Proof of any Truther related evidence ignored?.

Well we have here a whole heap of tests, withheld evidence, eye witness accounts, and so much more that have been completely ignored, neglected, overlooked, denied existence of, etc, etc.

So I say it`s turn the tables time for the Debunkers, let`s see it from your side by posting relative FACTS, where a Truther based person/agency/company involved with any aspect whatsoever of 9/11 that has done exactly the same....

Debunkers.... The floor is yours.

Originally posted by Seventh
Well we have here a whole heap of tests, withheld evidence, eye witness accounts, and so much more that have been completely ignored, neglected, overlooked, denied existence of, etc, etc.

So I say it`s turn the tables time for the Debunkers, let`s see it from your side by posting relative FACTS, where a Truther based person/agency/company involved with any aspect whatsoever of 9/11 that has done exactly the same....

Debunkers.... The floor is yours.

Thanks, your evasion is duly noted for the record.

My question is still on the table despite your desperation not to address it.

Now, where are the statements of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon as an "explosion" took place at the Pentagon from any of the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, parking lots, and in buildings and who were in a perfect position to see any flyover as illustrated both in my avatar and in CIT's depiction here:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/85c6f658630a.jpg[/atsimg]

If you refuse to provide those statements again, then it will be confirmation that you have no evidence for that claim.

The real world is waiting for your evidence, Seventh. SPreston, CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and other "Truthers" cannot provide that evidence so now it is left to you.

So if you still think you can keep evading providing evidence for your claims, think again.

reply to post by jthomas


bah, that picture looks photoshopped. If it is real it could explain the lack of wreckage at the pentagon, though.

do you have sources for the picture?

Originally posted by Seventh
So I say it`s turn the tables time for the Debunkers, let`s see it from your side by posting relative FACTS, where a Truther based person/agency/company involved with any aspect whatsoever of 9/11 that has done exactly the same....

Easy: the 9/11 commission report. Every other truther I've encountered are gleefully ready to call the 9/11 report a bucket of whitewash, and at the same time I've yet to encounter even ONE truther that actually read it. How the heck can someone say that a book is full of lies when they don't even know what the book even says?

Case in point- The report states that NYPD helicopter pilots flying eye level to the impact area reported that the support girders were glowing red from the fires and appeared like they were about to collapse, and 1/2 hour later, it did. Please, explain to me how this is all a lie.

Whoa, guys whoa, a complete thread misunderstanding is happening here. I will reiterate best I can, okay a few examples from a Truther`s PoV.

A). Why didn`t NIST check for explosions and or Thermite? (neglect, overlook, ignore categories).

B). Why didn`t the F.B.I release every single confiscated video and let the people decide (withholding evidence).

C). Even though to this day CD`s are the top science friendly reliable explanation of all 3 collapses, why wasn`t the NIST report (whom we all have to agree on, have really struggled to field a believable and accurate assessment) based around this theory more? (common sense and science).

Well hopefully these will explain what this threads intentions are...

A really good example of what we`re looking for.....

A). Spreston has a video that clearly shows Hani Hanjour piloting his Jet straight into the Pentagon whilst mowing the lawn at the same time, but when he released it the frames are missing of Hani Hanjour.

Okay catch my drift?.

And FFS don`t start debunking anything I have posted here, that is not the intent of this thread, it`s all about Truthers deliberately withholding evidence that is against the grain.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Seventh
Well we have here a whole heap of tests, withheld evidence, eye witness accounts, and so much more that have been completely ignored, neglected, overlooked, denied existence of, etc, etc.

So I say it`s turn the tables time for the Debunkers, let`s see it from your side by posting relative FACTS, where a Truther based person/agency/company involved with any aspect whatsoever of 9/11 that has done exactly the same....

Debunkers.... The floor is yours.

Thanks, your evasion is duly noted for the record.

My question is still on the table despite your desperation not to address it.

