On the WTC 7 note it is worth mentioning it was not the only building to collapse, central parts of the collapse of WTC 6 went unreported and I do believe there were others though I'm not 100% on which they were.
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject:
I find it hilarious that the single best piece of evidence the truthers can come up with cannot be tied in any rational way to a CD. So the rubble was hot. How does this prove a CD? Apparently that doesn't matter, its not even the point. The rubble was hot! Conspiracy!
Now I'm sure you can argue that one to death, but the point is this is your single best piece of evidence and you can't explain how it proves a CD? Priceless. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
No pepik, we have got WTC7 waiting in the queue for NorthernSoul to explain after he has finished with the molten metal issue.
Hey NorthernSoul, did you see my post?
Leiff wrote:
NorthernSoul
I looked at the pictures.
What does the first one depict?
On the other two I can see no black metal or silvery glow just red hot molten metal.
The fires in the tower were oxygen starved which is why there is so much smoke and not many flames visible.
The holes in the side of the towers do not appear to be sucking in vast quantities of air either, as smoke would be seen being sucked into the holes as well. Nor is there any indication of air being sucked in through the lobby in the Naudet brothers documentary.
_________________ "Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism"
George Monbiot
Battalion Chief John Norman
FDNY Special Operations Command - 22 years
Quote:
From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
So WTC 7 was “Heavily Damaged according to an experienced Fire Chief. Notice he is stating quite clearly that it WAS damaged, not looked damaged or might have been damaged. In his somewhat expert opinion, at least one corner of WTC 7 was heavily damaged.
This NIST photo seems to back up Norman’s testimony
Another experience Firefighter being interviewed about his experience and talking about the whole of the south side, not just the corner.
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years
Quote:
Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.
So according to their testimony experienced firemen predicted the collapse of WTC 7 before it had happened and evacuated the building accordingly.
So either, you question these mens judgement , experience and ability to assess a buildings safeness, or you are accusing them of being part of the conspiracy.
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years
Quote:
...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse.
WTC 5 suffered large fires and a partial collapse on 9/11
List of other buildings destroyed on 9/11:
St Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church
WTC 3
WTC 4
WTC 6
The World Financial Center buildings suffered fires, WFC 3 particularly took impact damage.
1 Liberty Plaza sustained some surface damaged but remained mostly intact.
So, out of all of that damage is it surprising that one building collapsed as predicted by the FDNY on the day?
How did WTC 7 collapse? I don’t know and await the NIST report on WTC 7. But to say that CD is the only explanation, given the Firemans testimony, the photos of heavy damage, flames and smoke, the fact that it was not the only building to suffer heavy damage and in some cases destruction, is absolutely ludicrous.
As for the molten metal pictures:
It is a human problem that we see what we want to see and don’t see what we don’t want to see, so maybe either of us is guilty of that, anyway would you concede that the factory molten aluminum bares resemblance to that coming from the WTC, and moreover there is no visible overwriting fact that demonstrates the visible molten metal is steel and that the lack of black, cooling, solidifying steel may suggest it is something other than steel?
The caption for the first picture of my previous post reads:
Quote:
Molten aluminum pours out of a gas-powered furnace at Crestwood Metal to be shaped into blocks. Crestwood drivers deliver the recycled metal to manufacturers in a five-state area around New York.
-A mysteriously undamaged passport that somehow managed to fly out of Satam al Suqami's pocket, through a plane and a building being shredded to bits, while an explosion is happening, only to land in so pristine a fashion on the street below as to make Kristi Yamaguchi jealous. Mentioned for long enough to get the 9/11 - al qaeda connection in people's heads, only to pretty much disappear afterwards.
-Atta's luggage. What exactly the uniforms were is up for debate (some reports say they were burial outfits, others pilots' uniforms), however, it's more than a little suspicious that a single piece of luggage that just happened to contain a very oddly-worded Last Will & Testament and a list of all the hijackers.
-The complete and utter failure of an adequate air defense response even a full hour and a half after the first plane hit the North Tower. Had air defenses been operating normally, and considering the hijacker's oddly lengthy flight paths, surely there would have been enough time to intercept at least one of the planes.
