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.

 

What if a new investigation reveals the same as the first?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 



We got caught with our pants around our ankles.


That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard yet! You want us to believe that the United States of America, the most powerful nation in the world, the riches Nation in the world the highest most advances technical military power in the world with the best funded government in the world, and the best top secrets worldwide CIA spy network in the world. You want us to believe a third world country thousands of miles away defeated and penetrated the most highly secured structures that our government spend millions of dollars every years to protect. Where is the logic in your statement? You want us to believe that the United States government and our powerful military are ignorant to the fact that we didn’t know we had an enemy called Al-Qaeda that could attack the United States. Hey swampy, I guess you never read any of the CIA reports that have been released years ago where the CIA knew we had a common enemy even in the Clinton administration knew, where have you been? The only part of our government that was caught with their pants down, is when they couldn’t keep their lies straight.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


I don’t know where you worked at, but we had fuelers who did nothing but run around all night long ballast fueling aircraft. There was not enough time in the morning to do anything but do uplifts. We almost never defueled anything, they would have rather left something off the plane before they took a delay for defueling. I have seen aircraft leave with so much fuel on them that it was splashing out the wing vents when the aircraft hit a bump on the taxiway.


On turn flights we would usually nearly top off the wings, and the pilots would almost always ask for a 2K uplift. It was so common that we would not even disconnect the truck until we got our uplift call on the radio. If they had to make an emergency landing, they would have to dump fuel in air to hit landing weight.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
or
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)
Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity
Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7
Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.
Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But the "collapse" proceeded "through" the lower stories of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower stories had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Both tower collapsed in roughly 10 seconds.

Link

[edit on 7/15/2009 by TheAntiHero420]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
So, I note the question in the OP was "What if a new investigation reveals the same as the first"

I think this thread's replies from truthers straightens that out quite well:

Originally posted by C-JEAN
If the new investigation is WELL made, HONESTLY made, made by
the RIGHT persons, the results WILL NOT be the same.


Originally posted by bsbray11
There is a reason people want a new investigation.

If we get the same crap then something is obviously wrong.


So if the investigation doesn't agree with you, there's something wrong with the investigation.

Some truthers will never be convinced, even if they get a new investigation. What a waste of money that investigation would be in that case, something I have stated repeatedly.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 

Halleluiah….
You have acquired the holy grail of the truth movement…
The whole thing was a scam started by a few people to make money, and they will never let it die. They turned it into a religion, and spend their time now trying to win new converts, getting in other peoples faces, and selling study material.
Sound like a cult?
You got it…



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


If you say so.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Sound like a cult?
You got it…


Let's be fair here. There are some truthers for which this is barely more than a money making exercise. Pilots For Truth would be one of the organisations I am not particularly happy with. I have yet to see them do anything substantial to advocate their position, and yet they have run money drives for new offices. New offices for what?

Ae911truth is another candidate, with a bewilderingly wide array of quite expensive finance options, which seem designed only to pay Richard Gage to travel the world and speak at conferences full of people who already believe him. At least he had a stand at the AIA convention but when the returns from that were dismal it seems they barely even noticed.

Despite this, I fervently believe that there are many people on this site that are simply wishing to learn more about the events. Many of them have great hatred of George Bush and similar politicians, and I can't fault them for this. Believing that Bush et al were behind the attacks is easy, and it fits with their existing hatred ala Confirmation Bias. It can take a lot of evidence to realise you're wrong in this case, but it does not mean you are closed minded or ignorant.

I think the best question to ask when someone states they demand a new investigation, is "where are you raising funds for it and how far have you gotten"?

Despite all the new office funds, the lecture tour funds, the DVD sales, the signed poster sales etc etc I have yet to see a "911 new investigation fund" that has achieved any significance whatsoever.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



Despite this, I fervently believe that there are many people on this site that are simply wishing to learn more about the events. Many of them have great hatred of George Bush and similar politicians, and I can't fault them for this. Believing that Bush et al were behind the attacks is easy, and it fits with their existing hatred ala Confirmation Bias. It can take a lot of evidence to realise you're wrong in this case, but it does not mean you are closed minded or ignorant.