Now, where are the statements of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon as an "explosion" took place at the Pentagon from any of the hundreds of people who were all around the Pentagon on the freeways, bridges, parking lots, and in buildings and who were in a perfect position to see any flyover as illustrated both in my avatar and in CIT's depiction here:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/85c6f658630a.jpg[/atsimg]

If you refuse to provide those statements again, then it will be confirmation that you have no evidence for that claim.

The real world is waiting for your evidence, Seventh. SPreston, CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and other "Truthers" cannot provide that evidence so now it is left to you.

So if you still think you can keep evading providing evidence for your claims, think again.

WTF are you on about? seriously, go read my replies, on any Pentagon related thread, Jeeeeeeez you`re getting the reading comprehension skills of a Stevie Wonder and Thedman hybrid.

Originally posted by Seventh

A). Why didn`t NIST check for explosions and or Thermite? (neglect, overlook, ignore categories).

They didn't need to check for explosions. Noone is denying there were explosions. What the debate is over is whether these explosions were actually explosives, rather than any of the myriad flammable objects (pressurized pipes, electrical transformers, etc) that woul dnaturally go BOOM as the fires reached them in turn.

As for Thermite, this assertion only makes sense to the conspiracy camp. Thermite is largely aluminum powder, and the towers were clad in gigantic amounts of aluminum. Seeing that they found so much of the stuff means right there that it had to have come from a large source, and the largest source were the towers themselves

B). Why didn`t the F.B.I release every single confiscated video and let the people decide (withholding evidence).

What would that prove? If conspiracy theorists aren't going to believe the video that has been released or even the eyewitness accounts of people who were actually there, they're certainly not going to believe any other video that'd be released.

C). Even though to this day CD`s are the top science friendly reliable explanation of all 3 collapses, why wasn`t the NIST report (whom we all have to agree on, have really struggled to field a believable and accurate assessment) based around this theory more? (common sense and science).

CDs being the top science friendly reliable explanation is debatable, but it's NOT debatable that it's also pretty illogical. It is utterly impossible to plant controlled demolitions in an occupied building, particularly in a building as large as the WTC, without anyone noticing. It'd be like saying someone could put a refrigerator in your kitchen and you'd never notice it.

You wanted examples of truthers withholding evidence, fine. Here are some examples-

-Documentation that the thermite supposedly found was explosive grade aluminum vs. construction grade aluminum

-documentation on how the WTC could have been wired with CD without anyone noticing

-then there's the biggest one of all- how about coming out and explaining what the conspiracy actually is? If they're goign to bomb the towers then why waste their time with using aircraft? Why go to the trouble of faking a crash site in Shanksville and then turn around and conceal the faked crash site? And WHY the heck would we waste our time framing that toilet of a country Afghanistan, rather than Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

The conspiracy people are so keen to conjure up all these individual conspiracies and coverups. How about explaining how the big picture worked?

Thanks, your evasion is duly noted for the record.

Your vocabulary skills are deplorable.

* Main Entry: eva·sion
* Pronunciation: \i-ˈvā-zhən, ē-\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French, from Late Latin evasion-, evasio, from Latin evadere to evade
* Date: 15th century

1 : a means of evading : dodge
2 : the act or an instance of evading : escape

By giving you the floor he is doing the opposite of evading. Your bias is legendary.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


Even though you have been naughty and gone against the grain of the thread, you have lured me into the ring with you once again.

They didn't need to check for explosions. Noone is denying there were explosions. What the debate is over is whether these explosions were actually explosives, rather than any of the myriad flammable objects (pressurized pipes, electrical transformers, etc) that woul dnaturally go BOOM as the fires reached them in turn.

Damn I always write explosions instead of explosives, my apologies. Okay, we have x3 collapses we had 2 semi plausible causes - Pancake collapse - NIST themselves have backed down on this, heat damaged steel - although it could well have instigated collapse around and above impact zones, that was that, undamaged floors would have brought into force the laws of motion and resistance, what people really overlook here is the amount of heat and fire damage needed to have weakened the inner core.

Okay we hear many stories of office furniture etc adding immensely to the fire damage - poppycock, it`s a well known fact that high rise building contents are stringently checked for combustibility and inflammable materials, no-one checks these better than insurance companies involved with mortgages and content insurance.