-Suspiciously similar exercises being run just prior to 9/11.
-Odd target choices: Why exactly did Hani Hanjour make a turn considered extremely-challenging-at-best-even-for-an-expert-pilot to slam into the unoccupied portion of the Pentagon when a simple 90-degree turn would've pointed him right at the White House, an infinitely more valuable propaganda target?
... and so on.
edit: After your charming little poll, NS, I'm surprised I jumped at this, to be honest. You seem to be not so much interested in actual debate as you are in patting yourself on the back for thinking you've gotten one over on 'the troofers'. You should join up over at JREF, they seem to be interested in little more than psuedo-intellectual circle-jerking as well. _________________ "What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak
-A mysteriously undamaged passport that somehow managed to fly out of Satam al Suqami's pocket, through a plane and a building being shredded to bits, while an explosion is happening, only to land in so pristine a fashion on the street below as to make Kristi Yamaguchi jealous. Mentioned for long enough to get the 9/11 - al qaeda connection in people's heads, only to pretty much disappear afterwards.
Of course this was not the only ID, document etc that survived the crash.
TmcMistress wrote:
-Atta's luggage. What exactly the uniforms were is up for debate (some reports say they were burial outfits, others pilots' uniforms), however, it's more than a little suspicious that a single piece of luggage that just happened to contain a very oddly-worded Last Will & Testament and a list of all the hijackers.
This claim is unfamiliar to me but does not seem strange, as mentioned a lot of different objects survived the crash, and of course Atta wanted the world to know it was him, he wanted to be a martyr, what good would it be to be an anonymous attacker?
To leave a list in his luggage is strange however, did this luggage make it to the plane? I believe he was flagged by the CAPPS system before boarding the flight.
TmcMistress wrote:
-The complete and utter failure of an adequate air defense response even a full hour and a half after the first plane hit the North Tower. Had air defenses been operating normally, and considering the hijacker's oddly lengthy flight paths, surely there would have been enough time to intercept at least one of the planes.
The planes had turned off there transponders, air traffic controllers had to switch to ordinary radar, they were chasing blips on a screen...all explained in the commission report...there was no major difference on 9/11 in terms of air defence than to any day before 9/11 it was simply a unique situation that they were not prepared for
TmcMistress wrote:
-Suspiciously similar exercises being run just prior to 9/11.
These were routine exercises even before 9/11 and I believe that some of them were private exercises being run by private security firms, were they part of the conspiracy too?
TmcMistress wrote:
-Odd target choices: Why exactly did Hani Hanjour make a turn considered extremely-challenging-at-best-even-for-an-expert-pilot to slam into the unoccupied portion of the Pentagon when a simple 90-degree turn would've pointed him right at the White House, an infinitely more valuable propaganda target?
You forget there was a fourth plane that never reach its target, this plane may well have been targeting the White House
If you wish me to elaborate on any of these points, just ask. _________________ NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today.
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:23 am Post subject:
Quote:
How about if some of the steel girders were super heated to a highly liquid state in a rapid chemical reaction and ran down the girders below into an area where the excessive heat couldn't escape?
What?
This is what I'm talking about. The first post, the best evidence (apparently) is hot metal in the rubble. But how does this explain a CD? It makes no sense.
The best way to stump a truther is to ask them "what do you think happened on the morning of 9/11?" They cannot answer, and they will not answer.
Its the same when you get into the details. Of course the rubble was too hot! And this proves a conspiracy because... er... mumble mumble thermite.
Think about it. You need to invent some new kind of demolitions material with wildly implausible properties (super thermite mixed with explosives which liquefies an entire beam in mid air!) which has never been used before and even then it contributes nothing to resolving the supposed anomaly - the hot rubble. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
I think you know as well as I do that the entire beam doesn't need to be liquefied to cut it. _________________ "Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism"
George Monbiot
I think you know as well as I do that the entire beam doesn't need to be liquefied to cut it.
You mean to cut it with magic, horizontally fireing, exploding thermite? _________________ NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today.
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:08 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I think you know as well as I do that the entire beam doesn't need to be liquefied to cut it.
