Free Coffee and Free Donuts and a USA Today

I remember in September 2011, dust is not settled our Russian media have already broadcast on Muslim terrorists. owners media of all countries have something in common and that is their blood and genetics. always red blood blame , blue blood not guilty

originally posted by: Sillyolme
It's been 15 years. Yawn...

Really?

I don't think the passing of time changes people's feelings as much as you'd think. Look at the Kennedy assassination! People are still discussing it..hell, there was a conference about it a month or so back!

Its still as important today as it was then...because it changed the course of history. This isn't my feelings on the subject, this is a fact.

originally posted by: supermarket2012

originally posted by: Sillyolme
It's been 15 years. Yawn...

Really?

I don't think the passing of time changes people's feelings as much as you'd think. [snip] ..

Feelings. The major reason why conspiracy itself cant go to rest. When emotions are involerd facts fly out the window and history is treated as a selective buffet.

mg

a reply to: Elbereth

Oh. Then why did WTC one and two fall if it was not the result of inward bowing and collapse?

So far you have used truth movement talking point quotes which are used out of context and little rants?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

youtu.be...

No proof of any demolitions charges!

No indicative pressure waves resulting in 140 db sounds of charges setting off.

How would a complex and sophisticated system of ignition wires, detonation devices, and charges survive jet impacts and fires that cut vital emergency services to actuate the first office building top down CD twice in one day?

Any comments, or will you just post more one sided propaganda videos milking the movement for likes on YouTube?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Elbereth

Oh. Then why did WTC one and two fall if it was not the result of inward bowing and collapse?

I can only speculate. I don't have the relevant professional expertise to make a worthwhile judgement. Do you? I am qualified to point out obvious lies, omissions, mischacterizations, and inconsistencies. You know, neutronflux, like when you claimed the WTC 1 & 2 cores were weak and flimsy concrete tubes.

----------

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: ElberethSo far you have used truth movement talking point quotes which are used out of context and little rants?

I have read widely in both the Truth and the debunking literature. I owe allegiance to "truth" only as an abstract concept. I believe the aims and goals of the 9/11 Truth Movement are quixotean and unattainable under present circumstances.

Evidence undermining the validity of the OS you can't or won't engage you label as "little rants." In this case, you consider my illustrating that the 9/11 Commission was working from preordained conclusions prior to any investigative work by staff a "little rant." In actuality, it is a smoking gun that the entire OS, including NIST and its "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" analysis, is transparently bankrupt as an exercise in truth finding and had as its mandate something else entirely.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

youtu.be...

No proof of any demolitions charges!

No indicative pressure waves resulting in 140 db sounds of charges setting off.

How would a complex and sophisticated system of ignition wires, detonation devices, and charges survive jet impacts and fires that cut vital emergency services to actuate the first office building top down CD twice in one day?

Any comments, or will you just post more one sided propaganda videos milking the movement for likes on YouTube?

I know what I'm seeing, and the timeframe involved precludes the OS as a possibility.

Incredulity isn't an argument as to what you feel is or is not possible.

As to the youtube video, did you not just do the same thing?

a reply to: Elbereth

Show where I ever said the cores were weak and flimsy?
www.metabunk.org...

Again, thanks for proving why it's useless to debate the truth movement. They create straw men to facilitate their own arguments.

WTC one and two were a departure from normal high rise building construction by not using concrete reinforced columns along the long spand of floor beams at intermediate points. (This allowed for more open space and saved money on concrete costs.) The floors were only supported at the outer columns and core. The vertical columns were held in place by the floors. Once the floors were gone, the vertical columns tumbled in. This is seen after the initial collapse of the towers were large sections of columns were left standing for seconds on end.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

youtu.be...

No proof of any demolitions charges!

No indicative pressure waves resulting in 140 db sounds of charges setting off.

How would a complex and sophisticated system of ignition wires, detonation devices, and charges survive jet impacts and fires that cut vital emergency services to actuate the first office building top down CD twice in one day?

Any comments, or will you just post more one sided propaganda videos milking the movement for likes on YouTube?

I know what I'm seeing, and the timeframe involved precludes the OS as a possibility.

Incredulity isn't an argument as to what you feel is or is not possible.

As to the youtube video, did you not just do the same thing?

Any proof? You just know?

The video I posted was constructed on the obsession the WTC towers looked like a CD. The video used the reality and techniques of CD to prove there is no audio, pressure wave, or physical proof of CD.

a reply to: neutronflux

"Weak and flimsy" is my aggregate characterization of your numerous posts attacking the adequacy of the core structures. It was not a direct quote (notice it was not in parentheses above, as it is here where I am directly quoting you.)

You continue to ignore the following:

“By March 2003, with the commission’s staff barely in place, the two men had already prepared a detailed outline, complete with ‘chapter headings, subheadings, and sub-subheadings.’"

May said that he and Zelikow agreed that the outline should be ‘treated as if it were the most classified document the commission possessed.’ Zelikow . . . labeled it ‘Commission Sensitive,’ putting those words at the top and bottom of each page.”31 The work of the 9/11 Commission began, accordingly, with Kean and Hamilton conspiring with Zelikow and May to conceal from the Commission’s staff members the fact that their investigative work would largely be limited to filling in the details of conclusions that had been reached before any investigations had begun.