Causes of collapses probabilities - again there seems to be some unwritten rule here that there are hundreds, there`s not, side stepping a CD the other 2 main contenders (pancake and heat damage) have both been well documented and found not guilty, why the pussy footing around a CD? like it or not it really is the only viable and tbh the most viable option to begin with.

As for Thermite, this assertion only makes sense to the conspiracy camp. Thermite is largely aluminum powder, and the towers were clad in gigantic amounts of aluminum. Seeing that they found so much of the stuff means right there that it had to have come from a large source, and the largest source were the towers themselves

As much as you are 100% correct here, it`s a no brainer no win situation, okay the people will state you think it`s a CD then thermite must be present, all this would have proved is if there were no signs of thermite whatsoever then bang goes the whole CD theory, it was never for proof of a CD, only to disprove in the absence of.

What would that prove? If conspiracy theorists aren't going to believe the video that has been released or even the eyewitness accounts of people who were actually there, they're certainly not going to believe any other video that'd be released.

Dave you`re a reasonable and intelligent guy, and someone whom I respect greatly and really do enjoy debating with you. There are so many unanswered questions evolving around 9/11, including defying the laws of science there are still to this day neglected/ignored/withheld evidence.

Gonna create a scenario here, your GF has just left you for another guy and it`s a plain case of - one of the bigger 3 - Wallet, Car, Dick, you have completely ruled out the 1st two in the equation, but will not meet the 3rd head on (pardon the pun lol), your m8`s tease you, most people have guessed this is the reason, but it`s never been proven, so hence it`s a CT, can you see why?.

CDs being the top science friendly reliable explanation is debatable, but it's NOT debatable that it's also pretty illogical. It is utterly impossible to plant controlled demolitions in an occupied building, particularly in a building as large as the WTC, without anyone noticing. It'd be like saying someone could put a refrigerator in your kitchen and you'd never notice it.

Dave, I read a huge article the other day regarding certain explosives disguised and in some cases appear to be something completely different hence people would not even know what they have just done, I won`t comment any more on this but I will dig out a link.

You wanted examples of truthers withholding evidence, fine. Here are some examples-

-Documentation that the thermite supposedly found was explosive grade aluminum vs. construction grade aluminum

-documentation on how the WTC could have been wired with CD without anyone noticing

then there's the biggest one of all- how about coming out and explaining what the conspiracy actually is? If they're going to bomb the towers then why waste their time with using aircraft? Why go to the trouble of faking a crash site in Shanksville and then turn around and conceal the faked crash site? And WHY the heck would we waste our time framing that toilet of a country Afghanistan, rather than Saddam Hussein and Iraq?

The conspiracy people are so keen to conjure up all these individual conspiracies and cover ups. How about explaining how the big picture worked?

Dave the whole nature of a CT is thus... An event happens that does not appear 100% legit, the people responsible have conspired together at something underhand, it is down to the CT`s to solve it via theories, that`s how it works, 9/11 is not like any other CT that I know exists due hugely to so many 1+1=3 scenarios about it.

/cheers.

and P.S. Please try and keep to topic lol .

Originally posted by Wachstum
reply to post by jthomas

 

bah, that picture looks photoshopped.

That's correct. It represents the claim by CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, SPreston, jpprophet420, and a whole bevy of "Truthers" here who claim AA77 or a "decoy" flew over and away from the Pentagon.

If it is real it could explain the lack of wreckage at the pentagon, though.

None of the above have been able to support any claim that there was NO wreckage. They have been asked for three years to present statements from the over 1,000 people who had direct access to the interior of the Pentagon in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11 of what those people saw, handled, recovered, and sorted openly on the Pentagon lawn.

No reports, statements or anything else have ever been presented contradicting that what was recovered was wreckage from AA77, a Boeing 757.

Note that CIT, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, SPreston, jpprophet420, and others refuse to present any evidence of a flyover or that what was recovered from inside the Pentagon was not from AA77.

do you have sources for the picture?

