Does it make any sense to try to convince the believer of the official tale (OT)?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Cassius666
I am sorry you feel attacked, but if the tinfoil hat fits, wear it.

Personally, I don't subscribe to the idea that truthers are a bunch of crackpots wearing tinfoil hats to ward off the mind control beams they think the gov't is zapping them with. I think the truthers are simply just gullible as all hell and they'll swallow anything those damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out, becuase let's face it, claiming the towers were hit by lasers from outer space or hologram images of planes is a pretty tough sell otherwise. Simply calling the truthers crackpots just forces them on the defensive and does nothing to encourage them to think critically for themsleves.

The truthers certainly aren't stupid, they just don't know they're being fed a lot of drivel.

We have all seen pictures of WTC 7 seconds before the collapse, what firefighter said that? I can just as esily say that building 7 was just as fine as it looked. And what makes you think what is written on the report is actually based on research?

It came NYFD deputy fire chief Peter Hayden, who was physically there all day at the scene of WTC 7, and I know this is what he said because it came directly from an interview he gave. Would you like to see it? It's on the web.

FYI the 9/11 commission report has a HUGE bibliography that shows exactly where they got every tidbit of their information. A good quarter of the report is listing where they got all their material from.

There are people who say the impact hole of the pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of an airliner. Ill leave that debat to people who know what an impact hole from an airliner is supposed to look like.

As there are multitudes of eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, the hole in the Pentagon was necessarily caused by a plane, regardless of what people anticipate the hole should or should not look like.

And again on the NIST report, it is basically the experts of the NIST report against every other expert who was not under the umbrella of the NIST report, assuming that what is written in the NIST report is actually based upon the research of all the Americans under that umbrella. Not to mention all the things the NIST report does not explain, like why ground zero was burning for months, to the point to melt some of the steele into a nice round ball.

This doesn't answer the question. How is the NIST report supposedly a lie becuase of the material they *didn't* go over?

Try to take off the tinfoil hat and you too might realize that the cause of the collapse is less fantastic than what the report suggests.

Ummm, what?

I am sorry but the NIST report is trying to push a fantastic tale of special and unique events, which did not occour again since, even in relation with building 7 which was not hit by an airliner and supposedly collapsed due to fire, a fire that did not look that bad looking on, unlike that appartment building that burned in China 3 days ago which was a lot cheaper exposed to a fire far worse and did not collapse. Or the building that burned in china on new years eve and was ablaze. And before you say it was more modern, what the "S N I P" were the standards for buildings that were built in 1985 anyway? We are not talking about a structure errected in 1885, keep that in mind.

Then there is the fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 30 min before it actually collapsed, giving detailed reason for the collapse.

Believing in that video of the alien autopsy you are trying to push takes a lot of faith, is all I am trying to say.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...so at what point of seeing conspircies first hand do they start suspecting hologram planes and lasers from outer space?

Where did i say that?????

I am talking about the fact that if and when people see first hand police corruption and gov, they see that people in authority abuse that power, and it means they are open to understand things like 911 may have questions over it, like it was let happen.

Like the way it took me years to get people around me to understand how they fix soccer. Soccer clubs use non lethel weapons to help them win at home, in footie matches. This took me years to get through to people, as they think that humans would not use such things. But i bet you they do.

For anyone who does not know, if you microwave people they will be exhausted and find that they find it hard to run. You telling me this is not important knowledge to those in sports, of course it is.

You telling me things like old trafford away dressing room, does not have weapons being focused into it, so that man utd find a team easier to beat.

I bet if you ask foreign teams in europe they will tell you privately english premier league is full of teams using weapons on each other.

Mourinho(real madrid manager), has not lost at home for like 5 years or something, cough cough.

Does the public know, of course not, but also none of them will know that one team has a head ache, and the other team is buzzing with energy, lol. The public think that sports are free of cheating, lol.

reply to post by Cassius666

I am sorry but the NIST report is trying to push a fantastic tale of special and unique events, which did not occour again since, even in relation with building 7 which was not hit by an airliner and supposedly collapsed due to fire, a fire that did not look that bad looking on,

You don't think it looked that bad? Well, I guess that cinches that. All done, inside job has been declared. A "fantastic tale"? Maybe to those with no background in engineering, reason, logic or language skills. Didn't happen before or since? Well isn't that just toooooo strange. You mean before 9/11 nobody ever slammed a big passenger jet into the World Trade Center towers? I had no clue, I thought that happened on pretty much a weekly basis.

Then there is the fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 30 min before it actually collapsed, giving detailed reason for the collapse.