Sorry, I must not have been very clear. When you were talking about "super heated to a highly liquid state in a rapid chemical reaction and ran down the girders below" I presume this means the beam is melted in mid-air. However now that I think about it, that's irrelevant anyway, I'm not concerned with how much of the beam was "melted" or how. I want to know how his explain high temperature rubble.
How do ANY of the alternative/CD theories floating around explain high temperature rubble any better than the OCT?
People say "look, high temperature rubble! OCT can't explain that, must be a CD" but when you ask how the CD theory explains high temp rubble it gets very quiet. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
would you concede that the factory molten aluminum bares resemblance to that coming from the WTC
It may be possible to heat Aluminum to red hot (when viewed indoors) in a furnace, but the temperatures required cannot be achieved in an oxygen starved fire, as observed on 9/11.
Quote:
some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
In his somewhat expert opinion, at least one corner of WTC 7 was heavily damaged.
Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building
badly damaged on the south side
So how did WTC7 collapse so symetrically, even maintaining its shape on the way down? For this to happen, all structural supports would have to give way at exactly the same instant. Hardly likely with the unsymetrical damage reported above. Hurry up with the report NIST its been six and a half years now...
NorthernSoul wrote:
You mean to cut it with magic, horizontally fireing, exploding thermite?
I mean we need a real investigation this time... _________________ "Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism"
George Monbiot
So it has taken NIST 6 and a half years to come up with the probably cause of collapse in WTC 7, analysing mountains of evidence. On the other hand it has taken the Truthers just as long to decide whether there were planes or not...
Heres a nice debunking of the molten metal and high temperatures following the collapses claims by Mark Roberts
Question to Truthers, what would the conspirators have done in WTC 7 had got away relatively unharmed? What if it took only surface damage and the fireman said there was no chance of it collapsing? How would the conspirators explain it's collapse via CD if there was no damage? Are the conspirators future tellers too?
The link above is to a photo taken shortly after WTC 7 collapsed, on top of the pile...the north face of 7 WTC.
This tells us that the North side of the building fell last or at least after the majority of the building. This suggests the building collapsed to the south.
The most important and telling fact in this photo is however that the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance.
I would say that your "it fell symmetrically" rubbish is thoroughly debunked. _________________ NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject:
TmcMistress wrote:
-A mysteriously undamaged passport that somehow managed to fly out of Satam al Suqami's pocket, through a plane and a building being shredded to bits, while an explosion is happening, only to land in so pristine a fashion on the street below as to make Kristi Yamaguchi jealous. Mentioned for long enough to get the 9/11 - al qaeda connection in people's heads, only to pretty much disappear afterwards.
-Atta's luggage. What exactly the uniforms were is up for debate (some reports say they were burial outfits, others pilots' uniforms), however, it's more than a little suspicious that a single piece of luggage that just happened to contain a very oddly-worded Last Will & Testament and a list of all the hijackers.
-The complete and utter failure of an adequate air defense response even a full hour and a half after the first plane hit the North Tower. Had air defenses been operating normally, and considering the hijacker's oddly lengthy flight paths, surely there would have been enough time to intercept at least one of the planes.
-Suspiciously similar exercises being run just prior to 9/11.
-Odd target choices: Why exactly did Hani Hanjour make a turn considered extremely-challenging-at-best-even-for-an-expert-pilot to slam into the unoccupied portion of the Pentagon when a simple 90-degree turn would've pointed him right at the White House, an infinitely more valuable propaganda target?
None of this is actual evidence, merely conjecture. You merely confirm that you are suspicious about evidence - you have no evidence of your own apart from your own incredulity.
On the passport, it is one of many items recovered from the planes that hit the towers. Parts of the seats, lifejackets, an undelivered letter, the bank card of one of the passengers, a card with another passengers' mileage points. So there was nothing particularly unusual about a passport being found, wouldn't you agree?
I'm not sure that your information about Atta's bag is correct - certainly the contents of the bag have never been made public to my knowledge. I have read an English translation of his will, written in 1996, which seems to be a standard religious-themed text with no direct reference to 9/11 or terrorism. How does the presence of Atta's bag in Boston add to the theory that 9/11 was an inside job?