Yes, I presented it elsewhere. It is from Craig Ranke of CIT:

" The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off"

www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Easy: the 9/11 commission report. Every other truther I've encountered are gleefully ready to call the 9/11 report a bucket of whitewash, and at the same time I've yet to encounter even ONE truther that actually read it. How the heck can someone say that a book is full of lies when they don't even know what the book even says?

Most truthers reluctance to read the report is not based on what it says, but what it doesn`t say.

A well known Martin Luther King quote springs to mind here...

`In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.`

Case in point- The report states that NYPD helicopter pilots flying eye level to the impact area reported that the support girders were glowing red from the fires and appeared like they were about to collapse, and 1/2 hour later, it did. Please, explain to me how this is all a lie.

Some girders could and most probably were red hot, also remember here there was over 500 thousand tons of steel in those towers, that`s a whole heap of hot needed. Also there were people plainly seen standing in the initial impact holes, and the fireman that reached level 78th and depicted 2 isolated pockets of fire.

We all know how it would have been, exactly like felling a tree, a weak spot caused by a cavity to the structure that invites gravity to do it`s thing, if anything the storeys above initial impact to lean over and fall as one huge lump, if there was a structural collapse to loss of building integrity.

[edit on 11/08/2009 by Seventh]

Originally posted by Seventh
Whoa, guys whoa, a complete thread misunderstanding is happening here. I will reiterate best I can, okay a few examples from a Truther`s PoV.

A). Why didn`t NIST check for explosions and or Thermite? (neglect, overlook, ignore categories).

None of the evidence indicated any characteristics of explosive demolition by any means. ALL of the evidence and studies were consistent with the observed events.

In addition, several independent scientific studies were done after 9/11 specifically to determine the chemical components of the dust to identify if any would have short or long-term effects on the health of recovery and construction workers at ground zero, starting with the City of New York's study in early October, 2001.

NONE of the studies identified any explosive chemicals, residue, or signatures whatsoever.

This has been discussed at length on many forums and buried by 9/11 "Truthers" since it is inconvenient to their claims, and was of particular annoyance of Steven Jones when confronted with that fact 5 or 6 years ago.

You can find the studies by doing a Google Scholar search.

B). Why didn`t the F.B.I release every single confiscated video and let the people decide (withholding evidence).

The videos are of no relevance whatsoever. They are particularly irrelevant to 9/11 "Truthers" for some very fundamental reasons. What we know and what 9/11 "Truthers" claim are fundamental.

1. The evidence that AA77 comes from multiple independent sources. Videos are not needed to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Truthers, on the other hand, have never admitted that fact or acknowledge the other evidence. ANY evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon has consistently been completely dismissed by 9/11 Truthers.

2. The 9/11 Truth Movement has claimed that the one video released by the government - the parking lot security camera video - was never accepted as legitimate. 9/11 Truthers have already claimed that "nothing from the government" can be trusted anyway.

3. The government can only release government-owned videos. They are NOT permitted to release videos that were privately-owned.

Fundamentally, 9/11 "Truther" claims that videos trump ALL of the evidence is a strawman argument designed to hide the inability of 9/11 "Truthers" to actually deal with - and refute - ALL of the evidence that AA 77 hit the Pentagon.

What we know is clear from the very consistent denial of 9/11 "Truthers" from day one:

1) If all of the videos were to show nothing you all will claim that it "proves" no 757 hit the Pentagon.

2) If any video actually showed AA77 hitting the Pentagon - meaning an identifiable 757 - you'll all claim, authoritatively, that it was "doctored like the parking lot video."

To 9/11 "Truthers" nothing will satisfy them. Actual evidence has always been irrelevant and misrepresented to "keep the dream of 9/11 Truth alive."

C). Even though to this day CD`s are the top science friendly reliable explanation of all 3 collapses,...

Bull.

Well hopefully these will explain what this threads intentions are...

Yes, denial of the truth at all costs has always been quite obvious.

