It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Skepticism of 9/11 Truth is Denial for Comfort Sake

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

Part of being in a society is getting lumped into categories like everyone else. It makes things easier. It's part of life. [/quotes]

It makes life easier for who? Bigots? Because it certainly doesn't make life easier for those baselessly insulted as a group. I highly suspect the word "truther" is a neoconservative creation. Do you have a problem with me grouping you with neocons and calling you that, because you enjoy using their insulting words to make your life easier? Bigots definitely rely on hardset pre-conceived notions.



That's the purpose of a CRIMINAL investigation. I can conduct an investigation in to why my hot water heater isn't working and find that it's because a heating element burned out. It was an investigation, but it wasn't criminal in nature. The nature of this investigation was to determine if there WAS need for a criminal investigation into the actions and/or lack of communications between our agencies.


If you have had your fill of red herrings, what do you think took place on 9/11? I call it criminal activity. What do you call it?


Emotional outburst? You cannot defy the laws of physics. My chemistry instructor in high-school used to laugh when someone would ask him "Is this supposed to happen?!" His response was "Well, it's happening, isn't it? Your job as a scientist is to figure out why."



I have not attempted to defy the laws physics with anything I present for points of argument. Unforturnately, the "official" version does nothing but defy the laws of physics throughout the report.

What "emotional outburst"? What, to you, constitutes an emotional outburst?




In short - we cannot let our preconceptions interfere with our ability to evaluate what is going on. "This shouldn't be happening" is not a valid response.



Anytime someone decides to investigate, it normally means that person has no preconceptions, or would not be investigating anything. If something appears to be drastically illogical/invalid, why shouldn't someone investigate it?



I think that concept applies very well to your whole statement.


Exactly what concept would that be?




posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
My point was fire, particularly kerosene fires, do not cause steel and concrete high rises to collapse into their own footprints. Nor does a 767 hit, in a building specifically designed to withstand the impact of a 707, drop into its own footprint. Nor will a combination of the two particularly in only 56 minutes for one building (hit second), and 1 hour and 42 minutes for the other (hit first).


How can you be so sure? Was this not an UNPRECEDENTED event?

Besides the Madrid tower DID have structural failure in the steel only portion of that building.. you can see it here:




For any building to implode into itself, the center supports have to be released in a balanced manner. Should that not happen, a building will topple and end up in pancake effect. That is simply part of the laws physics.


Incorrect physics..though.



I posted this picture on another thread..What it does, is show how the WTC towers were NOT dense, fort-like, or build as solid as a mining truck...afterall who wants to have their corporate office in a frigging bulwark?

These were some big-assed planes going at a very high rate of speed... to think they didn't damage the buildings is ..well, a bit unbelievable. The aircraft's impact was quite explosive as anyone could see. The resulting fires *caused* by the jet fuel were widespread over several floors.

(this is all documented..not so much an "official" story, but plain to see)

Now, when you have dehabilitated or very damaged support members in a structure the load has to be shifted to another means of support for the structure to remain standing, yes?...If the remaining supports are weakened by uncontrolled fire *Plus* bearing that additional load from the original damage...it would make a hellovalot more sense for that to be the cause of collapse than a legion of supa-sekrit goons planting bombs all over the busiest area of the busiest city in the world..no? it might be a good plot for a Die Hard movie..but c'mon.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
It makes life easier for who? Bigots? Because it certainly doesn't make life easier for those baselessly insulted as a group.


See, you just lumped me into the category of "biggot" "neocon". Whoopdeedoo. Am I supposed to be insulted and take you off of my buddy list, now? You see a group of kids walking down the street with pants hanging around their ankles... what is your thought? "silly ganster wannabees" - most likely. What do you think when you see a girl with pale skin, hair as black as night, and wearing black, dark, or leather clothing? - you likely place them in the 'goth' category.

We do similar things online - we group people into a general category so we can keep things on an operational level. Much like you have a file for "pictures" on your computer. You can put all of those pictures that folder, directly, and search through all of them, individually - or, you can begin to lump them into general categories as the folder (or subfolder) population requires.

What matters is - does that keep me from talking to you - simply because I have you in one folder - and not in another?


If you have had your fill of red herrings, what do you think took place on 9/11? I call it criminal activity. What do you call it?


You simply don't get it. Your brother gets murdered in your house. Do you start launching a criminal investigation on your own family, or do you start launching an investigation into your own security systems (if present) and see where/how they failed to prevent this from ever occurring? And do you first start looking at potential suspects outside of your home, or inside?

