Pentagon Attack on 911

[ddd]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3143048862360929736&q=penn+and+teller+bullxxxx

[Sip]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...eller+bullxxxx

I love it! I've seen a few of the shows before (like the bible and time-share one) but hadn't seen this one.

[Armenian]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

ddd, I hope you posted this as a stupid pointless joke. As a matter of fact, it is not even funny, that is if you are not brain dead. You guys - you, Sip, Siggie, etc, just dont see how absurd your attitudes have been. Its sad Armenians like you exist. Oh, let me guess, you folks were either born in or grew up in MTV America.

[Sip]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Oh, let me guess, you folks were either born in or grew up in MTV America.

As usual, not even close

[skhara]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Guys I found these WTC videos. This is probably the best documentary annalysis that focuses solely on the WTC and collapses.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&hl=en-CA

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-999558027849894376&hl=en-CA

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1162851149755261569&hl=en-CA

[Fedayeen]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Longsought_911_videotape_didnt_capture_attack_0915.html

[Illuminator]

I Don't Have to Guess

As usual, not even close

Variation in therapy and outcome for pediatric head trauma patients.

Tilford JM, Simpson PM, Yeh TS, Lensing S, Aitken ME, Green JW, Harr J, Fiser DH.

Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, AR 72202-3591, USA.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to examine variation in therapies and outcome for pediatric head trauma patients by patient characteristics and by pediatric intensive care unit. Specifically, the study was designed to examine severity of illness on admission to the pediatric intensive care unit, the therapies used during the pediatric intensive care unit stay, and patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES AND SETTING: Consecutive admissions from three pediatric intensive care units were recorded prospectively (n = 5,749). For this study, all patients with an admitting diagnosis of head trauma were included (n = 477). Data collection occurred during an 18-month period beginning in June 1996. All of the pediatric intensive care units were located in children's hospitals, had residency and fellowship training programs, and were headed by a pediatric intensivist. METHODS: Admission severity was measured as the worst recorded physiological derangement during the period <or=6 hrs before pediatric intensive care unit admission. Therapies and resource use were based on the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System with adaptations for pediatrics. The use of intracranial pressure monitoring was recorded on admission to the unit (within 1 hr) and at any time during the pediatric intensive care unit stay. Outcomes were measured at the time of pediatric intensive care unit discharge by the Pediatric Overall Performance Category scale. Risk factors for mortality were examined by using bivariate analyses with significant predictors as candidate variables in a logistic regression to predict expected mortality. Intracranial pressure monitoring and other therapies were added to the mortality prediction model to test for protective effects. Finally, race and insurance status were added to the model to test for differences in the quality of care. RESULTS: The overall mortality rate for the entire sample was 7.8%. Mortality rates for children <or=1 yr old were significantly higher than for children >1 yr old (16.1% vs. 6.1%; p = .002). Comparisons by insurance status indicated that observed mortality rates were highest for self-paying patients. However, patient characteristics were not associated with use of therapies or standardized mortality rates after adjustment for patient severity. There was significant variation in the use of paralytic agents, seizure medications, induced hypothermia, and intracranial pressure monitoring on admission across the three pediatric intensive care units. In multivariate models, only the use of seizure medications was associated significantly with reduced mortality risk (odds ratio = 0.17; 95% confidence interval = 0.04-0.70; p = .014).


CONCLUSIONS: Therapies and outcomes vary across pediatric intensive care units that care for children with head injuries. Increased use of seizure medications may be warranted based on data from this observational study. Large randomized controlled trials of seizure prophylaxis in children with head injury have not been conducted and are needed to confirm the findings presented here.

[Lamb Boy]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

I saw a video recently about how the US government was responsible for Steve Irwin's death in Australia. Ironically, the cameraman who captured his death is of Israeli decent.

heh The really funny thing here is the word "scientist" actually appears in the title for your degree (CS). I think that debugger or compiler would really be a more suitable title. Just pointing out the fact that in regards to this issue you have done everything but be scientific by any standards, even after I asked you to intellectually engage in a debate covering the evidence we have available in the public domain. Your _________ presence here is just an attempt to marginalize the real issues that have real ramifications that you seem to be uncomfortable facing. Hardly scientific at all ...

Don't even get me started on psychology which is still waiting to replicate any theory save Skinner who was a behaviorist. Pseudo science imo and yet ppl _________ here would have us believe that somehow they are more enlightened in these affairs than the rest of us. They prove it to us by adding their ________ comments that really bring something of interest to this table of discussion whenever they can. Never mind the fact that we're in the Intellectuals section of this BB and the self proclaimed "read my resume" individuals, of whom we know intimately of their educational background, not by choice, are incapable of actually offering anything here that could even be remotely construed as intellectual. That 911 link to debunk what we are talking about here is a JOKE! It's insulting to offer such weak information in the light of cold hard facts. You should feel ashamed that you spent more time researching utter nonsense rather than give our argument and the plaethora of links a chance to be read/viewed/heard.

