Council on Tall Buildings Chairman Comments on NIST-WTC7 Report

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Atru... not all victims were identified.

So how do they know who really died that day?

More guesswork?

It would have been a very convenient way for someone to fake their own death and have their family claim life insurance.

reply to post by tezzajw


You're right. And many did fake it to obtain money from the September 11th victims compensation fund.

Plenty of scum bags in the world Tezz.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
You're right. And many did fake it to obtain money from the September 11th victims compensation fund.

So wouldn't that mean the officil story is wrong then about all the passengers being IDed?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So wouldn't that mean the officil story is wrong then about all the passengers being IDed?

It depends who you ask, Ultima.

Ask a truther and we'll say that sure the story is wrong. If there were unidentified people, then how can they be identified?

Ask a believer and they'll tell you that everyone on the flight manifest died.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


No genius. Not the passengers on the flights. I was speaking of those that stated that had loved ones in the towers. Some were fraudulent.

Kind of tough to say a family member died on a plane that crashes when there is no record of them boarding the planes.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurtNo genius. Not the passengers on the flights. I was speaking of those that stated that had loved ones in the towers. Some were fraudulent. .

So that would still mean the IDs even using the new testing were incorrect.

Originally posted by tezzajw
You want to blame planes, then I'll blame boxcutters.

This is a ridiculous semantic argument. There is a causal chain between the plane impacts and the resulting destruction of the WTC complex. There is no causal chain possible between a boxcutter and the destruction of the WTC complex. The hijackers using the boxcutter yes, the boxcutter itself no.

I assume you'll try and make the same argument for the planes here, so I will attempt to head you off and tell you that once the pilots had aimed the plane correctly, there was no decision making required to cause the sequence of events we saw that day. No person had to decide to destroy the towers, it was a result of the impact of the planes. The beginning of this causal chain is the hijackers.

Show me specifically who has proven the identity of the alleged airplanes that allegedly crashed into the towers.

Is that specific enough for you?

No. In fact that is precisely as specific as the last reply you gave. I hate to be snarky and tell someone to read a dictionary but you need to give examples, what evidence, not what type of evidence.

[edit on 6-9-2008 by exponent]

Originally posted by exponent
No person had to decide to destroy the towers, it was a result of the impact of the planes. The beginning of this causal chain is the hijackers.

The hijackers used boxcutters to secure the plane, so without them, the link in the chain is broken. 911 could not have been pulled off without boxcutters. The whole WTC complex fell due to boxcutters - if you believe the official story.

No. In fact that is precisely as specific as the last reply you gave. I hate to be snarky and tell someone to read a dictionary but you need to give examples, what evidence, not what type of evidence.

You've got a lot of thinking to do, considering that you can't provide me one piece of proof that identifies the alleged planes used to allegedly smash into the towers.

If you don't know what constitutes proof, then what hope do you have to try and convince me that AA11 and UA175 smashed into the towers?

Originally posted by tezzajw
The hijackers used boxcutters to secure the plane, so without them, the link in the chain is broken. 911 could not have been pulled off without boxcutters. The whole WTC complex fell due to boxcutters - if you believe the official story.

I've already explained to you why this is not accurate. I'm not going to play any semantic games.

You've got a lot of thinking to do, considering that you can't provide me one piece of proof that identifies the alleged planes used to allegedly smash into the towers.

So far you have been unable to be specific about this proof, so how am I supposed to provide it?

If you don't know what constitutes proof, then what hope do you have to try and convince me that AA11 and UA175 smashed into the towers?

I know what constitutes proof to me. This is evidently not a universal constant however. If you want me to prove that planes impacted the towers, you have to tell me what standard of proof you will accept. I will then attempt to provide you with that level of evidence.

You cannot simply demand I prove it to you without telling me how. Your requirements may be as absurd as requiring a list of every single part of the plane serial matched to held records (something I have heard before). If this is the case then I will obviously not be trying to prove it to you, as your standards would be ludicrous.

I don't know what your standards are, which is why I am asking you to tell me. If it is so easy to determine what proof is, why can't you give me specifics?

Originally posted by exponent
I've already explained to you why this is not accurate. I'm not going to play any semantic games.

Boxcutters didn't cause WTC 7 to collapse and neither did any planes. If you read the report, allegedly, thermal expansion caused WTC 7 to collapse.

So far you have been unable to be specific about this proof, so how am I supposed to provide it?

So far you've been unable to provide any proof to identify the alleged planes that allegedly smashed into the towers.

I've read all sorts of hearsay from witness reports to DNA to wreckage, etc, yet none of it actually identifies the planes that were involved.

Originally posted by tezzajw
So far you've been unable to provide any proof to identify the alleged planes that allegedly smashed into the towers.

I have been unable to provide any proof as you refuse to detail what proof you would require. How can I fulfill a request that you haven't even detailed yet?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by tezzajw
So far you've been unable to provide any proof to identify the alleged planes that allegedly smashed into the towers.

I have been unable to provide any proof as you refuse to detail what proof you would require. How can I fulfill a request that you haven't even detailed yet?

Thanks for admitting that you can't prove the identity of the alleged planes that allegedly smashed into the towers.

That's about all I need from you today.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Thanks for admitting that you can't prove the identity of the alleged planes that allegedly smashed into the towers.

That's about all I need from you today.

This is ridiculous, I have repeatedly asked you for the evidence you require, and you have repeatedly ignored my request. To try and turn this around and say "aha! clearly YOU can't prove it!" is absolutely absurd and dishonest.

I will ask one last time.

In order to prove this to you, I must know your level of incredulity. I must know what you feel to be undeniable proof. You have completely refused to tell me despite me asking you 3 or 4 times. Because of this I cannot possibly answer you.

How can you possibly think your position has any merit?

Originally posted by exponent

How can you possibly think your position has any merit?

Just read his signature:

Disclaimer: The troll in me

Pretty much explains it all.......

Originally posted by exponent
In order to prove this to you, I must know your level of incredulity. I must know what you feel to be undeniable proof.

Well the best evidence would be the FBI crime scene reports, but since they have not been released. The next best thing would be the NTSB reports matching parts to the planes.




[edit on 7-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by exponent
How can you possibly think your position has any merit?

Whn you can't prove that AA11 or UA175 smashed into the towers, my questions have merit.

Please, I invite you to prove to me that the planes which allegedly smashed into the towers were AA11 and UA175. No hearsay, just proof.

Jeez, the age of Aquarius can't get here soon enough.

I'm really tired of this crap. I long for the days of being completely stupid and uninformed. Please lord, send me back to the days when I was 15, dumb as s@#T and horny as hell.

LORD, I demand that you take the knowledge I possess now and cast it into the molten steel of flowing hell.

Lord, oh lord!

In all seriousness, ignorance is truly bliss.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Atru... not all victims were identified.

So how do they know who really died that day?

More guesswork?

It would have been a very convenient way for someone to fake their own death and have their family claim life insurance.

You know, all small rubble from WTC was moved by barges to Staten Island landfill where it was put on conveyer belts and a number of workers looked for anything that can look as human remains. And amazingly they did find and subsequently identified almost every victim of the attack. So it's extremely unlikely that anyone can fake own death as a result of 911.

My question is:
If DNA was found, but the planes were in a fireball that could melt reinforced steel and ultimately cause implosion of such structures, I would argue that in such a "furnace", no DNA could be retrieved for it would have been burnt beyond crisp.

So, why should I believe DNA was found at a dump on an island in debris from a burnt and destroyed building miles away?

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
My question is:
If DNA was found, but the planes were in a fireball that could melt reinforced steel

there is mistake #1. Bolding mine