Unfortunately for you, this is real life, not a Dan Brown novel or an X-Files episode. It is good for drama to have the 'plot defining twist' of finding out that some daughter killed her mother because she wanted to have marital relations with her father (Electra complex) and some other crazy loopey-doopey plot twists. But, the reality is that, usually, the most fault your family is at when one of your own is murdered is that they were asleep.


I have not attempted to defy the laws physics with anything I present for points of argument. Unforturnately, the "official" version does nothing but defy the laws of physics throughout the report.


Well, if memory serves me correctly - planes flew into the towers... and they collapsed. Big surprise there, I'm sure. We all know that flying planes into buildings and setting them on fire actually tempers the steel - making it stronger. But, maybe the "official" version - as you put it - is on to something... since... you know... when I throw a block at my tower of blocks I just made - it falls down. Yes, this surprised me, too. I will do more tests to make sure this is a reproducible result.


What "emotional outburst"? What, to you, constitutes an emotional outburst?


Honestly, the whole "truth" movement. It's nothing but a play on the emotions of young people who have little experience with the dynamics of the world, and who still have yet to learn that grainy YouTube videos with a grand 2 pixel/meter resolution at the subject ranges are VERY inconclusive. The majority of the truth movement consists of young teens and preteens who see the title "9/11 Conspiracy CONFIRMED" titles in youtube videos and decide to click on them because, let's face it - it's an interesting title. They are then subjected to a very guided tour of the events of 9/11, interrupted interviews - or comments taken out of context are usually present. There is always some video with a 1-pixel dot of "extreme curiosity" because it "could be proof of a bomb!" (or it could be a flying shoebox, or anything of that relative size, for that matter).

Just enough to spur the thought process of a young person on and gain their support. They buy a video, or a T-shirt, and want to stand out amongst their friends - want to be the one to have something "up their sleeve". We all do. We all want our moment in the spotlight to unveil some grave danger to our planet and save everything we hold dear to us. No guy worth their sperm count doesn't have that basic drive to do something important like that.

Then, they grow a little older, and go "man... that was kind of silly..." and they move on, quietly. But - the guys leading the charge have their money - so they are happy.


Anytime someone decides to investigate, it normally means that person has no preconceptions, or would not be investigating anything. If something appears to be drastically illogical/invalid, why shouldn't someone investigate it?


True - but what if investigation turns up that your suspicions that it was illogical/invalid are, themselves, illogical/invalid? Thus, it makes your work "for nothing".... could you accept that?


Exactly what concept would that be?


The concept of "what happens - happens, and is supposed to happen according to the dynamics of the universe. Your job is to figure out why it happens."



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Oh puhleezze. The official story began shortly after the second jet impact.

The media identified Osama bin Laden etc almost immediatley and we have been dealing with that "fact" ever since.

The MSM has pounded this narrative into our .s since day one and it continues to this day.

In there book re 911 comission report Hamilton and Kean admit they were lied to by the DOD and considered filing charges. But "Mr Sincere" Lee Hamilton decided it was time to move on. Disgusting.

Nist report is based on fraudulent data and to this day we await the official report re WTC7.

I cannot seriously consider a comment that there is no official story this is disingenious at best or the equilvalent of mesmerized zombie speak.

American citizens in a droning tone "Terrorists attacked us we must kill the terrorists...must kill the terrorists...must kill the terrorists..."



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:44 AM
link   
To: NewWorldOver

Hey, what happened to your warn???

I got my first strike today, just wondering if you protested the warn and won, or if they took it off because you've been good little boy for a couple of days.




[edit on 16-12-2007 by Conundrum04]

[edit on 16-12-2007 by Conundrum04]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

Originally posted by OrionStars
My point was fire, particularly kerosene fires, do not cause steel and concrete high rises to collapse into their own footprints. Nor does a 767 hit, in a building specifically designed to withstand the impact of a 707, drop into its own footprint. Nor will a combination of the two particularly in only 56 minutes for one building (hit second), and 1 hour and 42 minutes for the other (hit first).



Originally posted by Taxi-Driver

How can you be so sure? Was this not an UNPRECEDENTED event?


