9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by gmac1000

where did you prove this?? I disagree

I have proven it twice in last post. I will be posting more to suport what i post.



[edit on 18-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

You are posting Opinion not facts nor Proof...

Allthough your opinion and your support of whatever it is you are claiming you have "proved" it still remains your opinion and not Proof..


I doubt there is anything but Opinions on this site aswell as others...


If seeing is believeing Where does the wind fit into all of this...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
So...when that site said "a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence", they were what....lying?

No, it depends on the evidence, like the second example i showed about blood evidence.

Hold on....

A lack of evidence depends on the evidence? WTF???

If there is evidence, then there is no lack of evidence.

How can "lack of evidence" depend on the evidence?

This is getting hilarious...you can keep trying though

Originally posted by Spaxz
reply to post by jfj123

 

So Op have you done your research on Building 7 ? Cause everyone who argues the point that the offical report is correct won't touch this question.

No yet. My apologies. I haven't forgotten about your question and I will answer it as soon as I can.

People from alot of nations died in those attacks and each country should have been allowed to do there own investigation. The only reason they weren't allowed is cause there's something to hide, what i don't know.

I am not surprised that foreign governments were not allowed to bring agents to US soil and given free reign to perform their own investigations. They would need access to possibly classified material, individuals to interview, etc... I can see how this would quickly cause problems such as contamination of evidence, witness tampering etc..

Originally posted by Spaxz
reply to post by jfj123

 

So Op have you done your research on Building 7 ? Cause everyone who argues the point that the offical report is correct won't touch this question.

Please anyone answer this question! Cause just one fallacy in the report should trigger a new investigation by a third party...say like Japan.

People from alot of nations died in those attacks and each country should have been allowed to do there own investigation. The only reason they weren't allowed is cause there's something to hide, what i don't know.

youtube.com...

The Youtube Video button wouldn't work so i just copied and pasted it on here. Please watch and explain why there not allowed to investigate there own civilian deaths

Just look at what the Owner Larry Silverstein said caused the collapse of building 7 what a load of rubbish ...Then BBC news reported it collapsing 15 -20 mins before it collapsed and the repoter was standing infront of it....


But withh the shock and awe of it all...do we remember any flaws on that day....thank the higher ups for video streaming and the internet the worst yet greatest thing ever!!

So have you done any research on Building 7 ? It seems like everyone who choses that the offical report is the truth won't touch this question.

Please anyone answer this question!!!!!

There were alot of people from different countries who died in the attacks. Why aren't these countries allowed to investigate, is it because they might find out something that they shouldn't.

I believe the whole Building 7 collapse brings a fallacy to the report, begging for a new investigation by a third pary. Why don't we let Japan do an investigation they seem to have alittle bit of an IQ left to know something is not right.

I strongly recommend watching all 8 clips, but ofcoarse people won't, cause they are the ones who want to live in ignorance.

I can't get the Youtube Video button on my Post Reply to work so i'm just going to copy and paste it here, if it worked for someone else please post it.

youtube.com...

Spaxz
As a follow up, the NIST's final report for WTC building 7 has not been complete yet.

The final report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 was issued on Oct. 26, 2005. The investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 will be completed in 2008.

www.nist.gov...

I'm looking at getting an interim report and will let you know what I find.

Originally posted by jfj123
Spaxz
As a follow up, the NIST's final report for WTC building 7 has not been complete yet.

The final report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 was issued on Oct. 26, 2005. The investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 will be completed in 2008.

www.nist.gov...

I'm looking at getting an interim report and will let you know what I find.

That would be great ty..

Sorry internet crashed and thought the post didn't make it up there sorry about the double post.

Stupid computer crash created stupid double post !! DOH!!!

[edit on 18-3-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by plasmacutter
in response to the guy that said th cutt was made with a welder in order for it to be cutt by a welder would have to be done fromm the inside of the beam a troch blows the slag away from the top of the plate u r cuttin so acording to u some one was standing inside the beam dout it,the slag (if someone was cutting from the outside of the beam the slag would be along the inside sorry thats gravity a cutting torch heats metal then u (the cutter operating the torch blows air to the molten metal and the blows the molten metal away, so no i wasnt sutt from the outside with a torch sorry

Perhaps the most awesome run-on sentence I've ever seen !! Congratulations for that......

Anyhow, It's obvious that not only have you never done any demo, but you've never cut down any trees. So how DO you cut down a tree? Make a back cut, so that the apex of the back cut forms a hinge, then angle cut the back side so that it falls in the direction of the backcut.

So how would you drop a column standing 20-30' in the air? No way to backcut that. So you use 1 side of the square column as your hinge. You cut the other 3 sides with a torch. That's how you get your slag on the inside. You push the column over with a backhoe or excavator towards the hinge side. This safely guides the column into the spot you want it to drop. When it's on the ground, you cut the hinge from the now exposed INSIDE of the column. That gives you the slag on the outside that seems to confound you.

It's all very simple to explain.......

Originally posted by Disclosed
If there is evidence, then there is no lack of evidence.

Yes, as stated a lack of evidence can be used as evidence and the type of evidence plays a big part in it.

www.usatoday.com...

Common themes in their statements thus far: evidence, specifically the lack of it, and witnesses, specifically their lack of credibility.

members.tripod.com...

Reasonable Doubt: A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Originally posted by jfj123
Spaxz
As a follow up, the NIST's final report for WTC building 7 has not been complete yet.

How can NIST do a final report on Building 7 when they did not recover any steel from buidling 7 to test ?

[edit on 18-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

I searched Youtube to find something that De-bunks us conspirators, and this is what i found.

youtube.com...

There explianation for the early report by BBC on the collapse of Building 7 was # Happens! And the excuse for the collapse of a building full of important government offices and the mayor's emergency bunker, was it was built bad. Come On.