The real world will keep calling you on it.

Omfg, the Debunkers, they-just-cannot-do-it, it`s impossible for them, not one reply as to topic, I even stated that my examples where exactly that EXAMPLESi`m both shocked and amazed, lmfao I used some common arguments as examples and they F****** debunked them Jesus F Christ i`m pissing myself, I did state no debunking lol just lol.

Is this thread that hard to understand?.

Debunkers - Post evidence of any Truther related evidence that has been deliberately withheld as it would help the OS.

Seriously, how hard is this to do?.

Originally posted by Seventh

Debunkers - Post evidence of any Truther related evidence that has been deliberately withheld as it would help the OS.

Seriously, how hard is this to do?.

How many times do you have to be taught that claims must be backed up by evidence. You have no evidence, only claims, and all you do is repeat the same debunked claims like a religious mantra.

You're still stuck in 2002.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Seventh

Debunkers - Post evidence of any Truther related evidence that has been deliberately withheld as it would help the OS.

Seriously, how hard is this to do?.

How many times do you have to be taught that claims must be backed up by evidence. You have no evidence, only claims, and all you do is repeat the same debunked claims like a religious mantra.

You're still stuck in 2002.

Omg, you still don`t get it do you, this thread has nothing to do with Truther ideology, do you guys use macro`d replies?, Jesus, the only points I made in this thread were as an example pointing to the Truther side of things like.

*WARNING THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE, IF YOU ATTEMPT TO DEBUNK THIS IN ANYWAY GOD WILL KILL 100 KITTENS*.

Example `There are many aspects of 9/11 that Truthers feel that evidence has been withheld`.

PURPOSE OF THREAD INCOMING......

Are there any cases that debunkers feel that Truthers have or are doing the exact same thing?.

Savvy?.

posted by Wachstum
reply to post by jthomas

 

bah, that picture looks photoshopped. If it is real it could explain the lack of wreckage at the pentagon, though.

do you have sources for the picture?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/85c6f658630a.jpg[/atsimg]

Our friend jthomas photoshopped this faked picture taken from 'leaked' still frames from faked Pentagon parking lot security videos.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48d006eea9cc.jpg[/atsimg]

Maybe jthomas photoshopped that picture you are inquiring about too.

Thank you jthomas for clearing that up.

posted by jthomas

Isn't it interesting that I have never claimed that the "security camera video shows any aircraft hitting the Pentagon." Just so we're clear about that, I want you to show everyone here any post I have made on any forum in which I have said that the security camera video shows anything hitting the Pentagon.

If you can't do that, then you will issue a public retraction right here, correct? What's that, you can't? C'mon, be a sport, just try.

In fact, as we rational people have said for years, one cannot conclude by looking at the security camera video that anything hit the Pentagon.

reply to post by SPreston


Lol i`m surprised he hasn`t *CANARDED* this to death.....

A). Spreston has a video that clearly shows Hani Hanjour piloting his Jet straight into the Pentagon whilst mowing the lawn at the same time, but when he released it the frames are missing of Hani Hanjour.

Originally posted by Seventh
Okay we hear many stories of office furniture etc adding immensely to the fire damage - poppycock, it`s a well known fact that high rise building contents are stringently checked for combustibility and inflammable materials, no-one checks these better than insurance companies involved with mortgages and content insurance.

You are referring to fire codes that make sure that chairs or carpets won't combust if, say, someone drops a cigarette on them. On the other hand, a passenger jet dumping tens of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel and setting entire floors on fire all at once is obviously outside the scope of those tests. Your example really doesn't apply.

Causes of collapses probabilities - again there seems to be some unwritten rule here that there are hundreds, there`s not, side stepping a CD the other 2 main contenders (pancake and heat damage) have both been well documented and found not guilty, why the pussy footing around a CD? like it or not it really is the only viable and tbh the most viable option to begin with.

