The Turd needs to stick to patterns.

64 posts / 0 new
Last post
ctj
ctj's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2011
Hat Tips: 25
Posts: 5
The Turd needs to stick to patterns.

The Turd needs to stick to patterns. 

Like an autistic, the Turd is able to see subtle patterns in the peaks and valleys of financial charts; yet he is blind to subtle human political behaviors.  The Turd has stated that he is a believer in the “official” version of 9-11.  A person who fails to see the gaping holes of the official 9-11 story is void of basic common sense.  Like the Rain Man.

Edited by admin on 11/08/2014 - 06:24
cris
cris's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 3404
Posts: 437
Wow, talk about harsh...

Look, the Turd is a big boy and doesn't need personal defenders.  Besides, he has plenty.

But when someone makes a statement like you just made, it also makes me think of members of my family who agree with the "official story".  Would you consider them idiot savants as well?  Are people "idiot savants" if they do not share your same religious or political views??

I don't think they are.  I may disagree with them, but hey, I could just as well be incorrect in my assessment of the events.

In the end, I think we are all creatures of our experience.  Some of us are more prone to be "conspiratorial", for lack of a better word.  Perhaps due to things we have seen in other spheres of our lives and traumatic events we have suffered.

Some of us are more "trusting", or to use a pejorative term, "gullible".  Or to use a word with more admiring overtones, "loving". 

We all have different perspectives.  Once again, without knowing all the factors that go into the development of that individual's psyche, it is difficult, in fact foolhardy, to judge one's perspective from afar.

But when one considers that:

a. this is Turd's backyard, that he created out of his own goodwill and

b. NO ONE has a corner on the "truth", esp concerning something like 9/11

it is both ballsy, and frankly, ignorant to post such a patronizing comment. 

But it is as they say a free country, and Turd in his benevolence/wisdom has allowed an area for such comments to be placed.

None of really KNOW anything.  We suspect, we try to due our due diligence, as it were.  But we don't KNOW.  Think back on your life and try to recall all the poor judgements you may have made, be it concerning matters of love, or business, or friendship.

Any remember what we are taught: it is always OK to say "sorry, I made a mistake".  Disagree without being disagreeable.  Treat one another as you would like to be treated.  That is the Golden Rule, is it not.

Mike7.62
Mike7.62's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 1084
Posts: 70
reply

His site, his opinions. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. There may be "gaping holes" in the official record, but there are also "gaping holes" in the truther's versions as well. Everyone has an opinion, just like a$$holes, but not everyone wants to hear yours, or smell it either. Turd funds/runs this site, and is entitled to say what he likes.

ctj
ctj's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2011
Hat Tips: 25
Posts: 5
It's my ball; if you don't play by my rules than I'm going home

Creating a forum “out of the goodness of year heart” does not grant univocally right to make statement of fact without empirical proof.  I don’t know what happened on 9-11 but I know there too many holes.  Turd apparently has concluded that the official statement of the 9-11 commission is indeed fact.  Perhaps Turd can defend his position?  Otherwise he becomes just another spin cycle.   

Let’s start with one basic question.

How did building #7 (a steel high-rise structure) implode and fall at the speed of gravity when it was never struck by a jet?

Looking forward to your reply, Turd.

Knotta Coppertop
Knotta Coppertop's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 10
Posts: 4
I did not see a statement of

I did not see a statement of fact, only a belief.  I, like you, personally believe there are gaping holes in the official story.  Does that make it a fact?  No, only my belief.  But you must face the hard truth - there will be no findings of fact in this case.  Just like there will never be any proof of the existence or non-existence of god.  I am an atheist.  That does not mean the non-existence of god is a fact - it is my belief.  Sometimes that is all we get folks.

stephanie
stephanie's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2011
Hat Tips: 9983
Posts: 967
Your opinions are welcome...the insults, not so much

Guys, you are free to express your opinion on 9/11 here in this forum. But I'd like to ask you nicely to try to refrain from insulting Turd or anyone else who may be inclined towards the official story. First off all, this is Turd's playground, and bashing him here is simply rude. Second, you aren't helping your cause by calling those who are skeptical "stupid." It just makes you appear to be dogmatic and attached to your opinion and that ends up turning off people who may be on the fence on 9/11.

