lies of omission, etc. but do you realize when you say, "of course," you are asserting certainty that you are not providing conclusive evidence regarding. It is posturing, which is very similar to lying.


Yes, yours and others lies, lies of omission, etc.

You are delusional, or more likely you are trying, oh so lamely, to provide some cover for the impossible USGOCT. The one that no one has ever provided any evidence for.

So which is it, delusional or outright lying?

Quote:
You should add people's names at the ends of questions.


Yes, I did. Quite swift, aren't you, livinglava?

It isn't a matter of 'should', it's an option that is available to people who use the English language.

Quote:
And have you considered the possibility that that person was lying or reporting false information given to them somehow without their knowing?


He was there, he saw it with his own eyes. You have seen the molten/vaporized WTC structural steel with your own eyes too and here you are directly lying about it.

Here, below, you can see a piece of molten/vaporized WTC structural steel in the first few seconds of the video. Then you can follow NIST's lies where they deny it like you are lying about it.

911 • Molten Steel And NIST Lies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bv95zzBh18

Quote:
Have you considered the possibility that heat rises, and that with a building that large and tall, the rising heat could concentrate in the upper portions of the building and by the time melting temperature was reached for the steel, the force of collapse would further compound the heat as the hot embers are compressed downward. The effect could be similar to a piston compressing a cylinder of hot, partially burnt fuel-air mixture - only a piston usually compresses using bottom-up motion instead of moving from the top down.


The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about. - Wayne Dyer

0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2018 08:39 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
It's possible that these people were lying, but it is also possible they were giving their best testimony based on what they knew and thought at the time.


Are you calling NYC firefighters liars?

Are you calling the NYT's reporter James Glantz a liar?

Are you calling Biederman, Sissons and Barnett of FEMA liars?

Why aren't you calling John Gross of NIST a liar?
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2018 08:43 pm
This tweet shows how Republicans team up with Fox News to confuse the nation
Gaslight theater.
AARON RUPAR
SEP 12, 2018, 3:50 PM

President Trump and his Republican enablers in Congress are making a renewed stink about former FBI agent Peter Strzok’s texts, this time alleging newly released ones are evidence Strzok leaked about the Russia investigation to the media.

As ThinkProgress detailed on Tuesday, reaching that conclusion requires a tortured reading of the texts. In April 2017, Strzok messaged another FBI agent and said, “I want to talk to you about media leak strategy with DOJ.” Strzok had a long history of working to combat leaks as part of his work for the Bureau, and the text came two months after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a major anti-leak campaign. As Strzok’s attorney has pointed out, his reference to “media leak strategy with DOJ” clearly refers to his role working with Sessions to combat leaks.

Despite the straightforwardness of Strzok’s texts, Republicans are interpreting it as evidence that Strzok was leaking, and are saying so loudly on Fox News.

On Wednesday, one of the Republicans who has most aggressively tried to protect Trump by pushing FBI conspiracy theories — Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) — went on Fox News and pushed the conspiratorial interpretation of Strzok’s texts. He was met with zero pushback from host Sandra Smith.

Aaron Rupar

@atrupar
.@Jim_Jordan is on Fox News desperately trying to spread already-debunked conspiracy theories about the FBI (https://thinkprogress.org/trump-strzok-page-texts-leaks-fbi-conspiracy-theory-4b44c34a3fb8/ …), with help from @SandraSmithFox, who reinforces him instead of pushing back.

Fox News is not journalism. #Propaganda
9:44 AM - Sep 12, 2018

Jordan’s appearance was the second he made on Fox’s family of channels on Wednesday morning. Earlier, he appeared on Stuart Varney’s Fox Business show, where his conspiracy theorizing was also accepted uncritically.

Later in the day, Fox Business posted a tweet containing a false Jordan claim from the Varney interview.

“There was certainly a leak strategy going on,” Jordan was quoted as saying, even through a straightforward reading of Strzok’s texts indicates the opposite — that Strzok was actually working to prevent leaks. But Fox Business shared the false claim and accompanying video without so much as attempting a fact-check.

