Mike Bellone's shocking claim on "Conspiracy Theory"

page: 11
38
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
*I* am here to talk about the subject of Mike Bellone and Ventura's Conspiracy theory. The only person dragging it away from that subject and arguing over circles here is you. What IS your point, anyway?


My point was that you do not get to decide which people's 9/11 stories are worth sharing. Was it on topic? YES. Was it against TOS? NO. All you did was berate someone for expressing how they feel about lost loved ones.

I thought you came here for a serious pursuit of the truth? I would love to look at your posts and think they come from and informed and intelligent person that I could really learn something from.

When someone tells you that they do not want to DEBATE you, and you tell them that they need to go away since they do not want to DISCUSS anything you want to discuss, it shows that you either cannot read, do not read, or do not know what certain English words me. This is important because you do post a lot. Do you want people to take those posts seriously or do you want people to think you still have no clue what the difference is between discussing and debating.

If you have something on topic to discuss, then by all means. If you tell someone their words are useless because they do not want to DISCUSS when they said DEBATE...well I am going to point that out. There is a rather big difference between the two things and all you need to do is scroll back to read it. The word just sits there in text and you still could not even respond correctly.

I am pretty sure people are allowed to post here if they want to DEBATE you or not. I just want to know if you know what English words mean before I just put you on ignore because I could care less to read any info from anyone that cannot just turn back a page and see a different word and realize it means something different. I can only imagine what reading that 9/11 report was like.

I get it. You want to fight and say ignorant things to posters and it makes you mad when other people have information and facts and correct you. Such is the nature of the beast of the internet forum.




posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
My point was that you do not get to decide which people's 9/11 stories are worth sharing. Was it on topic? YES. Was it against TOS? NO. All you did was berate someone for expressing how they feel about lost loved ones.


Baloney! By his own admission he believes in these conspiracy theories so strongly that to him, they're no longer theories to him, but reality. He's become such a zealous believer to the point where he perceives me, as someone who criticizes these conspiracy theories, as being a traitor and criminal. There's a gigantic difference between expressing how he feels about his loved ones and his getting the idea in his head that I had something to do with his loss.

If we're at liberty to post "how we feel", fine by me. MY feeling is that the blind unrepentent zealotry exactly like this is going to eventually get some innocent person killed. If Mark David Chapman can murder John Lennon becuase of secret messages he perceived were in "Catcher in the Rye" and if Charles Manson can go on a murder spree to instigate a race war over supposed instructions he thought were in the Beatle's song, "Helter Skelter", then I guarantee that some jerk out there who's equally oh so right and in the know will likewise get the idea in his head to murder Silverstein and "strike a blow against the secret New World Order" from something he read on one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites. Frankly, I'm amazed that noone has been killed over this stupid conspiracy crap yet.

If he can't separate himself emotionally from these conspriacy theories then he shouldn't be coming to a forum where he knows full well that people are going to be criticizing them.



I thought you came here for a serious pursuit of the truth? I would love to look at your posts and think they come from and informed and intelligent person that I could really learn something from.


...and I will post the same challenge to you as everyone else. Just WHAT, in any of my posts concerning the facts of 9/11, is incorrect? Are you saying NYPD helicopter pilots *didn't* report the structural supports were being weaked by the fires and looked like they were going to collapse, 1/2 hour before they collapsed?


When someone tells you that they do not want to DEBATE you, and you tell them that they need to go away since they do not want to DISCUSS anything you want to discuss, it shows that you either cannot read, do not read, or do not know what certain English words me. This is important because you do post a lot. Do you want people to take those posts seriously or do you want people to think you still have no clue what the difference is between discussing and debating.


All right, I will say again- I'm not here to launch personal attacks against other people or even to post "how I feel". I'm here to discuss the pros and cons...but mostly cons...of these conspriacy theories, so I'm not going to play your game and bicker in circles over stupid crap like what the definitions of "debate" or "discussion" are, becuase we both know why you're doing it. You can't refute even a microbe of any of the information I'm posting here that shows why these conspiracy stories are rubbish, so you try to drag the discussion off into these irrelevent tangents in the hopes of proving me wrong on somethign else and giving you a victory by proxy. I will waste no time on such antics.