FYI, my own opinion on 9/11 is "agnostic." I don't think controlled demolition would be needed to take down two large buildings that had been hit directly by large airplanes. That's just my common sense speaking to me personally. Yes, I believe hot burning jet fuel could indeed have caused the collapse. No, I don't think I'm stupid for thinking so.

Now, I question why those planes were allowed to get so close to the towers in the first place. That's where my "agnosticism" comes in.

So what's your point here? Do you want more people to believe your side or not? If so, sharing rather than insulting would be more productive. I'm always open to hearing new information. But when people start throwing around insults, it gets old and people tend to shut off to that.

nixy
nixy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/05/2011
Hat Tips: 306
Posts: 121
If memory serves, there were

If memory serves, there were over 250 vertical load bearing members on both WTC buildings.

The virtually simultaneous failure of every one of those members to within a quarter of a second on all the collapsed buildings is, at least, interesting...and at most, suspicious.

I do fully understand why people would ignore such observations.

I think even I could / should too.

ctj
ctj's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/13/2011
Hat Tips: 25
Posts: 5
When the Turd, made the

When the Turd, made the statement, “It is also the domain of intelligent people who either believe or disbelieve the "official record" of 9/11/01 …. The Turd is a believer”, did he not expect a call out?

Like it or not, the Turd has a lot of influence on the “sheeples” as those on this site like to refer to the general public.  When he makes a definitive statement on a very controversial topic that affects many people, the Turd must be prepared to defend his answer. 

@ Stephanie,

Statement of fact.  The maximum flame temperature for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is about 1,000°C …   steel melts at 1,500°C.  Furthermore, according to scientists, thermite was found at the site. 

cris
cris's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 3404
Posts: 437
@Stephanie

Your points on civility are well made.

However, since you brought up the point about "hot burning jet fuel" potentially causing the collapse, I think it is important to be grounded in facts.

The maximum temperature of burning jet fuel is somewhere around 800 degree Celsius.

The melting point of steel most commonly used in skyscrapers is like 1500 degree Celsius.

It is exactly this reluctance to confront basic physical facts on the part of the 9/11 Commission that drives most skeptics crazy.

Add the fact that NO skyscraper had EVER collapsed due to structural defect cause by fire prior to 9/11 (much less at free-fall speed), and there is certainly a significant amount of doubt which can legitimately be cast on just that aspect the official story.

Not to mention the doubt which can be cast on many other aspects of the "official" story.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but  we are not entitled to our own facts.

jrobb316
jrobb316's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 932
Posts: 86
Remember, not only had no

Remember, not only had no structure like the WTCs EVER collapsed in the history of mankind due to fire, we are to believe that it happened 3 times in one day?  And that is completely ignoring the fact that its ON RECORD that WTC 7 was demolished that day.  Ok, going to put my head back in the sand now.

stephanie
stephanie's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2011
Hat Tips: 9983
Posts: 967
"facts" can be relative

cris wrote:

Your points on civility are well made.

However, since you brought up the point about "hot burning jet fuel" potentially causing the collapse, I think it is important to be grounded in facts.

The maximum temperature of burning jet fuel is somewhere around 800 degree Celsius.

The melting point of steel most commonly used in skyscrapers is like 1500 degree Celsius.

It is exactly this reluctance to confront basic physical facts on the part of the 9/11 Commission that drives most skeptics crazy.

Add the fact that NO skyscraper had EVER collapsed due to structural defect cause by fire prior to 9/11 (much less at free-fall speed), and there is certainly a significant amount of doubt which can legitimately be cast on just that aspect the official story.

Hi Cris, it's not really my job to debate here, but just to clarify: I simply meant to say that I don't think it's beyond the bounds of possibility that the planes alone could have caused the collapses. I'm not closed to the idea of some "help" with that process, but I'm simply not convinced it was needed. 