Do you ever get tired of repeating your same old tired rant over and over? This thread is not about what you think TRUTHERS are or what they THINK or whom you think they are angry with, because you don’t know.


Despite all the new office funds, the lecture tour funds, the DVD sales, the signed poster sales etc etc I have yet to see a "911 new investigation fund" that has achieved any significance whatsoever.


If you think most 911 truthers stand behind your sad uninformed comment in the above statement I got News for you, they don’t. I think it is pathetic that some of the OS believers have resulted into attacking and ridiculing instead of presenting any evidences to prove the OS is true. Funny, how most of the people who do all these nasty insulting and ridiculing are mostly the OS supporters. One has to wonder?

[edit on 15-7-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Truthers will never be happy with anything less. Their minds are already made up, and there is no arguing logic, fact, or anything else with them.

Maybe because we have logic and fact on our side? Since 3 WTC buildings collapsed through the greatest resistance at or near free-fall speed (which is an oxymoron in itself), and credible first responders saw explosions and flashes going up, down and around the towers, then its safe to logically assume the buildings were brought down with explosives.

Fire cannot do this:




If fire could do the above, then demo companies would save loads of money by not having to buy explosives or pay a large team to prep a building and set the explosives.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. If the buildings fell like controlled demolition, had explosions and flashes like a controlled demolition, then it's likely a controlled demolition. There's not a single thing you can say factually or logically to counter that, nor can you find a single building collapse that exhibits the same characteristics of a controlled demolition, but not be a controlled demolition.



Originally posted by defcon5
I wish they would just shut down the 911 forum on this site

This from someone who calls themself a "Skeptic Extraordinaire". You're no "Skeptic Extraordinaire" with that type of mentality. This is a conspiracy website discussing every conspiracy imaginable, including 9/11. Just because you and others like you can't come to terms with the possiblility that certain members of your government had a hand in orchestrating and carrying out 9/11, doesn't mean 9/11 discussion forums need to be closed.



Originally posted by defcon5
anyone who opposes anything that they say is wolf pack attacked until they give up.

That's flat-out dishonest. The mods/admins do a good job at keeping the peace in this forum. If you have a problem with the way the mods/admins deal with people in this forum, you should take it up with SkepticOverlord or one of the other owners. Also, if you feel you or someone else is being "wolf-pack attacked", there is this button called the "ALERT" button and the mod/admin team deals with people who attack others very quickly and swiftly.

But, I think you're just making excuses as to why you can't debunk our facts or logic, but that's okay. Most people will see right through the excuses.



Originally posted by defcon5
they will not accept any verdict but the one they have already made up in their minds.

In a court of law, there are basically 3 types of evidence:

1.) Physical
2.) Audio/Video
3.) Witness testimony

For a short breakdown of the evidence in each catagory, check out my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Even esdad71, who claims to have scored high on his LSAT (I highly doubt it) couldn't debunk the evidence. And if you want more evidence that nobody has been able to debunk, look here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by defcon5
To be honest, I am so sick of this topic

Yet you and others like you who have said the same thing continue to come to this part of the forum, read the threads and waste time commenting. You'd think you'd just stay away from the 9/11 forums. Maybe you're not really as sick of this topic as you let on.



Originally posted by defcon5
It seems to be the Truth movement folks who have their lives and egos wrapped up in this, not me.

But yet you still come here to read the threads and post in them. So yes, you too.




Originally posted by defcon5
Believe me I have seen all the truth movements facts, and theories. Many of them are based on incorrect speculation, inaccurate facts, questionable witness testimony, and assumptions

I'm sorry, but who are you to decide what facts are accurate or not, or what witness is a questionable witness and what witness is credible? That's what the new investigation will decide.

So please, try to be more clear when you say things that it's your "opinion" that the facts are inaccurate or it's your "opinion" that the witness testimony is questionable.



Originally posted by defcon5
So those aircraft most likely had full tanks of gas, not empty ones.

And the towers were designed to sustain the impact of a fully loaded jetliner. "Fully loaded" means full weight, i.e. passengers, luggage and fuel. The WTC Construction manager even said that he believes the towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because the jetliner really does nothing to the structural integrity of the building. It doesn't get much more clear-cut than that.