If you have something tangible to offer to the 9/11 thread, or iIf you can show why any of the information I posted on the events of 9/11 is incorrect, then please post it. Otherwise, this will be my last post to YOU, as well, becuase all you're doing is flame baiting and I don't want the moderators to kick me off of ATS along with you.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 





The explosion of the nature that we witnessed on television on 911, if it was due to jet fuel A that was "pouring down the elevator shafts", would have been contained to the shaft in a downward motion. For the type of explosion witnessed on 911, some type of compression is needed (AKA gas tank).

Please learn more about the nature of explosions.

Besides that, you never answered my question IN FULL.

How can that explosion happen, and then the same fuel BURN FOR THIRTY MINUTES.

It can't. It violates the second law of thermodynamics.


You are the one who needs education in explosion dynamics

One - there was over 9,000 gal of jet on each aircraft when struck the
WTC

Some of the fuel was burned off in fireball at impact - about 25 - 30 %

This left over 6000 gal of jet fuel - more than enough to soak the debris
and ignite raging fires in the impact zone.

Some of the fuel travelled down the elevator shaft to explode - it only
takes a fraction of the jet fuel to flow down the elevator shafts

Not all the fuel - only a fraction is required. Which in this case is at minimum is several hundred, if not thousands of gallons of fuel

You do not need compression - only a mixture of fuel and air in the proper
proportion . This is how a grain dust explosion works too - no compression
only combustible material suspended in air and ignition source. When ignited forms a pressure wave capable of destroying heavy concrete
building.

Besides the fuel-air mixture was confined by the elevator shaft walls

It was only in the North (WTC 1) Tower that we have the fuel explosions
this was because the aircraft scored direct hit on center of building and
the fuel load splashed into the elevator shafts and stairways which were in the central core of the building

The jet fuel in the elevator shaft did not burn for 30 minutes - there was
no fires following the explosion. Firefighters were in the lobby right after
impact and reported no fires - plenty of blast damage and burn victims
including some fatally...

I have answered everything. Problem is cant accept anything which punctures conspiracy fantasy....



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Lillydale
My point was that you do not get to decide which people's 9/11 stories are worth sharing. Was it on topic? YES. Was it against TOS? NO. All you did was berate someone for expressing how they feel about lost loved ones.


Baloney! By his own admission he believes in these conspiracy theories so strongly that to him, they're no longer theories to him, but reality. He's become such a zealous believer to the point where he perceives me, as someone who criticizes these conspiracy theories, as being a traitor and criminal.


That is not what happened here. I am only speaking about what happened in this thread. If you two have a personal spat going on, then that is very nice but it does not change the actual exchange in this thread.

He said debate, you read discuss. You were wrong. Deal with it.



posted on Dec, 27 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You know what Lilydale. We can type on here all that we want to, and it will not matter. My house just burned down, and I lost everything and you know what I got out of it?

I figured out that this is just a release valve.

Go out and make something happen and PROVE these fools wrong my brother.

Actions create or destroy. Words can only motivate.

911 was an inside job and there is SO mush disinformation out there that it screams for a new investigation. Make pamphlets. Make T-shirts. Tell people. Sign petitions. Be calm and direct and never accusative. Focus on the new investigation.

Peese.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Look, I sympathize with you. The "truthers" are, for the most part, incapable of using logic, reason, or even being rational when it comes to 9/11. Their response is emotional not rational, and from what I've seen few if any do any actual research. But that's to be expected really, because if they weren't like that, they wouldn't be "truthers"



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord
Look, I sympathize with you. The "truthers" are, for the most part, incapable of using logic, reason, or even being rational when it comes to 9/11. Their response is emotional not rational, and from what I've seen few if any do any actual research. But that's to be expected really, because if they weren't like that, they wouldn't be "truthers"


Thank you, Doglord. I have alway made my position known-

a) the only reason there's "so much evidence" of conspiracies and coverup is becuase these damned fool conspiracy web sites are intentionally manufacturing it. The game of con artists coming along and saying, "everything you know is wrong and I'll tell you the truth if you give me money" is as old as the hills. It's simply wrapped in a new package now

b) I'm not opposed to more investigations, and in fact have as many investigations as you want. We already know what sank the Titanic but the following investigations of the wreck are still turning up interesting things we never knew before. Just be prepared for the inevitable reality that they too will show these conspiracy theories are rubbish

c) I fully agree there are a lot more things that need to be looked at, as an administration who can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels certainly isn't going to be any less incompetent in responding to a major terrorist attack. I agree there may be coverups, but it's not the coverup of some sinister plot to take over the world that the conspiracy theorists are hoping for. It's a coverup to not wanting to admit they dropped the ball.