I'm sorry I brought up the jet fuel. I did not mention the steel for a reason, because I don't see it as the crux of the issue. Whether the jet fuel temperature was hot enough to full on melt the steel does not convince me of a "smoking gun." I've seen evidence from both sides, including engineers who suggest a number of scenarios where the planes alone caused the collapse. You've got a large heavy object stuck in the building that isn't supposed to be there, masses of burning fuel torching everything in sight (not just the steel), and excess building debris weighing the whole structure down. Weakened steel and collapsed floors just might do it.

The debate rages on today on the Internet, e.g., 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110716100113AAbxgo6

But since I'm not a physicist or engineer (though I almost became one), I know enough to know that we "civilians" really don't know enough to know. If that makes sense. :-)

Regardless, as I've said before, I don't need there to be controlled demolition to think there might have been some shady "Illuminati" involvement with this. I'm agnostic on the 9/11 issue, not closed off to it. And I don't need to believe in 9/11 in order to question a possible NWO conspiracy. But where I think this issue starts to get a bit touchy is when folks get too attached to 9/11 as being the "wake up call." 

Putting people into boxes of 9/11 Believers vs. 9/11 Non-Believers is simply divisive and not going to accomplish the goal, which is, I presume, waking people up to the corruption of our government. Some people might be willing to go so far as to accept a certain level of corruption but not the whole shebang. So what? Meet those folks where they are now. Don't condemn them for not having bought into the entire 9/11 Truth Gospel.

Finding common ground, rather than looking down on people who choose to believe a different expert than you did, would be more productive. That's all.

I hope that clarification helps.

PS Please don't try to "convince" me of anything...I can't respond more because I'm really not here to debate. But feel free to continue the discussion amongst yourselves.

Thank you
Stephanie

Tripel_Play
Tripel_Play's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/19/2011
Hat Tips: 127
Posts: 21
Personally, I think the Turd

Personally, I think the Turd is wrong about 9/11.  But fuck it.  He's right about a lot of other stuff, and he's got a great site.

But wait!  He's wrong about one thing, so he's not perfect.  Thus, he must be wrong about other things!  

This kind of dogmatic thinking gets people into all kinds of trouble.    Last I checked, the world isn't black and white.  Also, in all my years I have yet to meet a perfect person.

When it comes to pattern recognition, the Turd is fucking awesome.  Better than most.  Better than me, for sure.  Worth looking at, for damned sure.

toxic8
toxic8's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/15/2011
Hat Tips: 111
Posts: 13
If anyone wants to really

If anyone wants to really understand just why it is that some people can't wrap their heads around the 9/11 affair, I highly recommend watching David Ray Griffin's "9/11 The Myth and the Reality" Video available at :

Transcript here: http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

and to Stephanie: While I can appreciate your neutral or agnostic viewpoint on 9/11, and admire your self reliance, logic, and common sense when determining the fate of the twin towers (and yes 747s hitting a steel skyscraper are unprecedented, even though the towers were designed to withstand that type of attack) I am curious as to what your opinion is on the free-fall collapse of tower 7 (the third tower), which was not struck by any aircraft and whose destruction even NIST could not conjure up any logical explanation for?

http://rememberbuilding7.org/

IMO:

We have lost faith in ourselves, not able to think as capable, sovereign individuals- most people are programmed to accept the "truth" ONLY from authority figures standing behind podiums and wearing suits.

Many people are also ignorant of prior largely-secret wars and "interventions", transgressions by the government, prior false flags and aborted attacks on it's citizenry.

From Dr. David Ray Griffin:

According to the official story about 9/11, America, because of its goodness, was attacked by fanatical Arab Muslims who hate our freedoms. This story has functioned as a Sacred Myth for the United States since that fateful day. And this function appears to have been carefully orchestrated. The very next day, President Bush announced his intention to lead "a monumental struggle of Good versus Evil."1 Then on September 13, he declared that the following day would be a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks. And on that next day, the president himself, surrounded by Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi, and an imam, delivered a sermon in the national cathedral, saying:

Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. . . . In every generation, the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked America, because we are freedom's home and defender. And the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time. . . . [W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country. God bless America.2

Through this unprecedented event, in which the president of the United States issued a declaration of war from a cathedral, French author Thierry Meyssan observed in 2002, "the American government consecrated . . . its version of events. From then on, any questioning of the official truth would be seen as sacrilege."3

Shortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September” (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against “outrageous conspiracy theories” (Hansen, 2005).