I also think you misrepresent Hanjour's manouvre in the plane. I don't think the point has ever been that his turn was challenging, but more that it was outside the realms of best procedure for that aircraft. You can ask questions about his choice of direction or turn, but really that does not provide any suspicion about 9/11 being an inside job. I might argue that an expertly-executed inside job would be much less likely to have involved any amateurish strange turns whatsoever.
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: The Truther Challenge
NorthernSoul wrote:
Ok bare with me here, perhaps this has been done before, I used search and couldn't find an example.
I've browsed this forum for a couple of days now, on and off, and have found very few examples of Truthers presenting evidence for their claims.
So I'm going to challenge the Truthers here, present one piece of evidence that you feel supports your claims. I'm only asking for one piece at the moment and references would be appreciated.
For now I'm posting this in the Critics Corner in order to keep the peace, I have been greeted with some E-Hostility here.
So, Truthers, one piece of evidence that supports your claim...it's that simple. Expect to be questioned, contradicted, and proven wrong, I plee with Truthers and Debunkers/Critics/Skeptics a like to keep Ad Hominem out of this.
Reluctant as I am to "bare with you", how about this for your challenge? As you're such a busy little poster with all that time to post links to all sorts of stale debunking information. What piece of evidence would convince you that this was an inside job? What could you not dismiss as "proving nothing"?
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject:
Any of:
A coherent insider account.
A theory which is actually plausible and doesn't rely on the cruel torture of facts and logic. i.e. a theory which actually makes sense. Something less than 1000x more complicated and far fetched than the official theory.
Expert opinions from actual experts who have actually studied the event and actually submitted something serious for peer review (and no you can't submit a youtube video for peer review).
An alive hijacker or passenger.
===
Compare this to requests for a single piece of evidence which, using truther logic, I couldn't reject. I got no answers. Compare it also to my request for a theory which outlines what approximately they think happened on 911, if the official theory is wrong. I got no answers to either.
These are simple questions - in fact what could be simpler than "what do you think happened". But ask any truther that question and you will have them stumped. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
A theory which is actually plausible and doesn't rely on the cruel torture of facts and logic. i.e. a theory which actually makes sense. Something less than 1000x more complicated and far fetched than the official theory.
Expert opinions from actual experts who have actually studied the event and actually submitted something serious for peer review (and no you can't submit a youtube video for peer review).
An alive hijacker or passenger.
===
Compare this to requests for a single piece of evidence which, using truther logic, I couldn't reject. I got no answers. Compare it also to my request for a theory which outlines what approximately they think happened on 911, if the official theory is wrong. I got no answers to either.
These are simple questions - in fact what could be simpler than "what do you think happened". But ask any truther that question and you will have them stumped.
So you need
1. An insider to squeal. Not going to happen.
2. Any theory can be picked apart.
3. There are plenty of bad experts on both sides, this is one you have to think through yourself.
4. Also not going to happen.
Makes your life easy doesn't it?
But despite all of this, the official theory has to also stand up to scrutiny and it doesn't. It is either shown to not match observed events and/or eyewitness testimony or is actually downright impossible. There is a distinct lack of official evidence to support what happened so much of it has to be taken on trust - why do you think that is?
Why are you here in Critics' Corner so keen to spend lots of time trying to convince us that it happened exactly as the US Government says - that is really what I don't understand. Why do you do their work for them? Do you have no criticisms of the 9/11 Commission? When they leave out the fact that an E-4B was over the skies of Washington, don't you think for a second - how odd, no air defence 30 minutes after 2 planes have hit the towers and yet here is a full command and control centre in the same city as the 3rd plane. Or is it just "incompetence" again?
A theory which is actually plausible and doesn't rely on the cruel torture of facts and logic. i.e. a theory which actually makes sense. Something less than 1000x more complicated and far fetched than the official theory.
Expert opinions from actual experts who have actually studied the event and actually submitted something serious for peer review (and no you can't submit a youtube video for peer review).
An alive hijacker or passenger.
===
Compare this to requests for a single piece of evidence which, using truther logic, I couldn't reject. I got no answers. Compare it also to my request for a theory which outlines what approximately they think happened on 911, if the official theory is wrong. I got no answers to either.