...and yet these characters STILL get the idea in their head that I slavishly believe everythign the gov't says, that I am blocking further investigations, etc, etc etc, despite my saying a zillion times to the contrary, and it's blatantly obvious why- their belief in these conspiracy theories have grown to such an emotional attachment that it's practically religious doctrine, and telling them anything to the contrary to what they want to believe is akin to discussing evolution with the pope. This guy who honestly believes anyone who criticizes his beloved conspiracy theories are (in how own words) traitors and criminals is a sterling case in point.

I'm not here to insult or make fun of anyone, but I'd be remiss in not pointing out that blindly following ANY religious or political doctrine is only going to lead to something very, very ugly. 19 zealots blindly following their religious/political doctrine is what got 3000 people killed on 9/11 to begin with.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Look, I sympathize with you. The "truthers" are, for the most part, incapable of using logic, reason, or even being rational when it comes to 9/11. Their response is emotional not rational, and from what I've seen few if any do any actual research. But that's to be expected really, because if they weren't like that, they wouldn't be "truthers"





Yeah, it must really get frustrating that 'truthers' can read and G.O.D. along with many of his cohorts seem to have an issue with that. Please go into detail describing how emotional I got when reading the words actually written instead of just making them into something else in my head like dave did.

Your post makes no sense at all. I read the words written. I must be emotional. Dave cannot understand that he got all upset over something that was NEVER WRITTEN DOWN. Dave is the logical one. Enjoy your delusions.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Doglord
 



Look, I sympathize with you. The "truthers" are, for the most part, incapable of using logic, reason, or even being rational when it comes to 9/11. Their response is emotional not rational, and from what I've seen few if any do any actual research. But that's to be expected really, because if they weren't like that, they wouldn't be "truthers"


You think you are funny don’t you? I can prove that you are lying and you are enjoy it, by lumping ALL Truthers together, to say we can’t use logic, or even being rational when it come to 911. I can pull up thread after thread of everyone one of you so call debunkers including YOU to show how emotional and irrational you all get when it comes to discussing 911.
Your statement is false and was only to insult all posters who do not agree with your OS lies.
Try and do some real research into 911 and read what experts in their field have to say about your proven OS lies.

Engineers and Architects
Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Many engineers and architects have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This section is a collection of their public statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 220 engineers and architects that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibilities related to building design, construction, and other areas of engineering, demonstrates that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite.

If you are an engineer or architect who has concerns about the 9/11 Commission Report and would like your comment added to this website, please contact me.



Pilots and Aviation Professionals
Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This section is a collection of their public statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 50 pilots and aviation professionals that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibility for air traffic safety demonstrate that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite.

If you are a current or former commercial or military pilot or aviation professional who has concerns about the 9/11 Commission Report and would like your comment added to this website, please contact me.



Professors Question the
9/11 Commission Report

Many well known and respected professors have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This section is a collection of their public statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 160 professors that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their dedication to researching and teaching the truth about a wide variety of subjects, demonstrates that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite.

If you are a professor who has concerns about the 9/11 Commission Report and would like your comment added to this website, please contact



9/11 Survivors and Family Members
Question the 9/11 Commission Report

An estimated 2,973 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The death toll at the World Trade Center included 60 police officers and 343 firefighters, 87 passengers aboard American Flight 11, 60 on United Flight 175, and over 2,000 occupants and neighbors of the WTC. The death toll at the Pentagon included 125 people from the Pentagon and 64 passengers on American Flight 77. And 44 people lost their lives on United Flight 93.

Many 9/11 survivors and many 9/11 victim family members have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11.

The public statements of many survivors contradict the Commission Report. And the words and actions of some of the victims on that terrible day are in conflict with the Commission Report. This section is a collection of their statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 190 9/11 survivors, victims and family members that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.