Can we actually have an intellectual debate on this topic? Don't you feel it's important? Please present your case for holding a belief in the commonly accepted version of the story below. We "conspiracy theorists" have already shown our side of the argument I think it's high time the other conspiracy theorists, or hecklers, pose theirs and stop trying to diminish what are truly questions the American ppl deserve to have answered by our government.

[Sip]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Science is ultimately the search for the truth. This thread, although to the lamen or the casual observer might seem to be the illusion of such, actually is far from it. In this thread, there are certain assumptions made about the truth followed by a huge effort to try to back those assumptions by any and all means.

Believe me if I witnessed ANY effort to try to then correct or reformulate those assumptions about the truths based on the REAL evidence (and logic), I would most definitely take part in it in a "scientific way".

But unfortunately there are far too many out there who let their biases, feelings, imagination, fears, and distrust of the "goverment" get the best of them when trying to think logically.

So what is one left to do is to at least voice some concerns about the thought process and try to make the ones who are so set in their beliefs about the "truth" to maybe consider the alternatives and not be so set on believing every piece of "video" or "website" they find on google. At least then the effects of "self affirmation" that is created in a thread like this is somewhat weakend. Otherwise, threads like this go on for pages and pages and pages and then somehow start to act as tool to reaffirm those exact unsubstantiated assumptions with which the participants began with!

Ironically enough, the "bull sh!t" video on conspiracy theories probably does a much better job in explaning my point than any post I could make!

This is not to say that I think for example a plane did or did not hit the pentagon. But just because the US government does not release detailed videos and pictures showing its HIGHEST military/defense building's weaknesses, doesn't necessarily mean that it planned to blow up the world trade centers or that it necessarily had a hand in the entire 9/11. These HUGE leaps and conclusions are what I have a problem with, ... not whether or not the buildings came tumbling down because of the giant jet plane or whether there were other reasons. The latter ARE scientific questions IF the search is for the truth. ... not because the end goal is ONLY to prove a grand conspiracy theory.

[skhara]

Re: Pentagon Attack on 911

Science is ultimately the search for the truth.

Science also has a method, funny enough they call it the "Scientific method". The quoted is the only true comment from your post above. If you had carefully watched, read, and critically thought you wouldn't be writing the nonesense that you did bellow that comment. You could have argued a specific point or a claim that someone made that you disagreed with and most would have been respectful.

Believe me if I witnessed ANY effort to try to then correct or reformulate those assumptions about the truths based on the REAL evidence (and logic), I would most definitely take part in it in a "scientific way".

Assumption: Flying projectile believed to be a plane hit building --> building fall down as a direct result.

But unfortunately there are far too many out there who let their biases, feelings, imagination, fears, and distrust of the "goverment" get the best of them when trying to think logically.

Ok -- since "there are far too many" and I assume this includes plenty of folks within this thread, it should be of no problem for you to cite a couple of examples.

So what is one left to do is to at least voice some concerns about the thought process and try to make the ones who are so set in their beliefs about the "truth" to maybe consider the alternatives and not be so set on believing every piece of "video" or "website" they find on google.

1. Ditto
2. What was it you just claimed about "assumptions"?

Ironically enough, the "bull sh!t" video on conspiracy theories probably does a much better job in explaning my point than any post I could make!

What video?

This is not to say that I think for example a plane did or did not hit the pentagon. But just because the US government does not release detailed videos and pictures showing its HIGHEST military/defense building's weaknesses, doesn't necessarily mean that it planned to blow up the world trade centers or that it necessarily had a hand in the entire 9/11.

What was it you claimed about assumptions? Who exactly made such a claim?

And what an absurd leap in logic in the quoted above. Who has made such an absurd leap in logic? You are making up a claim then arguing against it.

These HUGE leaps and conclusions are what I have a problem with

Then please go express your displeasure to those who make such leaps for I have yet to see that from the active posters within this thread. (

I don't consider the posts that you have made thus far as contributing anything -- its more towards the disruptive end. I was perfectly intent on ignoring your annoying disruptions but Illuminator and Lamboy had to answer and if they continue to answer, then this may very well turn into a flame war.

Illuminator and Lamboy, please just ignore that which is simply annoying and provocative and gives you an urge to reply in a less then polite manner.

This is a serious topic.