Yes, planes slamming into the WTC was indeed unprecedented, but raging fire for at least three hours on 6 floors, at the lower level in WTC 1, was not. The 1975 fire caused no structural damage to WTC 1, not even in the core where it spread from the 11th floor where it started, down to the 9th and up to the 14th floors. Firemen there described the fire as a blowtorch type fire. That is a hotter fire than any kerosene fire. If kerosene has never collapsed any other steel and concrete structures, why would kerosene suddenly collapse the first ever in the history of steel and concrete buildings, the WTC buildings? Fires are certainly not unprecedented in steel and concrete buildings, not even kerosene fires.

911research.wtc7.net...

Fires collapsing steel buildings is unprecedented. If you have validation to the contrary, please present it.


Besides the Madrid tower DID have structural failure in the steel only portion of that building.. you can see it here:


Where was there a statement there was no structural failure on the building in Madrid? I stated it did not collapse due to fire. I did not state the building was not damaged.

Structural failure does not automatically mean total collapse is inevitable for any building. The Madrid building never collapsed from fire.

whatreallyhappened.com...

This is an easy physics experiment to try at home. Put some heavy padding on the floor. Keep the lower half of your body upright, and lean the top half in any direction you choose. Mark a place where both knees should land as a single footprint no longer or wider than both your knees together. Drop straight down on your into the boundaries of the single pre-marked footprint. Will you land upright in a top half lean position without toppling over? Or will you attempt not to loose balance, any way possible, to keep from toppling over? Will any part of the body naturally not be able to land in the single pre-marked footprint? If the top half of the body broke from the bottom half, where would the top half land?

Then keep the entire body totally erect and try it again.

What would be the difference effects occurring between experiments and why?

The only difference between you trying those experiments, and of same type circumstances occurring to a building, is that buildings don't know how to catch their balance or upright themselves, when any parts of the buildings are thrown off balance.



Incorrect physics..though.


Exactly what is incorrect? Whatever it is, please use physics to explain why.

[quoteI posted this picture on another thread..What it does, is show how the WTC towers were NOT dense, fort-like, or build as solid as a mining truck...afterall who wants to have their corporate office in a frigging bulwark?


I am not certain what your point is. However, this is what the twin towers actually looked like during construction:

911research.wtc7.net...


These were some big-assed planes going at a very high rate of speed... to think they didn't damage the buildings is ..well, a bit unbelievable. The aircraft's impact was quite explosive as anyone could see. The resulting fires *caused* by the jet fuel were widespread over several floors.


I did not say planes do not damage buildings when slamming into them. I stated planes were not going to collapse the WTC towers, and certainly would not send them collapsing into themselves to land in their own footprints nor would any plane's burning fuel. There was nothing flammable to set on fire out close to center cores. So how was a kerosene fire going to become hot enough to compromise the center core beams? There was no carpeting. The floor were steel, concrete and marble, granite, or ceramic tile, except possibly in some offices, dining areas, etc. The trusses attached to the core beams had bolts. If the floors dropped, the bolts would shear off from the center core beams from the weight and mass of dropping floor or floors above. Provided any floors were compromised on the center core side, and there is no valid evidence that happened.



Now, when you have dehabilitated or very damaged support members in a structure the load has to be shifted to another means of support for the structure to remain standing, yes?...If the remaining supports are weakened by uncontrolled fire *Plus* bearing that additional load from the original damage...it would make a hellovalot more sense for that to be the cause of collapse than a legion of supa-sekrit goons planting bombs all over the busiest area of the busiest city in the world..no? it might be a good plot for a Die Hard movie..but c'mon.


That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
The thing is 911 truthseekers come up with the dumbest theories that it totally discredit everything else they try to prove. It's like listsening to a crazy person, it makes no sense. And when they are proven wrong, they make an excuse and jump to something else. It's like talking to a childish brat. Try sticking to the same story a maybe more people would listen. And most of all, try providing proof. Not a stupid video that was made by amatures that tries to twist every word someone says to prove their point.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   
If the buildings had explosive then why didn't the building callaspes from the bottom up? Why did the building callaspes from the impact area? Pretty good aiming if the plane can hit the floor with the explosive if u ask me.

Oh but WTC 7 callaspe by itself!

Yea, I guess u miss in video with a giant hole in WTC 7 from the falling debris from the twin towers. And I guess u didn't see the video when a on site fireman said that WTC 7 was evacuated and is going to callaspe anytime now because it was leaning sideways. How come this wasn't on loosechange?

Oh but it fell faster then the freefall rate!

Umm no, the building actually took 13 secs to fall, not 6 secs. I guess the loosechange decided to cut the video short to prove their point.

Well there were no debris at the pentagon crash!