These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their statements are based on their intimate familiarity with and intense study of the events of 9/11. Their criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, In fact, it is based on their desire to honor the victims of that terrible day by finding the truth and bringing to justice those responsible for these terrible acts.

If you are a 9/11 survivor or family member who has concerns about the 9/11 Commission Report and would like your comment added to this website, please contact me.



Entertainment and Media Professionals
Question the 9/11 Commission Report

Many entertainment and media professionals have publicly questioned the official account of 9/11. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This section is a collection of their statements. This website is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.

Listed below are statements by more than 100 individuals from the entertainment and media industries that are critical of or contradict the 9/11 Commission Report.

The concerns of these individuals, which are shared by more than 600 senior military officers, intelligence service and law enforcement veterans, elected and appointed government officials, professors, 9/11 survivors and victim family members, and pilots and aviation professionals whose statements are also featured on this website, cannot be simply dismissed as inherently irresponsible, illogical or disloyal.

Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed and that a new investigation of 9/11 is necessary.

If you are an entertainment or media professional who has concerns about the 9/11 Commission Report and would like your comment added to this website, please contact me.


www.bushstole04.com...

Perhaps, you might learn something. Not everyone is as ignorant, emotional and irrational as you think.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Doglord
 


You think you are funny don’t you?

Why are you so angry, so.... emotional?


I can prove that you are lying and you are enjoy it, by lumping ALL Truthers together, to say we can’t use logic, or even being rational when it come to 911. I can pull up thread after thread of everyone one of you so call debunkers including YOU to show how emotional and irrational you all get when it comes to discussing 911.

Please pull up a thread where I was either "emotional and irrational"or "lying".



Your statement is false and was only to insult all posters who do not agree with your OS lies.
Try and do some real research into 911 and read what experts in their field have to say about your proven OS lies.

I have, I have read what experts on both sides have to say. Whilst you it would seem, have only examined what the "truthers" have to say.


news.bbc.co.uk...
www.debunk911myths.org...
www.debunking911.com...
www.debunking911.com...



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Doglord
 


Do you mind if I sincerely ask you about your sources? I will anyway. Do you consider them factual sources or opinion pieces that kind of back up what you believe or some mix?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

You think you are funny don’t you? I can prove that you are lying and you are enjoy it, by lumping ALL Truthers together, to say we can’t use logic, or even being rational when it come to 911. I can pull up thread after thread of everyone one of you so call debunkers including YOU to show how emotional and irrational you all get when it comes to discussing 911.


Now THAT is an interesting statement, coming from you. I know full well that you admitted throughout numerous threads that you believe pretty much ALL the conspiracy claims- Controlled demolitions AND faked crash site in Shanksville AND cruise missile at the Pentagon AND a make believe Al Qaida. What gets me is whenever I say you've been badly suckered by all this rubbish coming from those damned fool conspiracy web sites, you scream I'm a liar...and then you turn around and post links to some conspiracy web site to "prove" that you don't go to conspiracy web sites. To you, when it's not a conspriacy (I.E. hologram planes) it only means it really IS a conspiracy (I.E. disinformation agents putting out fake conspiracy claims to make you all look silly).

Case in point, here's a question I know I asked you before- Why on EARTH would the conspirators waste their time sending a cruise missile into the Pentagon, plant fake wreckage all over the lawn in broad daylight, hire a thousand disinformation agents and station them all around the neighborhood to pretend to be eyewitnesses (and oh yeah, plant some overturned street lights on the middle of a busy highway, too), when we know full well they had two or more REAL disposable planes under their command that they were flinging into buildings elsewhere? Yeah, your conspiracy claims sound sexy enough when your conspiracy web sites illustrate them, but when you look at them objectively not even an eight year old would believe them.

You're connecting unrelated events and filling in the blanks on your own to form the picture that you yourself want the picture to look like, and you don't particularly care how convoluted your efforts have to be in order to do it. Even Bonez here is saying we need to ignore the extremist elements like you within the truther movement becuase it's making his own "controlled demolitions only" group look ridiculous by association, and he's on your side, not ours.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by Doglord
 


Do you mind if I sincerely ask you about your sources? I will anyway. Do you consider them factual sources or opinion pieces that kind of back up what you believe or some mix?