Again:

"The work of the 9/11 Commission began, accordingly, with Kean and Hamilton conspiring with Zelikow and May to conceal from the Commission’s staff members the fact that their investigative work would largely be limited to filling in the details of conclusions that had been reached before any investigations had begun."


The Bush Doctrine & The 9/11 Commission Report: Both Authored by Philip Zelikow (link to above quote)


Little rant:

It is the product of this charade that you are so adamantly defending. Why, neutronflux? Why?

Listen, the sad fact is, if you have not changed your mind about what happened then and how it was reported, you never will.

Either you are incapable, unwilling, in denial, to young or have simply lost interest in what was and will continue to be one of the greatest magic tricks ever created and perpetrated, at the expense of mankind.

a reply to: Elbereth

Please quote where I ever said the core was weak and flimsy.


Again, you just highlighted why a majority of people don't trust the truth movement.

a reply to: Elbereth

What does your rant have to do with bowing of the columns leading to collapse.


Previous studies proved the WTC structure fire insulation was inadequate. The WTC just stated to upgrade the insulation. It was a slow process and nowhere complete.

The jet impacts cut the fire mains supplying the fire sprinkler system.

The NYFD had no water to fight not one, but two high rise tower fires.

The jet fuel cause fires to spread at a rate beyond design factors of the towers.

The fires caused the long floor beams to heat. It was easier for the long floor beams, with no mid supports, to sag than expand long ways.

Fact, heated steal grows in size. The heated beams grew in by sagging because the could not push out.

Fact, as steel heats up, it becomes increasingly more workable and looses its ability to resist load.

The fires cooled, the sagging floor beams contracted, pulled in on the vertical columns. Once the vertical columns buckled from an inward bowing, the collapse was initiated.

www.metabunk.org...

Do you have a better model that describes why the vertical columns were pulled in and buckled as shown in the video contained in the link above?

Do you have an explanation why the movement ignores the video showing the mechanism of collapse before the tower fails.

a reply to: neutronflux

You apparently don't bother to read my responses.

a reply to: searcherfortruth
if you watch the YouTube video taken from a condo a few blocks away and then the one with the fireman sitting on the sidewalk saying they are going to "bring it down" you can draw no other conclusion then....thermite.

originally posted by: mrthumpy
Seems that many conspiracy theories stem from an argument from incredulity. If all you have is a logical fallacy then maybe you should think again

Are you suggesting it behooves one to ask no questions about the statements of known liars?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Elbereth

Maybe if the movement spent more time on reality, policing its con artists, not desperately grabbing at every "smoking gun", showed it would present all facts, used the same scrutiny on itself as the NIST, and spent less time patting itself on the back by calling objective people sheep, the movement might gain some credibility?

You don't understand, or maybe you do but pretend otherwise, the individual element. Your term "truth movement" is misleading, perhaps deliberately so.

I am just an individual citizen who knows that I was deceived on 11 September 2001. That's all.

While I do support with small contributions some like AE911 Truth, I do not consider myself a "member" of a "movement".

We were all deceived by men practiced at the art of deception. I and most other Americans understand this. Some like you do not. It's really just that simple.

a reply to: neutronflux

I am not, nor have I ever been part of the "Truther Movement" you keep spouting about. What I am is someone that has a realistic view of what transpired that day, not unrealistic.

There is massive amounts of evidence that "Controlled Demolition" occurred on all 3 buildings in question along with various statements from firefighters, police officers and video that show this evidence.

You can be obstinate all you want and stomp your feet up and down and jump around flailing your arms and NOTHING you say or write here or anywhere will change the facts.

Those buildings did not come down from fire due to jet fuel and office furnishings. It just does not compute, do you get that? Physics do not support the OS for any of it. Evidence was evident and conclusive that everything they claimed happened that day was just fabricated BS.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: mrthumpy
Seems that many conspiracy theories stem from an argument from incredulity. If all you have is a logical fallacy then maybe you should think again

Are you suggesting it behooves one to ask no questions about the statements of known liars?

Nobody is suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that "I can't believe it therefore it didn't!" is no argument at all as AM has noted:

Incredulity isn't an argument as to what you feel is or is not possible.

and yet SFT is still going:

Those buildings did not come down from fire due to jet fuel and office furnishings. It just does not compute, do you get that?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: mrthumpy
Seems that many conspiracy theories stem from an argument from incredulity. If all you have is a logical fallacy then maybe you should think again

Are you suggesting it behooves one to ask no questions about the statements of known liars?

Nobody is suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that "I can't believe it therefore it didn't!" is no argument at all as AM has noted:

Incredulity isn't an argument as to what you feel is or is not possible.

and yet SFT is still going:

Those buildings did not come down from fire due to jet fuel and office furnishings. It just does not compute, do you get that?

In general, I agree with your point, but elaboration is necessary.

Opinions and beliefs can be informed or uninformed. An analysis immediately after an event, with no knowledge but what your eyes see, is an uninformed belief.

Rather the opposite, a belief/opinion informed by close examination of facts and evidence, is very different.

Regarding the events of 911 which we discuss here, we have the luxury of 15 years of hindsight and historical events and facts learned since it happened.

So incredulity formed by knowledge and study is valid.

Your statement is accurate, but restricted to certain conditions. So too, credulity based on nothing but the claims of authority figures proves nothing. It shows one to be credulous and gullible.