FOX Business

@FoxBusiness
.@Jim_Jordan: "There was certainly a leak strategy going on."
11:59 AM - Sep 12, 2018

To sum up, Republicans fabricated a conspiracy theory to protect the president, then went on Fox News to spread it. And instead of trying to do the basic journalistic tasks of fact-checking and asking tough questions, Trump’s favorite network went out of its network to uncritically spread it.

Jim Jordan tries to attack Rosenstein, the room erupts in laughter
A congressional hearing is not an episode of Hannity.

In contrast with the uncritical treatment he regularly benefits from on Fox News, Jordan’s conspiracy theories haven’t held up to the slightest bit of scrutiny when he’s faced tougher lines of questioning on CNN or during congressional hearings.

Jordan’s Wednesday interview on Fox News came the segment after House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) went on the network and spread a similarly ludicrous conspiracy theory about alleged online censorship of Republicans. Even though McCarthy’s conspiracy theory was debunked more than three months ago, host Bill Hemmer let him push it with impunity.

Fox News keeps letting GOP leader McCarthy go on TV and spout total nonsense about Google
It's complete nonsense.

A short time later, the president posted a tweet indicating he was spending his Wednesday morning watching Fox News.
camlok
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 12 Sep, 2018 08:46 pm
@neptuneblue,
Quote:
This tweet shows how Republicans team up with Fox News to confuse the nation


Repuglicans, Democrats, it makes no difrerence, nb, they all team up to confuse the nation, which is not at all a difficult thing to do when the "nation" is mostly made up of sheeple.

I'm sure you know many of these kinds of sheeple.
0 Replies
 
NSFW (view)
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2018 12:55 am
@OldGrumpy,
You got the last part right: you're too ******* stupid to do your own research.
camlok
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2018 08:42 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
You got the last part right: you're too ******* stupid to do your own research.


With your every attack on someone else, you describe your own behavior, Olivier.
0 Replies
 
OldGrumpy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2018 08:57 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
You got the last part right: you're too ******* stupid to do your own research.


It is ok with me if you accuse me of something. However, personally I think you have to then proof what you write, but you didn't, eh?!

Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2018 09:48 am
@OldGrumpy,
Your own writing is proof that I am right.

But I'll give you a chance, 'cause I'm a nice guy. Do you remember the last time you researched a topic, any topic, and what you've learnt as a result of your research? When was it, what was it about, and what did you learn?

OldGrumpy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2018 09:58 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Your own writing is proof that I am right.


Ok, yes , it's possible. BUT then you have to tell me exactly of what I wrote is proof that you are right, thank you. You see, what you are writing here is so extremely vague that it is saying nothing at all!


Quote:
Do you remember the last time you researched a topic, any topic, and what you've learnt as a result of your research? When was it, what was it about, and what did you learn?


what do you want to achieve by this? Focusing on my behavior in stead of your own stupidity?

And no, I am sorry to say, but I really don't think you are a very nice guy.
If you were you wouldn't attack people so numerous and so often, so no, you are definitely not Mr nice guy. That's for sure.
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2018 10:04 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Your own writing is proof that I am right.


You are a stunning hypocrite, Olivier. You never do any research. You are frightened of research.

Quote:
But I'll give you a chance, 'cause I'm a nice guy.


Your mom probably told you that but she lied. Big time. Your ability to address a topic of science is nonexistent.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2018 10:07 am
@Olivier5,
Why are you maintaining your position of studied ignorance, Olivier?

You are studiously avoiding all the fake news put out by US MSM about the science and events of 9/11.

Do you understand what impossible means?

Impossible is Arab hijackers melting/vaporizing WTC structural steel.

Do you agree or not with the above sentence?

Would you deny still pictures and video evidence of molten/vaporized WTC structural steel if you saw it with your own eyes?

Would you deny molten/vaporized WTC structural steel if the US government agency FEMA presented pictures and a description of molten/vaporized WTC structural steel?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Sep, 2018 10:25 am
@OldGrumpy,
So you don't remember the last you did any research on your own?
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/28/2024 at 01:14:17