Originally posted by defcon5
I don’t know where you worked at, but we had fuelers who did nothing but run around all night long ballast fueling aircraft.

I don't know where you worked at, but everwhere I look online shows that aircraft are only fueled for the flight they are scheduled for plus some reserve. Any more fuel than is needed (plus reserve) equals higher fuel costs for the airline which translates to higher ticket prices for the customer.



Originally posted by defcon5
You have acquired the holy grail of the truth movement…The whole thing was a scam started by a few people to make money

Your dishonest and completely false comment shows you have done little to no research on the 9/11 truth movement.

The truth movement was started by informed people like the news anchors that were reporting the news that day. Peter Jennings and Dan Rather made comments similar to this news anchor from CNBC:



Then there's the family members who questioned the government and demanded an investigation. Ultimately making their own documentary showing how the government lied and showing their fight in getting an investigation.

In essence, you're saying the news anchors and family members started "conspiracy theories" to make money. I don't think that will fly with educated folk.


That's why I keep a definition of "denial disorder" in my signature. Dishonesty and/or skewing of facts for one's own benefit would be caused by such a disorder.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
what will happen if the same results came back from a left wing jury, will the case then be closed?

If the new investigation is truly independent and on an international scale, rest assured the results would absolutely not be the same. There's no doubt about that. Unless, of course, you believe in the official conspiracy theory.





[edit on 15-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Ok, so let's see. First, I want to thank some of you for not derailing the thread although it was going that way. I asked a simple question and got alot of answers stating if it was done correctly it would be done right. What kind of thinking is this?

This means that as long as it fits your story it is ok but my question was, what if the same results are found? WOuld you concede and finally realize that on that day terrorists who were trained to do what they did crashed 4 planes including 2 that bought down the towers.

Remember, the commission investigation you are asking for is not to find out why the towers fell but who did it. That was the point of the commission and many of you show your ignorance when you think a new investigation will bring this to light and show why the towers fell.

Also, it was and is not NIST's job to find the final answer to why they collapsed but to find options to make sure that something like this will never happen again. Look at the new WTC 7 and the design requirements that were put in place according to NIST guidelines.

Bone-zzzzzzzzzzz....you are now boring me man, really. I do not mind when you question me as a person (LSAT) or call me a government agent(Hi MAtt!) or the other poster who believes I am not in the top 1% with my bloodline.
but I do have my answer again on how you feel. Almost seems that you feel threatened in some way and are acting out. You make me laugh out loud how you push your evidence into your breakdown

1.) Physical
2.) Audio/Video
3.) Witness testimony

So allow it all...I would love to see some of them cross examined.

There could be 7 investigations and if it did not fit your idea of what happened then you would still want another investigation until it did fit your story of what you feel is the truth. I feel that the majority of you are very narcissistic in the way you think and it borders on sociopathic.



Again, I ask a simple question and want a simple answer and an explanation. If there was another investigation, and there was no evidence found of the governments involvement, what would you do?






[edit on 15-7-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 15-7-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 15-7-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Ae911truth is another candidate, with a bewilderingly wide array of quite expensive finance options, which seem designed only to pay Richard Gage to travel the world and speak at conferences full of people who already believe him.




As a side note, traveling around to these conferences, etc, where he'd get paid per diem, hotel rental, etc, can't be considered as income, so his ex wife can't go after this money for alimony, since it isn't income.

There's a lot of sleazy angles that Gage could be playing here, from doing "the work" for free, but get cheap/free rent, etc. And just to acoid paying up.

Pretty creative.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Do you ever get tired of repeating your same old tired rant over and over? This thread is not about what you think TRUTHERS are or what they THINK or whom you think they are angry with, because you don’t know.

Actually I do know. I may not be able to tell you what you believe in, because i've paid no attention to you, but please remember that I too used to harbour some doubts about the 'official story', and the person that first got me into 911 research is one of my closest friends and could be described as a 'truther'.

This thread is about what would happen if a new investigation reached the same conclusion. I have explained what I believe would happen from the perspective of truthers. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it!


If you think most 911 truthers stand behind your sad uninformed comment in the above statement I got News for you, they don’t.