Oh really? A detailed report on the cause of the collapse? Prove it.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666

 

I am sorry but the NIST report is trying to push a fantastic tale of special and unique events, which did not occour again since, even in relation with building 7 which was not hit by an airliner and supposedly collapsed due to fire, a fire that did not look that bad looking on,

You don't think it looked that bad? Well, I guess that cinches that. All done, inside job has been declared. A "fantastic tale"? Maybe to those with no background in engineering, reason, logic or language skills. Didn't happen before or since? Well isn't that just toooooo strange. You mean before 9/11 nobody ever slammed a big passenger jet into the World Trade Center towers? I had no clue, I thought that happened on pretty much a weekly basis.

Then there is the fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 30 min before it actually collapsed, giving detailed reason for the collapse.

Oh really? A detailed report on the cause of the collapse? Prove it.

Yes nobody slammed a passenger jet in WTC 7. Maybe flight 93 was meant to hit WTC 7 and something went wrong, but that is just wild speculation, lets stick to the facts.

Just look it up on youtube. BBC reports collapse before it happens, or something like that. Just another coincidence in a string of especial events and coincidences on that day.

But you keep on believing. Wear that tinfoil hat with pride.

what's more impressive is the way some people come on here in order to convince the truthers to believe the government story. How intriguing. They need us to believe, because they need to believe? It's like a religion.

Originally posted by Lord Jules
what's more impressive is the way some people come on here in order to convince the truthers to believe the government story. How intriguing. They need us to believe, because they need to believe? It's like a religion.

Maybe its their day job :p who knows. If they want me to believe, the experts who compiled the NIST report have to convince the experts who did not work on the NIST report first.

Going with the majority is maybe not very scientific, but I am no expert myself, so I am going to rely on people who are, over some guy typing away about UFOs and the NIST report on abovetopsecret. No offense.

reply to post by Cassius666


One small note about the BBC report, since I know you won't listen to reason on any other point on account of the helmet you're wearing and the 3-D glasses you can't seem to take off: They did NOT report the collapse 30 minutes before it happened. What they reported was almost exactly this (don't quote it as actual, it's from memory): "We are now getting reports that the Salomon building is currently collapsing or has collapsed."

They were uncertain. It is currently very well known that the firefighters had pulled out a few hours before, because they knew the situation was basically hopeless. There wasn't enough water pressure to put down a fire 20 stories up, and the integrity of the building was in question. It stands to reason that someone got a report that it was beginning to come down, and that's what BBC reported.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Cassius666

 

One small note about the BBC report, since I know you won't listen to reason on any other point on account of the helmet you're wearing and the 3-D glasses you can't seem to take off: They did NOT report the collapse 30 minutes before it happened. What they reported was almost exactly this (don't quote it as actual, it's from memory): "We are now getting reports that the Salomon building is currently collapsing or has collapsed."

They were uncertain. It is currently very well known that the firefighters had pulled out a few hours before, because they knew the situation was basically hopeless. There wasn't enough water pressure to put down a fire 20 stories up, and the integrity of the building was in question. It stands to reason that someone got a report that it was beginning to come down, and that's what BBC reported.

www.youtube.com...

No that is not what they reported. You can even read in their message bar (the technical term escapes me) at 3:09 that the Salomon building has also collapsed (wtc 7) while it is visible behind the reporter. And it did not "begin" to come down, it just did at some point.

I am the one who wont listen to reason? You are the one who wont listen to reason and keeps on believing the fantastic tale of special events and special science about somebody (remember there is no alqaeda) attacking America and of UFOs and you probably believe in reptillians too. How did those debries manage to target WTC 7 and take it down anyhow without damaging the surrounding area muchly?

But do not worry. Nobody here wants to steal your tinfoil hat .

reply to post by Cassius666


Well, I don't know about you, but I've seen a very large share of false reports. Believe it or not, reporters are something called human. I know you want to believe that everything on TV is true, but I can tell you, in times of panic, especially during significant events where chaos is rampant, mistakes are made constantly. How many times will someone ask, "What happened?" and have a random citizen spout out "Everything's blowing up!" The reporter might infer bombs, and then report them. Then, in the aftermath, they find out that a transformer had exploded and lit up a building or something. Reporters are very often WRONG.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Well, I don't know about you, but I've seen a very large share of false reports. Believe it or not, reporters are something called human. I know you want to believe that everything on TV is true, but I can tell you, in times of panic, especially during significant events where chaos is rampant, mistakes are made constantly. How many times will someone ask, "What happened?" and have a random citizen spout out "Everything's blowing up!" The reporter might infer bombs, and then report them. Then, in the aftermath, they find out that a transformer had exploded and lit up a building or something. Reporters are very often WRONG.