I believe sources (at least the ones I use) area mixture of factual information and rational analysis of said information.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Yeah, it must really get frustrating that 'truthers' can read and G.O.D. along with many of his cohorts seem to have an issue with that. Please go into detail describing how emotional I got when reading the words actually written instead of just making them into something else in my head like dave did.

Your post makes no sense at all. I read the words written. I must be emotional. Dave cannot understand that he got all upset over something that was NEVER WRITTEN DOWN. Dave is the logical one. Enjoy your delusions.


Good grief, Lillydale, are you the president of this guy's fan club, or something. The words that were actually written, and I'm cutting and pasting them from his original post verbatim, were-

"I would have to say that I am past feeling bad for people like you and at this point I see all of you as a criminals complicit in the 9/11 cover-up, If I am alive when this thing is settled I promise I will do my best to make sure you and the other traitors who come here to lie about 9/11 are charged as accessories after the fact, I am sure a good investigation on you will find that you benefited from this activity and that will be enough to send you away for the rest of your life.

You will not get away and the First Amendment does not protect criminal activity."


This character SPECIFICALLY accused me of being a traitor and a criminal, he SPECIFICALLY said I'm actively involved in some coverup, he SPECIFICALLY accused me of benefitting from the attack in some way, and he SPECIFICALLY said that he personally was going to make sure that I "will not get away". There is no flipping way I am "making them into something else in my head", so if you're attempting to claim he said or meant anything other than this then you are lying through your teeth.

I'm telling you...not debating, nor discussing, nor even suggesting, but actually telling you...that this guy has such a blind emotional zealotry in his attachment to these conspiracy stories that to him they're no longer theories, but reality, to the point where he doesn't see anything wrong with calling complete strangers "traitors and criminals" simply becuase they're debunking these conspiracy claims of his. I am likewise telling you...not debating, nor discussing, nor even suggesting, but actually telling you...that if he or anyone else for that matter is so zealous that they perceive any critique on these conspiracy theories as an attack against them personally, they shouldn't be coming to a forum where they know full well that people are coming to critique them. If this causes some personal conundrum for you where you can't reconcile the idea that, yes, truthers can indeed get irrationally emotional and overzealous, then I can't help you. Two plus two equals four regardless of how badly you want it to really equal five.

This is the last time I'm posting to you, too. I keep asking you just WHAT in any of my posts showing these conspriacies are rubbish is a lie, and all YOU care about is this stupid s**t. I'm here to discuss these conspiracies and I'm under no obligation to put up with some fanatic's bad manners, so If you don't get it after all these posts then you never will.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord

I believe sources (at least the ones I use) area mixture of factual information and rational analysis of said information.


Yeah, but the problem is that in their defense of their conspiracy claims, the truthers have built for themselves such a convoluted environment of govenment shills, disinformation agents, and manufactured evidence, that we wonder what the heck constitutes factual information anymore. The taxi driver driving by the Pentagon during the attack can't even explain what happened to him without a bunch of truthers accusing him of being some secret agent, and even Impressme himself said Barbara Olsen's husband is a liar when he said she called him. Yet, a bunch of college kids making internet flicks in their dorm room and a professor of religious philosophy pretending to be a physics expert are treated as gospel.

I said it before and I'll say it again- credibility to these truthers has absolutely nothing to do with the source, but on whether it happens to agree with what they want to believe. I have yet to have anyone show me why this statement is incorrect.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord
I believe sources (at least the ones I use) area mixture of factual information and rational analysis of said information.


No problem. Lets look at one of your sources then.

debunking 911 myths


Claim

Steven E. Jones and other so-called "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" have purported that the impact of aircraft hitting the World Trade Center and the resulting fires were insufficient to cause the collapse of the World Trade Center. They argue that pre-planted explosives must have been used to cause controlled demoltion and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers.


Fact

* The collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers initiated where the planes hit the buildings. Controlled demolitions always are initiated at the bottom of a building, to take advantage of maximum gravity forces.


All demos are not bottom up. This is a lie or wrong.


* If the World Trade Center collapsed due to controlled demolition, as the theory goes, the explosive charges would have had to survive the crash of airplanes into the buildings. (at ~500 miles per hour)


Who says they could or did not? This is speculation based on nothing.