I guess u fell to look up the pictures with the plane engine, passengers sets and debris both in side the walls and scater all over the fields.

Bah bah bah. I can go on forever, but the 911 conspiracy theorists can too and this will never end, so I'm outies.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

Originally posted by OrionStars
It makes life easier for who? Bigots? Because it certainly doesn't make life easier for those baselessly insulted as a group.


See, you just lumped me into the category of "biggot" "neocon". Whoopdeedoo. Am I supposed to be insulted and take you off of my buddy list, now? You see a group of kids walking down the street with pants hanging around their ankles... what is your thought? "silly ganster wannabees" - most likely. What do you think when you see a girl with pale skin, hair as black as night, and wearing black, dark, or leather clothing? - you likely place them in the 'goth' category.


Actually, I asked you if I should consider you a bigot based on your own words. That is not the same as calling you a bigot. The following is what I did write in full context:

“It makes life easier for who? Bigots? Because it certainly doesn't make life easier for those baselessly insulted as a group. I highly suspect the word "truther" is a neoconservative creation. Do you have a problem with me grouping you with neocons and calling you that, because you enjoy using their insulting words to make your life easier? Bigots definitely rely on hardset pre-conceived notions.”



We do similar things online - we group people into a general category so we can keep things on an operational level. Much like you have a file for "pictures" on your computer. You can put all of those pictures that folder, directly, and search through all of them, individually - or, you can begin to lump them into general categories as the folder (or subfolder) population requires.


I have no idea what relevance grouping pictures together on the Internet has to do with baselessly grouping actual people, and acting the bigot toward them.



You simply don't get it. Your brother gets murdered in your house. Do you start launching a criminal investigation on your own family, or do you start launching an investigation into your own security systems (if present) and see where/how they failed to prevent this from ever occurring? And do you first start looking at potential suspects outside of your home, or inside?


And the above has exactly what relevance to the criminal activity of 9/11?

I cut the rest of your post for additional lack of relevance to 9/11. Can you please stay on topic and keep it relevant?



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   
I was doing my best at reading your sloppy quote job...

Anyway..Yawn... You want to look at everything as not related.

(i.e)
The plane's impact, the plane's structural damage, the kerosene fireball, the resulting NON kerosene fires that were UNCONTROLLED.

And you want to compare that with the Madrid tower...that partially collapsed. What part collapsed? The STEEL part. The concrete core and lower sections did not collapse.

So what is the most logical deduction? BOMBS! Of course. Bombs planted by our own goofy-assed gubment' BWAHAHAH!

Can you imagine how bad our federal government would skrew-up an operation like this? Or even our military? Like they would just up and kill you.. sheeze.

Do you remember watching our invasion of Bagdad? it was supposed to be "shock and Awe" right? Were you like me just sitting there waiting for that stupid palace to go down...I turned the TV off after about 3 hours of pedestrian pyrotechnics. Don't you think they wouldhave used this borglike stealth to thermate the bejesusbellz out of that palace...or whatever sekrit beam weapon du jour you "truthers' are touting these days.

Still I contend the USA never needed some huge stunt like 9/11 in the first place. The US:

could have still usurped the Taliban (sanctions were in place)

Policy makers could have still passed the Patriot act. albeit with some revisions (and they are a coming)

The US still could have invaded Iraq due to the WMD's debocle and Saddams knack for flipping off the world.

Look at Panama or Bosnia as examples of how the US doesn't need stupid risk to move forward.. No one asked you if it was OK to Invade Panama? Me either yet we landed MORE troops , flew more sortee's and did it against the wishes of the UN.

Did anyone care when we fired off over 100 cruise missles into Afganistan in 1998? No? So why this big production? Why all the unecessary risk? If any of these"boogiemen"-would-be-conspirators were found out they would rot in prison at best..be put to death at worse. Kinda cuts into those fishing and hunting trips wouldn't you say?

Only people with nothing to lose are that reckless.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Actually, I asked you if I should consider you a bigot based on your own words. That is not the same as calling you a bigot. The following is what I did write in full context:


Please, do explain how I have been a "bigot" to you. However, if you want to get into character assassinations, I could start screaming that it is you wo believes himself too important to read very plain and obvious metaphors used to demonstrate a principle - which answer, quite clearly, the questions you ask.


I have no idea what relevance grouping pictures together on the Internet has to do with baselessly grouping actual people, and acting the bigot toward them.


