Je suis Omar

People who care went, in a flash, from some kind or other of "hypocrites" to preening peacocks".

Actually, I did, Tim. Sorry about that. I'll just put a tick by your name in the list of "those who don't care" about the millions slaughtered by US war crimes.

Now you've gone and went done science, George. How could anyone ever have questioned the rigour that you use in your approach to things scientific?

Do you mean like all the American politicians who are forever complaining about terrorists and war criminals when the people being complained about do not even remotely approach the levels of war crimes and terrorism that the USA has engaged in? That is indeed hypocrisy, on the grandest of scales. How has this escaped you? (Yes, there are others from other countries, Canada, Australia, the UK ..., ) I hardly expected this grand admission of western war crimes, especially from you, TimG, so quickly and with such wild abandon. Is this not the very hypocrisy you rail against?

Omar: I invite you to put this in historical context.? And to discuss these other issues you have raised. That is precisely why I started the thread.

Gee, that sure makes sense, Bryan; damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Michael: Why do you keep up saying "lies" ? Scientists don't accuse each other of lying, they just disprove the data. -------------------- My apologies at the outset, but I really really cannot fathom how you can advance such a nonsensical argument. Look at all the slanderous comments that are regularly levelled at those who disagree with the official theory. Conspiracy theorists, whackos, nutty ... , ... . "Whack-a-moles who pop up", from whose mouth did this flow?

Michael: NIST addressed Thermite in their report: No, they didn't. They dismissed it out of hand. Using a specious argument. They were asked by scientists, from both sides of the debate, to address these issues, specifically the one about where residues might be found. NIST promised to do so and didn't. And again you bring up the issue of sulfur, in a round about fashion, when this issue has been tested and found to be as I have previously described to you, which you have then ignored. Why?

Michael: Why do you keep up saying "lies" ? Because John Gross lied. Did you not watch the video? He stated, "I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses said so ... ". And then a number of eyewitnesses said so. Firefighters, Rudy Giuliani, Mr Riggs on TV, ... ! Phantasmagorical, Michael.

Omar: Would you like me to go back and get the necessary quotes to prove this or are you honest enough to do so yourself? Michael: Yes, it's actually up to you to prove your own points not me. ------------------- Here you are, Michael, from your own source. http://recursed.blogspot.ca/2009/03/911-truthers-meet-their-waterloo-ron.html?m=1 After the talk, there were some questions from the audience. One questioner asked him if he considered the "geo-political context" for 9/11. To his credit, Craig said that this was not his area of expertise; he is a fire and explosives expert, and his job is to look at the hard evidence, not speculations about motives.

I thank you for that, Michael. I guess I'm not yet completely familiar with all the rules of this site. The last time I posted only links, my new topic got zapped, telling me that I had to offer discussion. I have offered up in various and sundry topics, proof positive of US war crimes and terrorism. No one discussed them which led to the title of this new thread. One hardly knows where to begin, the examples are legion. Regardless, here we go.

Voluminous information is available that documents the myriad war crimes and terrorist actions of the US government since WWII (actually going way way further back) but no one talks about it. Can anyone explain how this can be the case in all these western democracies, the ones that so frequently like to trumpet how open and honest they are, how free and open discussion is the essence of their being?

This is phantasmagorical! No, I haven't ignored them at all. I've posted numerous articles, videos and the like that have specifically addressed the woeful shortcomings, outright lies (of NIST that you disingenuously tried to explain away) of the main groups. When these main groups say things like, "We were set up to fail", don't you think that should cause thinking people to pause and reflect. Why should I provide proof of the tests when the whack a mole will just forget about it and pop up further on in the thread with more diversion? From your own source, Michael, one that I hope you actually read, the scientist declined to address these side issues you mention above because they were not within his area of expertise. And the nowhere near to neutral blogger on the science, that you also sought as a source, noted how that was to that scientist's credit that he did decline to comment on those extraneous issues. Would you like me to go back and get the necessary quotes to prove this or are you honest enough to do so yourself? Do you recall that on the issue of the sulphur, that you raised, with an badly outdated source, I provided you an up to date source that scientifically proved that drywall was not the source of the sulfur? And no mention of that from the gentleman who dares to ask me if I want to discuss the science. Do you understand the significance of the sulphur in the melting of steel where there was no sensibly available source of energy that could have or should have produced molten steel? Please do ask me anything about the science then do act in an honest fashion and stay with the scientific arguments instead of going off on tangents. Whack-a-mole indeed!

Please go ahead and explain, George, and we'll see.

You say it's not about you then you try to make it solely about me, forgetting about the 2300 architects, engineers, scientists who state again and again to follow the science and do. Can you point to anyone of you government conspiracy folks who have done the same?

I did, George. The few pieces of bunk that you have put forward didn't need debunking. You debunked yourself. Your complete lack of knowledge on the issues debunked you. Your complete inability to address anything specifically on the actual issues, see this post of yours and all your others, have shown that you simply are not up to the task of honestly engaging in real debate, on this issue or any issue.

See what I mean, Michael?

No, not aluminum, Michael. How do you propose that you "debate" these things when you are so uniformed. Experiments were performed, you know, those nasty little things that scientists do to prove things, and it was not aluminum. You flat out ignore all the people, the USGS, FEMA , Rudy G, ... who described molten steel. There are pictures of molten steel, you saw them, if you watched the videos presented. Been done and you aren't aware of them? When one wants to debate something don't you think those folks should be somewhat up to speed on the issues? The laws of physics, Newton's laws are not science fiction. You haven't debated the issues yet. You've asked some questions, about things that you should be at least partially up to speed on and then just dropped them or tried to explain them away with the type of things that this site's Terms of Agreement prohibit - address the argument, not the name calling. There has been precious little real debate here on this issue which brings us right back to the central question - Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

For dog's sakes, Argus, the Squid, that was right from US government sources. This head in the sand approach is really unbecoming for folks who are supposed to be responsible adults.

I'm right with you, Georgia. After your slip ups you're very reluctant to stick your neck again to further reveal how uniformed you are. You can't even discuss the official government conspiracy theory.

Another of your slip ups, George/Georgia. Your man wasn't a structural engineer. Another slip up?

If you say so. But none of these happened on 911 to WTCs 1 2 & 7. I hope you liked the video. Explains most everything in a clear, concise fashion.

I never said you did, at least not in that post. That was to B_C. The man who is advanced it is not a structural engineer. He pumped this nonsense out so fast after 911 the dust hadn't even cleared. See, http://www.911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html But I'm confused. I thought you were a Bazant (sp??) pile driver guy. It's standard knowledge in the same manner as phrenology and flat earth

That sure sounds scientific. But you know it's false. Because there is no official theory that can explain the demolition of the three buildings. NIST doesn't even try. These men of science made mistake after mistake, propagated lie after lie, then they just threw up their hands and picked a result out of a hat. That's why reality doesn't match their notions. Formulating a lie and then trying to fudge, manipulate, massage the laws of physics and scientific principles to fit the lie is doomed to failure. Here's a great video that summarizes the whole sordid official conspiracy theory. 9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert

Here is just one example, Argus. You can go to the link to see the other many examples of USA terrorism and war crimes against ME countries and other poor countries of the world. Then you can ignore it all and forget you ever asked, "Such as?". Iran, 1953: Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html