Really? Can you show me the '911 new investigation fund'?


I think it is pathetic that some of the OS believers have resulted into attacking and ridiculing instead of presenting any evidences to prove the OS is true. Funny, how most of the people who do all these nasty insulting and ridiculing are mostly the OS supporters. One has to wonder?

How ridiculous, I have been called a traitor, a coward, a shill, a plant, an idiot and many other things in my time here. Tell me, what have I called you?

The fact of the matter is that we ('debunkers' in general) have presented the facts, we have shown people where they are misinformed, and these same people have gone on to almost instantaneously repeat the same claims. I think the last thing you could accuse me of is not presenting facts.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Maybe because we have logic and fact on our side?

Bonez, both sides believe this. How you are unable to grasp this is beyond me. Do you think that we are sitting here thinking "oh well we don't have facts or logic on our side but we better post anyway!" how absurd.


Since 3 WTC buildings collapsed through the greatest resistance at or near free-fall speed

100% invented nonsense. The buildings did not collapse through the 'greatest resistance', such an approach to analysis shows your lack of understanding. The term you are using is derived from electronics, it has no applicability to physics unless you substitute it for 'the path of greatest energy'. In fact the towers collapsed through the "path" (not really a path) of least energy. Nor did they fall at 'near' free fall speed. WTC7 attained it for a very short period in its collapse, neither WTC 1 or 2 came close.

I love how truthers will repeat "near free-fall speed", an obvious climb-down from the early "free fall speed" claims, and not notice that the 'near' part completely invalidates the whole point of the claim! The original claim was that the buildings gave no resistance, so what you are in effect saying is that yes, the buildings did give resistance, but that it wasn't 'enough'. Tell me BoneZ, how slow should the buildings have fallen?


first responders saw explosions and flashes going up, down and around the towers, then its safe to logically assume the buildings were brought down with explosives.

Except the complete lack of evidence for this. "up, down and around the towers" eh? Ok, lets assume this is true for a minute, the only materials we have which would match this description are typical high explosive linear shaped charges. These charges produce in excess of 120db at a distance of several hundred metres. Can you point them out on any of the videos taken of the collapse?


If fire could do the above, then demo companies would save loads of money by not having to buy explosives or pay a large team to prep a building and set the explosives.

Right, they'd just have to spend years simulating the effects of fire on the structure beforehand, and then have to buy the fuel load to create the fire, and then be sued horrendously when their calculations are slightly off and it fails.

Sounds like an amazing plan, I wonder why nobody has used it yet.

I could go on and on, but all this is is pointless self reinforcement. BoneZ has already pointed out that he shares the same attitude as other truthers, an investigation which doesn't agree with them is not a valid investigation.

I'm sorry that you are resigned to never being able to accept 911 for what it was BoneZ, but at least you wear your bias for all to see.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, it was and is not NIST's job to find the final answer to why they collapsed but to find options to make sure that something like this will never happen again.

That's the easy part: don't let people put explosives in buildings. It's really not that difficult.



Originally posted by esdad71
I do not mind when you question me as a person (LSAT)

Had you not misspelled simple legal terms, I wouldn't have questioned you. But if you scored high on your LSAT as you claim, misspelling simple legal terms more than once makes one wonder.




Originally posted by esdad71
or call me a government agent

I've never once called you or anyone else a government agent. Please show a link that I have done as much or I'll have to point out your dishonesty.....again.



Originally posted by esdad71
You make me laugh how you push your evidence into your breakdown

I guess that's a good thing that all you can do is laugh because you nor anyone else has been able to debunk the evidence.




Originally posted by esdad71
I feel that the majority of you are very narcissistic in the way you think and it borders on sociopathic.


narcissism -
Excessive love or admiration of oneself.


sociopath -
A person who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.


Those both are the total opposite of what the 9/11 truth movement stands for and wants to accomplish. I think it's your denial mode kicking in which makes you attack us instead of the evidence, which you've not been able to debunk.

So, you might be able to imagine what type of person it makes you look like to attack others and call them names instead of sticking to the evidence. Denial disorder anyone?