What foresight!

BTW: over 1,600 Architects and Engineers (you know, the people who know a LOT about building, explosions, skyscrapers, and demolition?) contest the official story of 9/11:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

-toxic

Jim-M
Jim-M's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 253
Posts: 82
ctj wrote: Creating a forum

ctj wrote:

Creating a forum “out of the goodness of year heart” does not grant univocally right to make statement of fact without empirical proof.  I don’t know what happened on 9-11 but I know there too many holes.  Turd apparently has concluded that the official statement of the 9-11 commission is indeed fact.  Perhaps Turd can defend his position?  Otherwise he becomes just another spin cycle.   

*** SNIPPED ***

True, that first sentence of yours is a fact.  But he stated his belief and asked you to respect it, all on his FREE site.  He's stating he does not want a public fight about it.

He did not say he was right, and in fact, bluntly says he knows he can't "prove it" to those that disagree.

If I read him right, he's saying he wants to step above the fight and move forward in his own way.  And he invited you to move forward in your way, which I believe means leave him the hell alone.

Given how he's been pretty blunt before about calling people out when he strongly disagrees with them (calling people "douche bag" comes to mind), I think he's demonstrating significant respect for your and other's beliefs that he strongly disagrees with.  But, alas, you're too wound up to see it.

He is giving you and others a place to discuss it in "The Colony" if you choose to do so.  He's recognized a fight would come before any of us brought it up.  And he's leading us to manage the conflict in a productive and respectful way.

To me, that is true leadership.  Vision and communication.

Try to SHOW some respect to the man that put this virtual roof over your head.  His wish is that you let him be.  So do that; It's a matter of respect.

- Jim M.

Jim-M
Jim-M's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 253
Posts: 82
stephanie wrote: Guys, you

stephanie wrote:

Guys, you are free to express your opinion on 9/11 here in this forum. But I'd like to ask you nicely to try to refrain from insulting Turd or anyone else who may be inclined towards the official story. First off all, this is Turd's playground, and bashing him here is simply rude. Second, you aren't helping your cause by calling those who are skeptical "stupid." It just makes you appear to be dogmatic and attached to your opinion and that ends up turning off people who may be on the fence on 9/11.

*** SNIPPED ***

So what's your point here? Do you want more people to believe your side or not? If so, sharing rather than insulting would be more productive. I'm always open to hearing new information. But when people start throwing around insults, it gets old and people tend to shut off to that.

Smart lady.  Respectful, too.

In my experience, arguments are far more convincing when one speaks softly or with a whisper than if one slings loud, outrageous insults.  In my time, I've tried both.  Only one constant: insults caused folks to quit thinking and tune the facts out.

As one formerly VERY argumentative @ss, let me offer a suggestion: lead the other person so they believe they arrived to the "new" facts on their own.

One way to get there is to ask them questions that lead them to the "new" facts.

Just sayin...

- Jim M.

TheBurren
TheBurren's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/05/2011
Hat Tips: 20
Posts: 1
Ten Years
Sir, I have been pleased to read your insightful blog for approximately 3 months.  I realized almost immediately that you were extremely well educated with regards to PMs, and spoke Truth to Power with regard to financial fraud and manipulation of the gold and silver markets.  The nice thing about the truth is, it registers with people deep down inside.  After reading your recent post regarding 9-11, the fog of war influencing events, etc. etc. and how we "conspiracy theorists" should go to the nice conspiracy theory room you set up for us, I have come to the realization that you are either willfully ignorant of the facts, woefully undereducated in basic science, or  you just plain don't give a shit--
I have well over 400 undergraduate and graduate level credits under my belt, Sir.  I am a political atheist and love my country.  Much the same way you would find it absurd for me to say that I "choose to believe" that there is no manipulation in the PM market, I find it disingenuous for the owner of such a large and prestigious blog to pretend that he has made any attempt to educate himself or consider anything other than the official story.  No matter how often I tell you that the PM market is unencumbered by fraud or manipulation, the facts speak for themselves.  Sadly, the same truism exists for the events of 9-11.  Perhaps you should consider the 3000 murder victims who lost their life that day.
 