* When a controlled demolition occurs, you hear the very loud and very distinct sound of the charges going off. These will repeatedly go off, in a quick, regular pattern, for 10+ seconds prior to the structure collapsing. While some people heard what "sounded like an explosion" at the World Trade Center, this is not what they heard or described. Nor is any such sound of demolition charges going off heard in any videos of the collapse.


So people heard explosions but they are just wrong about what might have been exploding so those explosions never happened especially since even though people witnessed them, not all camera mics picked it up clearly...but it happened. Huh? Where are the facts in any of this?


* The detonations in a controlled demolition go off in a very regular pattern, not at all like the random squibs seen on 9/11. Those squibs are the result of pockets of air (the building is ~70% air in volume) being collapsed, with pulverized gypsum (drywall) and other material being forced out.


They could not have been staggered? Why not? I keep hearing from debunkers that it is ok that for the first time in history, physics stepped out but it is not possible that the charges were staggered? More speculation, based on....?


* Blasting caps, detonating cord, and other such evidence were not found in the World Trade Center debris.


Are these the only things they could have used and did they look for them?

There, you never actually asked me this before but now you have a start. One link at random, the top of the page. No facts, just BS OS supporting nonsense backed up by nothing. You claim to be looking at both sides evenly but if that were true, you would have seen this link is a pile of guesses and assertions with no facts. Is that really what you are basing your belief in the OS on? Wouldn't facts be more useful?

G.O.D. :As far as all this crap, I am no ones fan. I just really hate when it is in black and white that you clearly went off over a word that was never ever written. Whatever your issue is, is yours. I am sorry that you are having trouble with this but discuss and debate are just not the same word. You can whine and argue about it all you like, that will not change it.

edit to fix who supplied what crappy links to what bad information. Apologies to Dave on that one.

DL, your link has bad info, do you still feel it is worth reading, showing, discussing?

GOD, unless you have something on topic to really add, I could care less about all the whining. You attacked someone because you did not read properly.

Why is this so complicated?

[edit on 12/29/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 



* If the World Trade Center collapsed due to controlled demolition, as the theory goes, the explosive charges would have had to survive the crash of airplanes into the buildings. (at ~500 miles per hour)


Your right!
Who even said there were bombs at the impact hole? No one.

It is my opinion that these disinformation websites are for those who want to believe in the OS and NOT do any real research and then they get all emotional when we prove them wrong. The writer of that website is only giving his opinions NOT facts and he loves to make up excuses to protect the real criminals. Any fifth grader can see that.

Lillydale you have clearly demonstrated that the writer is using his opinion. I might add he is not an expert into everything about 911. It is my opinion that the writer is doing damage control for the Bush administration.

Good for you for nailing this nonsense.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


To be honest, it was just the very first thing I saw. I thought I would just pick one at random. Do not get me wrong, I know the other side has sites just as bad but I would certainly never hold up their faulty information and opinions and then claim some self righteous indignation at the other side for not looking at both sides. I have to wonder what value this person sees in looking at any sides - guesses that are easily proven wrong or invalid.

Why anyone would proudly hold up bad bad bad information and guesses as a testament to how fair 'mindedly' they look at the facts is really beyond me but I guess I will never get a response about it. 'Debunkers' really seem to like to hit and run.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Doglord
 


If you are really as factual and non-emotional as you put on, I would see you pitching in to the technical debates and not just here trash-talking "truthers" and stroking egos with Dave. Saying we are all emotional and don't know how to use logic, is an emotional statement itself, based solely on how you feel about "us."



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This character SPECIFICALLY accused me of being a traitor and a criminal, he SPECIFICALLY said I'm actively involved in some coverup, he SPECIFICALLY accused me of benefitting from the attack in some way, and he SPECIFICALLY said that he personally was going to make sure that I "will not get away". There is no flipping way I am "making them into something else in my head", so if you're attempting to claim he said or meant anything other than this then you are lying through your teeth.


This sounds like a personal problem that is not at all related to the actual text. He said he was not here to debate you. You told him to go away if he did not want to discuss. Everything else is...something else. I know how to read, you apparently cannot admit you failed that test. Do you have anything to say about Mike Bellone or 9/11 or conspiracy theory or anything related to the OP or thread? We have covered this to death. Anyone that wants to look back and read the actual text can. All your complaining will not change that. I am sorry.





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join