These are simple questions - in fact what could be simpler than "what do you think happened". But ask any truther that question and you will have them stumped.
So you need
1. An insider to squeal. Not going to happen.
...
Why not? There would have to be thousands of them involved.
Not one :
deathbed regret
nervous breakdown
fundamentalist religious conversion
utterly broke and trying to sell the story
blackmail
etc
Please explain your assertion that its' "not going to happen".
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:00 pm Post subject:
1. Sorry, that's not going to cut it. What evil organisation hasn't had informers? The Nazis had turncoats, the mafia has informers. CIA agents have sold out. Drug cartels have squealers. Totalitarian communist governments have defectors. Terrorist groups get betrayed. Most of these groups torture and kill traitors. And the US government itself has had a very long history of whistleblowers. People have turned on their own governments out of resentment, spite, grudges, mental illness, for money, for love, for all kinds of reasons. And that's not even when their government has done wrong. Imagine the temptation when the government has killed thousands as a deliberate false flag attacks. And I know you won't say how many people were involved - but lets be serious here, it had to be a lot.
So you can take that flippant, and frankly stupid excuse and toss it in the bin.
2. Anybody can complain about anything (e.g. the amateurs of the truth movement lecturing the world on physics). Legitimate criticism is something different.
3. Line up NIST experts with Steven Jones, Judy Wood, and Richard Gage and you have a rather lopsided field. You are delusional if you think the talent on both sides is equal. You simply must find someone better, someone credible, and get them to do serious work.
4. Your problem, not mine.
Quote:
But despite all of this, the official theory has to also stand up to scrutiny and it doesn't. It is either shown to not match observed events and/or eyewitness testimony or is actually downright impossible. There is a distinct lack of official evidence to support what happened so much of it has to be taken on trust - why do you think that is?
These are all statements of opinion which have not become more true with six years of repetition.
Quote:
Why are you here in Critics' Corner so keen to spend lots of time trying to convince us that it happened exactly as the US Government says - that is really what I don't understand. Why do you do their work for them? Do you have no criticisms of the 9/11 Commission? When they leave out the fact that an E-4B was over the skies of Washington, don't you think for a second - how odd, no air defence 30 minutes after 2 planes have hit the towers and yet here is a full command and control centre in the same city as the 3rd plane. Or is it just "incompetence" again?
I spend very little time in here. Does the fact that people have debunked fake moon landing mean the moon landings actually were fake? Do UFO debunkers prove UFOs are real? Silly questions really, since you put on the presentable face to 911 truth when you come to critics corner, back across the fence sheer lunacy reigns. Fake moon landings and UFOs would get a warm reception there.
So I wouldn't try to get an exaggerated sense of importance simply because someone debunks your theories. I'm here partly for mild amusement, partly as a sort of amateur interest in popular delusions and mental illness, and partly because I find it offensive that completely debunked bs is continually repeated in order to promote theories which ultimately do nothing but act as PR for Al Queda, a mass murdering organization of terrorists which is completely and utterly odious in every possible sense.
Now go on and outline your theory of what happened on 911, and try to imagine some evidence which I couldn't instantly reject using troofer logic. You wouldn't want to prove me right by not answering would you? _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
A theory which is actually plausible and doesn't rely on the cruel torture of facts and logic. i.e. a theory which actually makes sense. Something less than 1000x more complicated and far fetched than the official theory.
Expert opinions from actual experts who have actually studied the event and actually submitted something serious for peer review (and no you can't submit a youtube video for peer review).
An alive hijacker or passenger.
===
Compare this to requests for a single piece of evidence which, using truther logic, I couldn't reject. I got no answers. Compare it also to my request for a theory which outlines what approximately they think happened on 911, if the official theory is wrong. I got no answers to either.
These are simple questions - in fact what could be simpler than "what do you think happened". But ask any truther that question and you will have them stumped.
So you need
1. An insider to squeal. Not going to happen.
...
Why not? There would have to be thousands of them involved.
Not one :
deathbed regret
nervous breakdown
fundamentalist religious conversion
utterly broke and trying to sell the story
blackmail
etc
Please explain your assertion that its' "not going to happen".