Originally posted by esdad71

Again, I ask a simple question and want a simple answer and an explanation. If there was another investigation, and there was no evidence found of the governments involvement, what would you do?

And you were already told that a truly independent international investigation would not turn out the same verdict.

But to just play your game, if the same verdict came out from an international investigation, I guess we'd have to accept it and move on no matter how much we disagree. At least that would be my stance. Happy?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
You think because you can debunk CT's you can prove the OS?

This is a pathetic attempt at logic that fails miserably.

I will debate any of you anythime and absolutley own you. We will debate the OS rather than any particular CT and see how well the story holds up.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Nor did they fall at 'near' free fall speed.

Free-fall speed for the towers is 9.2 seconds. The FEMA report says the towers fell in 10 seconds. How is .8 seconds not "near" free-fall? The more realistic numbers is that the towers fell in about 15 seconds. For buildings as tall and massive as the towers, how is 15 seconds still not "near" free-fall? You're not being very honest or truthful by saying the collapse wasn't "near" free-fall.



Originally posted by exponent
Tell me BoneZ, how slow should the buildings have fallen?

They shouldn't have fallen at all considering no other steel-structured highrise has ever fallen before or after 9/11 from fires.



Originally posted by exponent
Ok, lets assume this is true for a minute, the only materials we have which would match this description are typical high explosive linear shaped charges.

That would be a logical assumption from the witness testimony, would it not? You have to ask yourself why more than one credible first responder would see the flashes or even mention the popping/exploding sounds when the flashes went off? You also have to ask yourself what reason they would have to make that up or lie about such a thing? They also noted that the flashes were going off at the lower floors to middle floors while the collapse was happening up top. In otherwords, explosives were weakening the structure below, just as is seen in most other controlled demolitions.

To deny the multiple witness testimony because of your denial and not wanting to believe the conspiracy, is basically calling the witnesses liars.



Originally posted by exponent
These charges produce in excess of 120db at a distance of several hundred metres. Can you point them out on any of the videos taken of the collapse?

Sure can. They're pointed out in a video called "9/11 Eyewitness" which is on Google Video and I also posted a link in one of my posts that I linked to above in my previous post. "9/11 Eyewitness" is recorded 2 miles away from Manhattan and all you can hear are the pre-collapse detonations and the collapse detonations.

Firefighters reported hearing a series of 10 large explosions in the south tower before collapse. In "9/11 Eyewitness", you can actually hear 9 and they are even pointed out in the video when they happen. Other firefighters say they heard 3 huge explosions in the north tower before it collapsed. Although there were more than 3, I think there are 3 that are louder than the rest, but you can also hear those explosions in "9/11 Eyewitness".

And just to be more clear, "9/11 Eyewitness" was released long before the first responder oral histories were released to the public. Wanted to make that clear before someone decided to say that the sounds in the video could have been faked to agree with firefighter testimony. In fact, the firefighter testimony to the pre-collapse explosions are corroborated by the above video.

Further, there are several documented survivors and by-standers that say they heard the slow "boom, boom, boom" detonations as both buildings collapsed.

But as far as your linear shaped charges going off, listen to the collapse sequence of all 3 building collapses in "9/11 Eyewitness". You can hear literally hundreds of explosives being detonated. To hear it even more clearly, use some good video software and slow the video down with sound to hear the separate explosives being detonated during all of the collapses.

If you do take time to study "9/11 Eyewitness", please make sure you have a subwoofer attached to your computer. It makes the low-level explosions that occurred that day much more obvious.



Originally posted by exponent
I'm sorry that you are resigned to never being able to accept 911 for what it was BoneZ, but at least you wear your bias for all to see.

Looks like I could say the same thing for you. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept 9/11 for what you think it was because buildings don't fall like this from fire:




Buildings don't exhibit plumes unless they're being brought down with explosives:




And the witness testimony: first responder, survivor and by-stander, all corroborating the explosions and flashes associated with most other controlled demolitions. Not to mention "9/11 Eyewitness" corroborating firefighter testimony to pre-collapse explosions in both towers heard over 2 miles away. All that evidence suggests the towers were brought down with explosives and not a single piece of the above evidence suggests that any of the 3 towers fell from mere fires.

