Has 9/11 truth had its day ?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

I am not ignoring anything.

Unlike you I know it is irrelevant to the discussion and a waste of time.

I don't need to know what was used to know when a demolition is controlled, there is a very obvious difference to one that is uncontrolled.

Nice dodge Anok! (again) You are claiming controlled demolition but haven't a clue what caused the lateral ejections of the heavy materials. You know for a fact this is where you and your truther buddies get stuck. Come one... you must have some idea!

Originally posted by impressme


I can only assume demolition, do I have any pieces of demolition from ground zero that we all can claim as proof, well no I don’t.

You do know the old saying about when you assume?

Do I know what kind of demolition the perps used, no I don’t.

Neither do any other truthers. They all make up made-for-tv Sci-Fi movies scripts and find a way to make it work into their fantasy of the great American Evil Empire.

However, one thing for sure, the WTC didn’t fall down because of office fires and jet fuel, science has already proven this impossible.

I will ask you to please direct me to the peer reviewed article the shows the impossibility that you speak of.

The only thing that supports the demise of the WTC is demolition. I find it rather ironic that our government has done everything in their power to avoid investigating demolition and have avoided talking about it. Their silence in this matter says it all.

No, sound science and multitudes of peer reviewed articles ans conferences accepted by the scientific community think otherwise. The government doesn't need to talk about it. The last thing they should do, is give people like truthers a soap box to stand and spew their lies.

Anyone viewing the destruction of the WTC in all those videos can clearly see the buildings are blowing up and outward hurling thousands of pounds of steel in mid air and watching all the concrete vaporize in mid air before the WTC even fell.

Really? Have you watched a controlled demolition? Have you ever listened to one? Please explain the differences.

. It was a show, a grand shows, a false flag operation, in my opinion.

there is an old saying about opinions as well.

Chemicals found in the WTC dust that should not be there are chemicals that our military uses to make weapons and explosives.

Please use the word alleged regarding these chemicals. There is a reason why Jones has refused to have his work peer reviewed by a legitimate source.

If people cannot see demolition, then all I can say is the media’s propaganda machines have done a wonderful job of convincing people that their eyes are lying to them.

Another one of your opinions.

So, once again a truther can not be found to explain the lateral ejections of the materials seen during the collapses of the towers.

Originally posted by Alfie1
After nearly 9 years there seems to be nothing but feeble re-gurgitated material and fewer and fewer posters are supporting it. Is it time for truthers to move on to more productive pastures ?

Sure, the TRUTH is whatever the majority of people that are too dumb to comprehend 300 year old Newtonian physics believe.

The NIST can't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. Only idiots can believe that airliners could destroy buildings 2000 times their mass in less than 2 hours.

Years are irrelevant. The Laws of Physics will never change. The physics of skyscrapers did not change from the completion of the Empire State Building in 1931 to the destruction of the WTC 70 years later. So a lot of structural engineers have spent nine years making idiots of themselves. They have to keep high school kids from understanding Newtonian Physics.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If you actually read the NIST report, you'd know to not construct this strawman.

Well, maybe you read parts of it. It's apparent you didn't understand it.

Why don't you explain what it is I'm missing Joey?

Moderate temperature creep.

Load transfers.

Plane damage.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
If you actually read the NIST report, you'd know to not construct this strawman.

Well, maybe you read parts of it. It's apparent you didn't understand it.

Why don't you explain what it is I'm missing Joey?

Moderate temperature creep.

Load transfers.

Plane damage.

Like we are suupposed to pay attention to what the NIST says about plane damage whenthey can't even tell us the tons of steel on each level of the tower?

Where did they compute how much of the planes kinetic energy caused the deflection of the south tower? How could they do that withou the distributions of steel and concrete?

I have downloaded the NCSTAR1 report. Anybody that uses that to justify the official story is advertising that they are just an intellectual drone for the government.

psik

"While you are at it, learn to use the quote tags provided by ATS."

Yes sir Master, sir! Will I be gettin' a whippin' if I do not follow your orders Master sir?

reply to post by Six Sigma

You do know the old saying about when you assume?

What do you think you are doing?

Do I know what kind of demolition the perps used, no I don’t.

Neither do any other truthers. They all make up made-for-tv Sci-Fi movies scripts and find a way to make it work into their fantasy of the great American Evil Empire.

Like many of the OS believers do some of the time. They worship fox News, Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly for their truths.

However, one thing for sure, the WTC didn’t fall down because of office fires and jet fuel, science has already proven this impossible.

I will ask you to please direct me to the peer reviewed article the shows the impossibility that you speak of.

It’s the same peer reviewed article that you support, how does that work for you?

The only thing that supports the demise of the WTC is demolition. I find it rather ironic that our government has done everything in their power to avoid investigating demolition and have avoided talking about it. Their silence in this matter says it all.