I will no longer be perusing your blog~
Regards--
stephanie
stephanie's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2011
Hat Tips: 9983
Posts: 967
I just moved the above post here from the blog

This post above is an example of what is wrong with the 9/11 Truth movement right now, and why Turd has to ask to keep it off the main blog. It's gotten too fanatical, and rather than respecting different opinions, people would rather disown folks for not believing their version of 9/11 "Truth." This does not mean you are smarter - it means you are more small-minded. 

It's getting to be like "Climate Change." Folks from either side can throw out "facts" and experts and each side has gotten so attached to their viewpoint that they won't even stop to consider there might be a middle ground. Like, hey, maybe some human pollution affects the weather, and maybe some climate change is due to natural cycles too? But no, we've made it into a religious argument.

I hope you can see why this issue has gotten non-productive, and I hope folks here will endeavor to be more tolerant of different viewpoints.

Bobbejaan
Bobbejaan's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 3976
Posts: 610
I only came over here because

I only came over here because you originally posted this in the main blog & I became curious when it got relocated whilst I was responding to you.

TheBurren wrote:
Sir, I have been pleased to read your insightful blog for approximately 3 months.  I realized almost immediately that you were extremely well educated with regards to PMs, and spoke Truth to Power with regard to financial fraud and manipulation of the gold and silver markets.  
&
I have well over 400 undergraduate and graduate level credits under my belt, Sir.  
&
I will no longer be perusing your blog~
You also appear to have a large stick jammed in your fundamental orifice ... To ENTIRELY "write off" self-admitted potentially useful insights & truths of someone's "Personal Area of Expertise" PURELY because they don't agree with ONE of your own world-views of ANOTHER subject entirely seems to be Illogical & Self-Harming in the extreme.
 
'Tis your loss ... and 'tis self-inflicted.
 
Enjoy your life ...
 
 
Trader
Trader's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 268
Posts: 26
Stephanie, sorry to say but

And to anybody that does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, you are the definition of sheeple. 

Feel free to ban me.

stephanie
stephanie's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2011
Hat Tips: 9983
Posts: 967
Trader

No-one gets banned here simply because they have a differing opinion or even for calling someone a sheeple. What we don't want is constant proselytizing on the main blog area - and really, this applies not just to 9/11 but also to Jesus, global warming, political candidates or even favorite burger joints - although, we do make allowances for bacon evangelism! ;-)

Mudsharkbytes
Mudsharkbytes's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 8519
Posts: 890
stephanie wrote: No-one gets

stephanie wrote:

No-one gets banned here simply because they have a differing opinion or even for calling someone a sheeple. What we don't want is constant proselytizing on the main blog area - and really, this applies not just to 9/11 but also to Jesus, global warming, political candidates or even favorite burger joints - although, we do make allowances for bacon evangelism! ;-)

While you may be correct about not banning anybody, the only topic that I know if that has ever been specifically labeled as taboo on the main blog area is discussions re 9/11.

While I understand Turds reasoning for not wanting rancor stirred up this week on the main blog, I believe, as the head honcho around here, he made a real mistake making his opinion on the matter public.  I would NEVER have done that, knowing how polarizing the topic is.  I would have kept it to myself.

Turd & others should understand that to anybody who has REALLY spent serious time studying the events surrounding 9/11, there are WAY too many fishy coincidences and downright silly untruths in the official story and WAY too many facts which point to controlled demolition.

Basically:

People who buy the 'official' story by & large don't seem to have spent that much time delving into it, certainly not very deeply, and most of their 'research' comes from comforting propagand such as NOVA or Popular Science articles, and they also think 'truthers' are gullible doofuses.

People who have come to the conclusion the official story is a bunch of malarky, usually after spending considerable time researching it, think the people who scoff at them are a big part of the problem, in that they share partial responsibility for helping those guilty of this heinous crime to get away with it by supporting the status quo.

Hence the rancor.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Topic locked
Syndicate contentComments for "The Turd needs to stick to patterns. "