Oh and anyone who questions 9/11 hates america or is un-american. Hello other nations had people die in the attacks they have a right to question what happened when there are so many holes.

Also just like the Enron scandel, the report on building 7 will be forgotten when the next big attack happens.

to gmac do i think in my opion based the facts that i have found versus what has been reported and from my own metal working i would say this but im just spitballing here , that yes explosives where used to control the known (or i should say pre warned attack ) so as to cause the least amount of damage and death but still wanting to make their point ,silerstien got his insurance so he made out bush got his war legacy and his oil buds got thier pipeline and all the contractors made bank rebuilding and munitions made a good lick to.but i state i dont think our normal not in the know gov had anything to do with it i think the nwo agenda just took over the who thing to make sure it did what it suposed to have done thats why it was so confusing that day chaos out of order we all where confused but it looks they got what they wanted

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

Originally posted by gmac1000
So that leaves expolsives that must of been pre arranged..Maybe during the first ever WTC power down 3 weeks prior to the collapes?:?

You ARE aware that the power down has been reported by 1 person only?

And that was for only 1 tower?

And was for AT BEST for not even for 2 days?

And DID NOT include the whole building?

And that there are scans of tickets to the WOW for noon Saturday in the tower that Forbes worked in, on the day he says there wouldn't be power to run the restaurant?

And DID NOT include 7?

At best, while Scott Forbes' testimony can be called evidence, it's pretty weak eveidence of a CD. Matter of fact, I'd be hard pressed to even call it decent evidence for a power down.

i believe building 7 was being done while everyone else was running away or durning, it was a fortafied build with some beams stronger than wtcs, which is why it was probably used to as a control center probably why it didnt go down till 5:20 (when all others went down or got damaged at the time of collapse)that evening but im just saying . As for the towers normal every day construction could allow blasting chord to be run under floors it was trusses, very easy to run wire all under each floor without raising to many ? And even could have been set by rf triggers. But what ever im just saying ,its the bomb sniffing dog that where removed durning some constrution that i would question not the powering down tho a power down would have made it easyer, but blasting chord to the lamen would look like cat 5 wire for data most would not have questiond anyone with spools of wire as alot of udates where going on all the time , i think silerstein got out of doining 900,000,000 million in updating the asbestose that has made alot sick im just saying alot dosent add up and yet i may not be all that smart but i do know for a fact what kind of energy ins needed to reduce anyamount of 4 inch thick plate to molten slag thats all im saying ,
In response to whodnnit! as earlyer i said sorry for spelling and punctuation no i am not a demo guy and no in not a lumberjack (wow those guys are crazy swinging from cables and crap have u seen the history channle show ax men nice show) ,But from what i have seen the demo guys call it walking when enough beams are cut the building walks in the direction of the cutt. So i guess i kinda know what u r saying but the facts remains the rubble in front of the beam in question would have made to difacult, did u see how high the top of the beam is to the ground? if u did u would realize theree is no way to make that cutt during clean up with out help from a boom truck u wouldnt do that cutt on an extension ladder , and i dont see the top of the beam anywhere close and there still would be the loader or fork lift or back ho and lines all around . or did they just cutt that beam and then decide to move all the cutting gear and support equipment somewhere else?it takes a few mins to set up clean up gear exspecialy loaders and torches and such , i see no heat blankets to keep sparks of of injured people or recue workers ,or did they just didnt care about flying sparks from the cutters??to much rubble to be cutt by a person at that moment or befor, The pic was taken after the beam has been cutt we both agree dont we on that? so if thats the case wheres the gear??i just cant see them cutting just that beam then moveing the gear out of the way to take the pic

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 18-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

This may seem ultra simple and thoroughly played out in the 9/11 arena, but to ME building world trade center seven falling the way it did, and the us govt trying to convince the world that the best possible footage of the pentagon strike is similar to that of a 6 dollar Barbie web cam from wall mart. The simple fact that they have convinced so many people that they don't have satellite footage of the event and the fact that they have convinced you that the pentagon (i don't have to go over what the pentagon is to the US) is surveiled on one side entirely by this one Barbie camera that doesn't even take video..it takes grainy still shots.

The fact the govt have been able to convince people that the pentagon isn't under 24 surveillance from hundreds of different angles is a true testament to how dumbed down the world is.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Spaxz
As a follow up, the NIST's final report for WTC building 7 has not been complete yet.

How can NIST do a final report on Building 7 when they did not recover any steel from buidling 7 to test ?

[edit on 18-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Assuming what you're saying is true, why not ask them. I don't work for the NIST and cannot presume to know the intricacies of a huge investigation such as this without filed reports.

Here is some info from the NIST's interim report from June 2004.

Collapse of WTC 7 – Working Hypothesis

NIST is interested in determining why and how the 47-story WTC 7 building, a more typical tall building, collapsed even though it was not directly hit by an aircraft.

The NIST investigation team has formulated the following chronological sequence of major events leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7:

* An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet.
* Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse.
* Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in the disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

The working hypothesis is consistent with all evidence currently held by NIST, including photographs and videos, eyewitness accounts and emergency communication records.

Based on a review of the fuel system for emergency power in WTC 7, Floor 5 – which did not have any exterior windows and contained the only pressurized fuel distribution system on the south, west and north floor areas – is considered a possible fire initiation location, subject to further data and/or analysis that improve knowledge of fire conditions in this area.

www.nist.gov...

Just wanted to post a bit of info regarding wtc 7 to get things started.
Hopefully this helps.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Why would you link this site then:

www.fallacyfiles.org...

Exposition:
An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

That was your site that you linked...so you must believe the data from there if you linked that site in the 1st place. Are you now saying that site is unreliable, and cannot be used? Are you retracting the information you pulled from there?