No, sound science and multitudes of peer reviewed articles ans conferences accepted by the scientific community think otherwise. The government doesn't need to talk about it. The last thing they should do, is give people like truthers a soap box to stand and spew their lies.

So now, all Truthers are liars. Definition for truth is to tell a lie, is that right?
You are sadly wrong about the scientific community and Peer Reviewed articles.

www.ae911truth.org...

Perhaps, bashing all Truthers, and their proven science, experts, and denying evidence, is away for many OS believers to be patriotic in their minds. George Bush said lets not tolerate any outrages conspiracies theories concerning 911, perhaps some people blindly thought that means do not use your common sense, or common logic when reviewing the government reports concerning 911.

Anyone viewing the destruction of the WTC in all those videos can clearly see the buildings are blowing up and outward hurling thousands of pounds of steel in mid air and watching all the concrete vaporize in mid air before the WTC even fell.

Really? Have you watched a controlled demolition? Have you ever listened to one? Please explain the differences.

Yes, I have and the WTC demolition was no different.
Perhaps you saw the WTC fall down just like earthquake high-rise fall, you know with slabs of concrete all over the place and broken furniture that are recognizable with some rooms still intact. Is that the way you saw the WTC fall?

. It was a show, a grand shows, a false flag operation, in my opinion.

there is an old saying about opinions as well.

Oh, I deeply apologies, only YOU are allowed to give your opinions, and no one else .

Chemicals found in the WTC dust that should not be there are chemicals that our military uses to make weapons and explosives.

Please use the word alleged regarding these chemicals. There is a reason why Jones has refused to have his work peer reviewed by a legitimate source.

There is an old saying about opinions as well.

If people cannot see demolition, then all I can say is the media’s propaganda machines have done a wonderful job of convincing people that their eyes are lying to them.

Another one of your opinions.

No, I believe it’s the truth, funny that is all you have to say about that quote, I find that rather interesting.

So, once again a truther can not be found to explain the lateral ejections of the materials seen during the collapses of the towers.

Giving your opinions again?

No one knows what demolition was used to explain exactly what caused the lateral ejections of materials to explode they way they did.

You want to prove something out of nothing, and the OS believers want Truthers to believe something out of nothing.


[edit on 10-7-2010 by impressme]

Nice dodge Anok! (again) You are claiming controlled demolition but haven't a clue what caused the lateral ejections of the heavy materials. You know for a fact this is where you and your truther buddies get stuck. Come one... you must have some idea!

Not a dodge, I just don't see why you need this question answered?

It's not something I think is important, because we don't need to know.

If I gave you an answer it would just be speculation so what's the point? Just to give you ammo to debunk? If you really need to know I think it was a frozen fish.

You don't need to know what was used to know the collapses were controlled. The important point is whether the collapses were controlled, not what was used, please go bug someone else if you want an irrelevant pointless argument.

A man was found stabbed to death, no weapon was found, how do they know he was stabbed to death?

There are obvious differences in a controlled and an uncontrolled demolition, obviously you haven't done enough research to realise that.

One thing I do know is fire is not going to cause the ejection of steel weighing in the tons up to 600ft away, that takes a lot of energy.
The facade sections were not springs waiting for their kinetic energy to be released. For sections to eject like that they have to be first off disconnected from the rest of the structure, and then accelerated to maintain such a projection. A simple 'pancake collapse' would not have the extra energy needed do that.

But again as usual you guys are arguing stuff that wouldn't even have happened if the collapses were due to asymmetrical damage and fire, you can't even satisfy our argument about the collapse initiation. Until you can do that why should we even care about your argument concerning post collapse initiation events? If you can't prove fire caused the collapse initiation, then how can you claim to know what happened next? Go ahead, try to find anything post collapse initiation in the NIST report.

[edit on 7/10/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Moderate temperature creep.

And that explains what?

Load transfers.

You do realise that load transfer is what would keep the building standing, not the other way around? Loads would transfer from damaged 'trusses' to undamaged 'trusses'. There is a reason buildings are designed to be redundant.

Plane damage.

Irrelevant. The planes damage was asymmetrical and would not cause symmetrical collapse. Also what have the planes to do with your 'flimsy' trusses failing due to an hours worth of uncontrolled open-air fire?

Are you getting tired Joey? Your arguments are...

Originally posted by ANOK


Not a dodge, I just don't see why you need this question answered?

You know if you answer the question you will realize how impossible your fantasy is.

Why is it speculation? Your story is a controlled demolition. It's obvious that therm*te did not cause the lateral ejections. It had to have been some sort of explosive. So, yes you have to come up with what caused the lateral ejections. Pretty much silently.

Speakers Turned Up?

Originally posted by Alfie1
After nearly 9 years there seems to be nothing but feeble re-gurgitated material and fewer and fewer posters are supporting it. Is it time for truthers to move on to more productive pastures ?