Firstly we don't know who the insiders are. We can guess but I suspect they have been involved in many similarly dodgy incidents in the past and been involved in many deaths.
Secondly who would they sell their story to? And why would anyone believe it?
I would say that your "it fell symmetrically" rubbish is thoroughly debunked.
I would say your pictures speak for themselves:
The molten aluminum picture is furnace heated again and photographed indoors.
WTC7 was a remarkably symmetrical collapse considering the uneven damage. I have seen the videos of WTC7 collapse many times - each time it collapses symmetrically.
1. Sorry, that's not going to cut it. What evil organisation hasn't had informers? The Nazis had turncoats, the mafia has informers. CIA agents have sold out. Drug cartels have squealers. Totalitarian communist governments have defectors. Terrorist groups get betrayed. Most of these groups torture and kill traitors. And the US government itself has had a very long history of whistleblowers. People have turned on their own governments out of resentment, spite, grudges, mental illness, for money, for love, for all kinds of reasons. And that's not even when their government has done wrong. Imagine the temptation when the government has killed thousands as a deliberate false flag attacks. And I know you won't say how many people were involved - but lets be serious here, it had to be a lot.
So you can take that flippant, and frankly stupid excuse and toss it in the bin.
There are many who know it did not happen as the official conspiracy theory states. Probably relatively few of these know how it was done. Most are just pieces in a jigsaw doing what they are told and knowing better than to rock the boat.
You seem to believe in the openness of Government and I admire your faith. But surely it is easy to take the opposite view - that every conspiracy that appears to come to light does so because it was allowed to do so. The really big stuff remains hidden - and there has been nothing bigger than 9/11.
pepik wrote:
3. Line up NIST experts with Steven Jones, Judy Wood, and Richard Gage and you have a rather lopsided field. You are delusional if you think the talent on both sides is equal. You simply must find someone better, someone credible, and get them to do serious work.
Ladies and Gentleman, we have a talent contest.
That is irrelevant drivel isn't it. You have no idea whether NIST are experts or not, you just know there are a lot of them and they write very long reports.
pepik wrote:
4. Your problem, not mine. I spend very little time in here. Does the fact that people have debunked fake moon landing mean the moon landings actually were fake? Do UFO debunkers prove UFOs are real? Silly questions really, since you put on the presentable face to 911 truth when you come to critics corner, back across the fence sheer lunacy reigns. Fake moon landings and UFOs would get a warm reception there.
It really is a talent contest for you isn't it? Because there are undoubted idiots involved in 9/11, then everything ever said is rubbish?
pepik wrote:
So I wouldn't try to get an exaggerated sense of importance simply because someone debunks your theories. I'm here partly for mild amusement, partly as a sort of amateur interest in popular delusions and mental illness, and partly because I find it offensive that completely debunked bs is continually repeated in order to promote theories which ultimately do nothing but act as PR for Al Queda, a mass murdering organization of terrorists which is completely and utterly odious in every possible sense.
Have you ever had an independent thought of your own? I haven't seen one yet. Personally, I know much of the evidence of an inside job is complete bs but I also realise this isn't a talent contest. If I come to the conclusion that events are physically impossible then I am interested in looking deeper. Because impossible trumps everything else, so I am only interested in debunking that proves the impossible is in fact possible.
pepik wrote:
Now go on and outline your theory of what happened on 911, and try to imagine some evidence which I couldn't instantly reject using troofer logic. You wouldn't want to prove me right by not answering would you?
It isn't really important what my theory is. What I want you to do is prove that Flight 77 could actually hit the light-poles, fly horizontally into the Pentagon at almost ground level without touching the ground and then cause the damage as shown. As you know this actually happened, how hard can it be to prove it. Feel free to use the real topography of the area. Now I don't think you have any interest in doing that. You wouldn't want to prove me right by not answering would you?
Jowenko also says that WTC1 and WTC2 were definitely not brought down by controlled demolition; is he equally right about that?
Any research will show that the colour of smoke shows nothing meaningful. A modern office is full of plastics which burn with black smoke in the open air.