This was quite clear in the metaphor. You group things into general categories so you can easily transition from global and analytical perspectives in a functional manner. If you save pictures of your cat under the folder My Pictures/Cats/Fluffy/ you don't have to look through every picture of every other cat you have to find what you want. You first want to find pictures - so you go to that file. You then want your cat, etc.

When I see you on the street, I begin classifying you so that I can better remember who you are. You have black hair, (if you do), you take a liking to this type of music - etc. So, when I encounter that person, I can quickly access all of the sub-characteristics of that person without getting them confused with someone else.

Understand?



And the above has exactly what relevance to the criminal activity of 9/11?

I cut the rest of your post for additional lack of relevance to 9/11. Can you please stay on topic and keep it relevant?


Honestly... I hate to be blunt... but this is where I have to say "rectal-cranial assimilation makes one's own voice much louder than anyone else's."

Stop. Go back. And read what I said again. Compare the two.

I'll teach you how to read metaphors.

"Someone just murdered your brother." (Someone just attacked your own country) - "Do you rush to accuse your family?" (Do you rush to accuse your countrymen and government?).

That should get you started. If it doesn't... then you and I really have nothing further to discuss - as I frequently use metaphors to illustrate a point. If you fail to grasp such simple methods of communication - then we have what is known as a "communication barrier". It will only frustrate us both to try and communicate with each other further if this is the case. Thus - if it is - I propose we just go a., get our guns, and shoot at each other to see who is right.

Now, if you decided to continue - let me elaborate on the aforementioned point of "rushing to accuse one's own government."

It is quite obvious that a 'crime was committed.' However; within the government, investigations are not like a police investigation. Even when the FBI is involved. The objective is to investigate and find out why the security we had failed, and launch a criminal investigation on individuals suspected of critically failing at their duties - or intentionally failing at their duties.

And this is your "ace in the hole" by logical standpoints. On one hand - if the FBI did launch an investigation - and supported the "official story" - then they are simply part of the cover-up, no? And if they launch a criminal investigation and find anything suspect - it's simply proof of your own theory, right?

That is what I meant by predispositions.

I'm telling you - the government and its agencies are disorganized. It's gotten better since 9/11 because we realized we dropped the ball - but it's part of the nature of the beast. An investigation was done - and that was the cause that was found - the CIA and FBI were not communicating well - information was tucked away that could have/should have been passed up the chain of command. A few people probably made some poor judgment calls along the way.

But, don't take this personally, I'm speaking from experience in these debates, I highly doubt you will be content until the FBI were to launch some sort of criminal investigation into the matter and bring up 98% of our government offices under charges of Treason.

Ever thought that might be the plan behind the 9/11 "truth" movement? You could just be being used as someone's pawn in their rise to power through causing distrust in the current governmental system, instigating social instability... and eventually leading to armed conflict (among a number of other reasons people would have for an armed rebellion). And who would you trust after the dust settled? The people who spear.ed this concept.

The wheels turn both ways, you know. The government isn't the only group of people looking for power. You don't have to be paranoid about everything - but keep your . up - keep tabs on your leaders.

Which is the greater evil, though? If the 9/11 "Truth" movement is a quest for power - is it worse to go along with the "official lie" (as you put it)... or to further the agenda of an influential public speaker?

I really want you to consider that concept, right there. Do they have you so busy looking at the past that they can lead you into their (not your) future?

Edited to fix quote tags.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by Aim64C]

[edit on 16-12-2007 by Aim64C]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Can you imagine how bad our federal government would skrew-up an operation like this? Or even our military? Like they would just up and kill you.. sheeze.


Ok your arguments were valid until you 'said' that. Then it became totally absurd. The logic:
Our 'gubment' consists of hundreds of thousands of people in bureaucracies, therefore if criminal contral-freak elements within said 'gubment' then that means the feasibility of proposed operation would be subject to the ineffecienices and clumbsiness of said institutions.
What kind of fallacy did you commit in that example?



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Can you imagine how bad our federal government would skrew-up an operation like this? Or even our military? Like they would just up and kill you.. sheeze.


Ok your arguments were valid until you 'said' that. Then it became totally absurd. The logic:
Our 'gubment' consists of hundreds of thousands of people in bureaucracies, therefore if criminal contral-freak elements within said 'gubment' then that means the feasibility of proposed operation would be subject to the ineffecienices and clumbsiness of said institutions.
What kind of fallacy did you commit in that example?


Reality, that's the "fallacy".

If it was government sanctioned - all of them HAD to be in on it, or whomever uncovered the small sect responsible would have done crucified them all and declared himself the political messiah.