Before you can declare them "not guilty" then perhaps you ought to define exactly what "pancaking" and "heat damage" are. Every video in existence shows that each floor fell sequentially as each upper floor fell on it in turn, so it is not debatable that it did fall in pancake fashion. Likewsie, NYPD helicopters flying eye level to the impact area reported seeing the struvtural supports glowing red from the fires and appeared liek they were in danger of collapse, so the fact that there was heat damage is likewise not for debate.

So, I would very much like to know what you mean by "pancaking and heat damage have been documented and found not guilty"as all the available documentation suggest they ARE guilty.

As much as you are 100% correct here, it`s a no brainer no win situation, okay the people will state you think it`s a CD then thermite must be present, all this would have proved is if there were no signs of thermite whatsoever then bang goes the whole CD theory, it was never for proof of a CD, only to disprove in the absence of.

I disagree, and the reason why is likewise what makes this topic relevent to the "truthers withholding information" thread. It relly doesn't matter whether they're controlled demolitions, thermite, or those round black bombs Dick Dastardly always tied Sweet Penelope to. The problem is that the WTC was an *occupied* building, and planting explosives requiring that amount of preparation simply wouldn't be possible without being noticed, particularly after the security policies they put in place after the first bombing in 1993.

Tell me- do these conspiracy websites putting these CD ideas in your head explain the security and maintenence operations of the WTC? No they don't. Do they go into detail just how extensive planting CDs has to be? No they don't. Do they even venture a guess how many tons of explosives it would take to even bring down the WTC? No they don't.

The reason why they leave out significant details like those should be obvious- the more they flesh out their conspiracy stories with actual details, the more people will realize just how thoroughly untenable they are.

Dave, I read a huge article the other day regarding certain explosives disguised and in some cases appear to be something completely different hence people would not even know what they have just done, I won`t comment any more on this but I will dig out a link.

It still doesn't matter. People whose job it was to maintain the buildings day in, day out, are still gonna find it simply becuase they'll know it doesn't belong. If I were an electrician, and I suddenly found an electrical box in a spot where it wasn't yesterday and had no logical reason why it would even be in the spot it was, I'm damned sure going to want to know why it's there. I daresay, so would you.

Dave the whole nature of a CT is thus... An event happens that does not appear 100% legit, the people responsible have conspired together at something underhand, it is down to the CT`s to solve it via theories, that`s how it works, 9/11 is not like any other CT that I know exists due hugely to so many 1+1=3 scenarios about it.

I disagree. The purpose for a conspiracy scenario is the attempt to provide us with a better answer than what has already been given us, and up until now, the conspiracy proponents have only given us LESS satisfactory alternative answers, which is almost certainly the reason why their proponents are having such a hard time selling them to the public.

The conspiracy proponents always recomment that we read the Northwoods papers to find out what the gov't is capable of, so I did. What do I find?

-Harrassment of civilian aircraft with mocked up Cuban air force fighters

-Shooting down remote controlled aircraft near Cuban waters

-A mock invasion of Guantanamo by cuban exiles wearing Cuban army uniforms

The pattern of behavior reveals the motive for wanting to do all this right away- they wanted to make Cuba look like a belligerant so they could invade. Moreover, they set it up so that civilians WEREN'T killed, becuase they wanted live witnesses to the supposed Cuban aggression. On the other hand, there is NO pattern of behavior whatsoever with your conspiracy theories-

-Why would the gov't create a fake crash site in Shanksville, and then turn around and conceal the fake crash site they made? Why would they even want to bother faking a crash site, anyway?

-Why fool around with crashing aircraft into the towers to conceal hidden bombs when we already know bombs were used in 1993?

-If this was to get us to invade Iraq, then why frame Bin LAden, rather than Saddam Hussein? This is literally the exact opposite of what Northwoods tells us.

Not only do your conspriacy scenarios make no logical sense, they don't make any ILLOGICAL sense, either, and the conspiracy proponents have actively worked to avoid answering those types of questions. Thus, becuase there is no pattern of behavior whatsoever, and becuase this is definitely a case of truther related evidence being ignored, I must conclude that one or more of your conspiracy stories have to be wrong.

You do see where I'm going with this, I trust.