I admit I haven't read all the replies in this thread, and forgive me if someone already brought this up.

But if "9/11 Truth Had It's Day", why does this list grow?

patriotsquestion911.com...

reply to post by TiffanyInLA


Outside the internet... 9/11 truth is virtually non-existent. Turn off your computer, 9/11 Truth goes away.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by Six Sigma]

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Outside the internet... 9/11 truth is virtually non-existent. Turn off your computer, 9/11 Truth goes away.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by Six Sigma]

It goes away for you as most of the people listed above do not participate in forums on the internet. But they still exist, in the real world, in very influential positions. The list grows.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

I guess you're not really familiar with the 9/11 debate. Institutions are prominent on the debunker side but the truther side is largely represented by individuals, who have in some cases banded together in association.

But I think you are missing the general point I am trying to make. Posting debunker style often involves exaggerated overreactions to truthers themselves, not reasoned argument. The example I posted is a similarly exaggerated overreaction to an institution because it is posted from the truther perspective, but in the debunker style. Do you understand my point now? Remember institutions are on the debunker side while the truther side is represented by individuals, in general

I'll go over it one more time. Just re-read the above paragraph.

Making a big deal about typos and spelling mistakes, when it is obvious that they aren't really germane to the discussion is another debunker characteristic. You may have noticed that in this thread.

So in an incredibly long-winded way, you're saying that

- you can't find an example of a debunker's post that is similar to your invented quote

- Debunkers sometimes take issue with the credentials of "organisations' like CIT and P4T

- most reputable institutions favour a traditional take on 9/11


Fair enough.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by TiffanyInLA

 

Outside the internet... 9/11 truth is virtually non-existent. Turn off your computer, 9/11 Truth goes away.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by Six Sigma]

It goes away for you as most of the people listed above do not participate in forums on the internet. But they still exist, in the real world, in very influential positions. The list grows.

Thing is, you can have issues with the commission report and still think 9/11 "Truth" is a load of rubbish.

And petitions do grow. It's kind of in their nature...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Moderate temperature creep.
Plane damage
Load transfers

And that explains what?

You really do not know, do you?

They explain why what you proposed is a strawman, since these are the additional factors that you ignored in your question.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

But if "9/11 Truth Had It's Day", why does this list grow?

Because they are dumb. Stupid tends to flock together. Just give it some time.

9/11 truth's day has come and gone.

The brutal truth is that if truthers had any REAL evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, then it would have been investigated years ago. You have zero real evidence, so no one cares what has convinced your feeble mind.

Four sentences from Joey.......three abusive and nasty words included....

Dumb....stupid....feeble. All class J, and a beacon of 'bunker light in an otherwise dark, indefensible fairytale!!


Why, ow why do you believe being nasty to people can replace honest debate Joey....??

Petitions increase in numbers because people feel strongly about the issue at hand and choose to offer their support in the form of a signature...

Not because they are dumb Joey......DOH!!

reply to post by benoni


How do petitions reflect those who change their minds later on, when more information comes to light or they investigate more fully?

Also, how does that petition accommodate people who think that there were intelligence failures, but that 9/11 "Truth" is complete rubbish? As far as I can see they would sign it. Indeed I'd probably sign it, if I didn't know it was being used here as spurious grist to the TM mill.

Come to think of it the Truth Movement increasingly pretends that those who are critical of the US government's intelligence standards pre-9/11 are somehow Truthers. Another sign that the main battles - the ones over explosives and missiles and fake crash sites - are being lost.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA

Originally posted by Alfie1
After nearly 9 years there seems to be nothing but feeble re-gurgitated material and fewer and fewer posters are supporting it. Is it time for truthers to move on to more productive pastures ?

I admit I haven't read all the replies in this thread, and forgive me if someone already brought this up.

But if "9/11 Truth Had It's Day", why does this list grow?

patriotsquestion911.com...

Because its creater is trawling the internet, trying to find any criticism related to 9/11 and passing it off as "zomg 9/11 was an inside job".

Case in point, number two on that list, General Wesley Clark. Reading the little blurb next to his picture:

"I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works. We need Congress to do its job. We need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch. ... We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time."

And then reading the transcript

I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works, we need Congress to do its job, we need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch, we need

George Stephanopoulos: Like what?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: We need to really get to the bottom of the Abramoff scandal, we should have a special prosecutor appointed for that, we really need a congressional investigation of the whole business of the NSA wiretapping and how far that goes, there's been a lot of squirreling around the edges; we've never completed the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had - the evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time. I think Americans are best served by a strong 2-party system and that's been out of whack and what I can do in 2006 is try to help the right Democrats get into office and that's what I'm going to do.

What does that have to do with questioning the facts of 9/11? It seems more like questioning the possible abuse of 9/11 to further a political agenda, allowing illegal wiretaps, going to war in Iraq, etc.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by roboe]