But.. there again... what's to say that the people responsible for instigating the 9/11 "Truth" movement couldn't have conspired with a small group of people to set up these attacks? Think about it. They could stand to gain a lot of money from marketing videos, shirts, mugs, key-chains, etc. They also could stand to gain political power, if their movement goes far enough.... and, more importantly, they nearly have a religious cult that is willing to accuse the government of any crimes that can be conceived without requiring anything beyond circumstantial evidence.

So, what's to say someone isn't framing our government? It doesn't take a genius to know that we could fire a cruise missile at ourselves and have it all on CNN (from the launch of the missile to its impact in a residential area) and half a million terrorist groups would claim responsibility for it. So it's not like there is any shortage of suspects.

Like I was saying - the wheels turn both directions, and we can all connect the dots however we want to.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conundrum04
I got my first strike today, just wondering if you protested the warn and won, or if they took it off because you've been good little boy for a couple of days.

A red flag warn lasts for three days. After that it will disappear. I've had a couple of them myself. Try and play by the rules, as it's much easier.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
A red flag warn lasts for three days. After that it will disappear. I've had a couple of them myself. Try and play by the rules, as it's much easier.



Thanks for the info.

I'm gonna try to be good little boy from now on.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jthomas

You forgot the 9/11 Commission's mandate:


Au contraire, I did not forget about the 9/11 Commission Report. But perhaps you have your chronology out of order. The 9/11 Commission Report was done because people disagreed with the US bureaucratic "official" version. The 9/11 Commission Report resulted from hearings, resolved nothing, and presented far more questions, regarding the "official" report.


Let me quote you:

"I didn't believe what would become the "official" version from the moment WTC 1 received a gaping hole in an external wall. There was and still is not any scientific or logical reason to blindly accept any and all media reports or the "official" version."

So, it's clear, in your mind, that you wrapped up the scientific investigations done by NIST into the 9/11 Commission Report as the "official" version.



What is interesting is that you would deny any evidence exists! If, for instance, you are unaware of the massive evidence collected by the NIST investigation, one that was made up of a majority of independent experts in various fields, then you ought to take time to read the reports.



Where did I deny the 9/11 Commission Report exists? In fact, in one of my post I mentioned the 9/11 Commission Report and called it bogus.


Well, again, I am speaking of NIST and you just wrap the NIST report up into the 9/11 Commission Report.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by amfirst
 


The truthers answer to the Pentagon debris, was that men in black suits brought the debris in after the fact, and planted it. Of course nobody noticed this at the time, or they were paid to keep quiet about it.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by amfirst
 


The truthers answer to the Pentagon debris, was that men in black suits brought the debris in after the fact, and planted it. Of course nobody noticed this at the time, or they were paid to keep quiet about it.


Yeah, it must have happend that way.

One of the black men had a xx-ton heavy B757 nose landing-gear hidden under his black jacket, and just sort of happend to drop it in the middle of the debris-field just before it collapsed.



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by amfirst
The thing is 911 truthseekers come up with the dumbest theories that it totally discredit everything else they try to prove. It's like listsening to a crazy person, it makes no sense. And when they are proven wrong, they make an excuse and jump to something else. It's like talking to a childish brat. Try sticking to the same story a maybe more people would listen. And most of all, try providing proof. Not a stupid video that was made by amatures that tries to twist every word someone says to prove their point.


Yet, you seem to believe not one but two 159' and some inches commercial airplanes were completely inhaled by those buildings. As if a 87' x 135' massive steel load bearing column center core, was not there, or so flimsy it was due to fall at any time. You also appear to believe that resistance does not reduce momentum thus reducing velocity. Are you under the impression the twin towers were but mere flimsy shells reaching toward the sky?



posted on Dec, 18 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Let me quote you:

"I didn't believe what would become the "official" version from the moment WTC 1 received a gaping hole in an external wall. There was and still is not any scientific or logical reason to blindly accept any and all media reports or the "official" version."

So, it's clear, in your mind, that you wrapped up the scientific investigations done by NIST into the 9/11 Commission Report as the "official" version.


That is clear to you from what I wrote? As I said, your chronology is off. The "official" version came first. Then NIST and 9/11 added more confusion to an already distorted "official" version. How do I know that? Could it be because I read them? The answer is, "Yes". I know I already explained this. So you are deliberately harassing again for detraction purposes. What is it about what I discuss, regarding 9/11, makes you so fearful?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join