So, I'm sorry that you can't see 9/11 for what it really was. Your denial and bias blinds you to the above facts and won't let you see the whole picture.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, it was and is not NIST's job to find the final answer to why they collapsed but to find options to make sure that something like this will never happen again.

That's the easy part: don't let people put explosives in buildings. It's really not that difficult.



Originally posted by esdad71
I do not mind when you question me as a person (LSAT)

Had you not misspelled simple legal terms, I wouldn't have questioned you. But if you scored high on your LSAT as you claim, misspelling simple legal terms more than once makes one wonder.




Originally posted by esdad71
or call me a government agent

I've never once called you or anyone else a government agent. Please show a link that I have done as much or I'll have to point out your dishonesty.....again.



Originally posted by esdad71
You make me laugh how you push your evidence into your breakdown

I guess that's a good thing that all you can do is laugh because you nor anyone else has been able to debunk the evidence.




Originally posted by esdad71
I feel that the majority of you are very narcissistic in the way you think and it borders on sociopathic.


narcissism -
Excessive love or admiration of oneself.


sociopath -
A person who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.


Those both are the total opposite of what the 9/11 truth movement stands for and wants to accomplish. I think it's your denial mode kicking in which makes you attack us instead of the evidence, which you've not been able to debunk.

So, you might be able to imagine what type of person it makes you look like to attack others and call them names instead of sticking to the evidence. Denial disorder anyone?



Originally posted by esdad71

Again, I ask a simple question and want a simple answer and an explanation. If there was another investigation, and there was no evidence found of the governments involvement, what would you do?

And you were already told that a truly independent international investigation would not turn out the same verdict.

But to just play your game, if the same verdict came out from an international investigation, I guess we'd have to accept it and move on no matter how much we disagree. At least that would be my stance. Happy?


Was that truly so hard? to simply answer a question? Thank you. I am not here trying to state that everyone else is wrong but trying to figure out why people actually believe this.

Also, misspelling a word does not discredit ones intelligence. That is a sad jab that is often used on this site to try to prove one does not know what they are talking about. God forbid I fat finger a word or misspell something. I can name numerous people in Law or even in the medical field who are extremely bright but could not spell to save their life(I did a lot of their term papers in school... very lucrative) I truly hope you are not referring to Cross-examination? Is that better?

You Bone_z may not have but often we who do not agree with your truth are labeled as disinfo agents or some other such name. I am still waiting on my check form the NSA and do not have high hopes...


Again, also, you are deciding even before there is an investigation that it will NOT fail. I am not playing a game I am trying to find out that if there was another investigation and it played out the same, what would happen? This is a simple and non combative question. Thanks again for at least answering me Bone_z


Also, I apologize if I hurt anyones feelings by stating that some of the alternative views seem to be narcissistic or boarding on anti social behavior but I am simply applying logic to some of the statements presented not only by you but other posters. I mean, thinking the government is after you and lying to you is also something that is associated with schizophrenia but i have not dropped that bomb on anyone but there sure seem to be a few.

I do not believe the entire 9/11 as fact which is another thing that is humorous to me when I am in these forums. If a new invcestigation is launched, i am sure we would also find out more about 93 and the passenger overthrow that did not happen.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
You think because you can debunk CT's you can prove the OS?

This is a pathetic attempt at logic that fails miserably.

I will debate any of you anythime and absolutley own you. We will debate the OS rather than any particular CT and see how well the story holds up.


Awesome. Please set it up with the mods.
I have tried twice to no avail to get a match with a few separate people on here. I think a OS person should take the opposite side and the truther prove the OS...would be interesting.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
If an investigation turns up essentially that the existing reports were correct, then the conspiracy would continue.

It doesn't matter who would be involved.

You could have the best engineers and scientists in the world review the data. You could include analysis of any remaining material for evidence of explosives and/or thermite.

If the outcome was that planes, hijacked by Saudi's, crashed into the buildings and the resultant damage and fires led to the eventual collapse of the towers, then the conspiracy theorists would say that the commission was not impartial.

They would bring up all of their "evidence" and continue to state that the report was not the truth.

That's just my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join