Any research will show that the colour of smoke shows nothing meaningful. A modern office is full of plastics which burn with black smoke in the open air.
Any links? _________________ "Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism"
George Monbiot
Any research will show that the colour of smoke shows nothing meaningful. A modern office is full of plastics which burn with black smoke in the open air.
So Leiff, your reply to my criticisms is to repeat everything you said that? Even though it had been proven wrong?
It was not a symmetrical collapse, I don't care how many YouTube videos you've seen I predict that you are not qualified to identify a symmetrical collapse. Nor am I but I have layed down my case demonstrating that it wasn't symmetrical and all you can say in return is..."Well I've seen YouTube Videos! Inside Job!!!!!!!!!11111!!!111!!!!!!111!!!111!"
And now your friend has arrived, unable to prove your idiocy correct, he decides to ignore everything that has gone before and start on the next piece of "evidence" but he doesnt show us evidence, he asks a question.
I never really set this thread up for you to ask me questions, the idea was for you to put forward evidence in a sustainable argument and show how it links to 9/11 but you've all failed in that quite miserably.
[Edit: What I'm trying to say is that the burden of proof is on the Truthers. and thus far, all you have proven is your own inability to defend your arguments.] _________________ NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today.
Last edited by NorthernSoul on Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:13 am; edited 2 times in total
What I want you to do is prove that Flight 77 could actually hit the light-poles, fly horizontally into the Pentagon at almost ground level without touching the ground and then cause the damage as shown.
You prove that it isn't possible...the burden of proof is on you remember. _________________ NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today.
You're right, it is conjecture. But in all fairness, it all is at this point. It's not as though I've got access to the physical evidence, nor the capability to do independent tests myself. Calling it conjecture has as much relevance as if I called everything you said a simple repetition of the official line.
As far as the other items go, I have yet to see any that were in as pristine as the Suqami passport. "Good", as the Iskandar passport is described, is a relative term, especially considering the events of the day. So no, I can't agree.
I'll have to look up the info on Atta's bag. I know there was an article on WND about some of the contents, though it was a bit sparse on some of the details.
As far as the turn, a number of pilots, (most of them, though not all admittedly involved with Pilots for 9/11 Truth, a group I'm not inclined to trust, admittedly) have referred to the turn as extremely difficult even for a seasoned pilot. I can look up the quotes if you want, but I'm sure both you, I, and everyone else on this site have read them a dozen times over, at least. _________________ "What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak
You're right, it is conjecture. But in all fairness, it all is at this point. It's not as though I've got access to the physical evidence, nor the capability to do independent tests myself. Calling it conjecture has as much relevance as if I called everything you said a simple repetition of the official line.
As far as the other items go, I have yet to see any that were in as pristine as the Suqami passport. "Good", as the Iskandar passport is described, is a relative term, especially considering the events of the day. So no, I can't agree.
I'll have to look up the info on Atta's bag. I know there was an article on WND about some of the contents, though it was a bit sparse on some of the details.
As far as the turn, a number of pilots, (most of them, though not all admittedly involved with Pilots for 9/11 Truth, a group I'm not inclined to trust, admittedly) have referred to the turn as extremely difficult even for a seasoned pilot. I can look up the quotes if you want, but I'm sure both you, I, and everyone else on this site have read them a dozen times over, at least.
As I only know of 1 of these pilots please do source these quotes. The only I have heard of came from Russ Wittenburg, a No Planer conspiracy theorist.
Why would the turn Hanjour made require great skill? Could it not just be down to inexperience? Plausibly he left his descent too late and was force to turn around in a not impossible but dangerous maneuver that no sane pilot would attempt. Keeping in mind Hanjour had no desire to stay alive. Of course this can not be proven as Hanjour is very much dead. I also remind you that a dutch television program put its presenter in to a flight simulator and asked them to hit the pentagon in a similar way, they succeeded on 3 occasions out of 3. _________________ NorthernSoul
Super Secret NWO Agent
Lt in charge of FEMA Death Camp Delta 2
Call 0800 310 310 to find out where there is an NWO recruitment center near you! Join Today.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Ladies and Gentleman, we have a talent contest.