Well yes, thats not what happened though, he was not being general and did not say it in a "everything is blowing up" fashion. Not if they discuss afterwards how the fires brought down the building when it is still standing.

But like I said, keep believing in the OS and bigfoot and UFOs. I am going to side with the vast majority on this one as well, you side with your elite OS group.

reply to post by Cassius666


Of course they would be talking about fires if the firefighters believed that it was part of what was making the building collapse.

And for the record (again, and again, and again that I've said this), I don't freakin trust the government. They are a bunch of greedy, murderous, slimy, underdogs of absolute filth that are destroying our planet and lying to everyone constantly. I simply believe that the building collapses were not faked by the government using demolitions. Is this such a radical position?

"I think the truthers are simply just gullible as all hell and they'll swallow anything those damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out, becuase let's face it, claiming the towers were hit by lasers from outer space or hologram images of planes is a pretty tough sell otherwise."

I'll give you this, you should know a thing or two about being gullible, since you swallowed the Official Fairy Tale hook, line and sinker.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I don't know why this person needs to resort to playing children's games like this, unless he's just lashing out from pent up frustration from not getting anywhere in foisting his conspiracy stories onto others in the same ease they were foisted onto him. You truthers can call us idiots, you can accuse us of being gullible, and you can even say we go around kicking pregnant dogs, for all I care, since noone is here to be friends with anyone. At the end of the day, what you truthers need to realize is that *we* have questions too, and it's almost with religious fervor that you truthers avoid answering them.

-How can you insist WTC 7 was suffering so little damage when NYC firefighters reported the fires in WTC 7 were burnign out of control and were causing buldes in the side of the building

-How can you insist Mohammed Atta was such a poor pilot when his own girlfriend reported he had pilot's licenses from every country he visited?

-How can you insist a cruise missile/predator drone/UFO/whatever hit the Pentagon when the Pentagon is in the middle of an industrial park and hordes of people specifically saw it was a passenger jet?

Apparently you can't read and all you do is lump people you call Truthers together and dish out emotional bullsh!t like you did about Edna Cintron. Like a 400 deg fire that has no effect on steel isn't a threat to a human being.

I don't talk about WTC 7.

I don't talk about Mohammed Atta.

I don't talk about cruise missiles or predator drones or UFOs hitting the Pentagon.

I talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in WTC 1 & 2 and what could not destroy them. Even if airliners did it how can the event be accurately analyzed without that information? So why does anybody object to having it? Why doesn't Richard Gage and his EXPERTS demand it?

psik

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Of course they would be talking about fires if the firefighters believed that it was part of what was making the building collapse.

And for the record (again, and again, and again that I've said this), I don't freakin trust the government. They are a bunch of greedy, murderous, slimy, underdogs of absolute filth that are destroying our planet and lying to everyone constantly. I simply believe that the building collapses were not faked by the government using demolitions. Is this such a radical position?

You can believe what you want. I just dont see why you have all that need to constantly butt in and contradict people because they dont believe in bigfoot and the NIST report. Seems quite childish to me. You made your point more than clear and beyond calling people paranoid did not have much to contribute to the discussion or were able to provide a more rational explanation than the "truthters", that is not straight out of fantasia.

What are you here for? Is this your day job or something?

Originally posted by Cassius666

You can believe what you want. I just dont see why you have all that need to constantly butt in and contradict people because they dont believe in bigfoot and the NIST report. Seems quite childish to me. You made your point more than clear and beyond calling people paranoid did not have much to contribute to the discussion or were able to provide a more rational explanation than the "truthters", that is not straight out of fantasia.

What are you here for? Is this your day job or something?

It's only apparently fantasy to you, and your allusions to believers in bigfoot are not appreciated. They are completely unrelated to this discussion and make you look like a troll.

You see, I didn't START OUT believing NIST's report. It took research, observations, and conclusions. Then, the data backed it up. Obviously, I shouldn't have to back up my opinion, because anyone with access to google can find these things out. Just check out that thread that was started, where the OP had asked people to post their evidence for believing in gravity-driven collapses.

Here, this way you don't even have to look for it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



And just a final note. Calling something fantasy and fallaciously relating it to unsupportable fragmentary and faked videos does not make your comparison suddenly true. It is fallacy in its most profound usage and is very dishonorable of you.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Cassius666


And just a final note. Calling something fantasy and fallaciously relating it to unsupportable fragmentary and faked videos does not make your comparison suddenly true. It is fallacy in its most profound usage and is very dishonorable of you.

Yes there is more to it than the youtube videos. Like the many experts outside the NIST umbrella not being convinced. And most of the firefighters that escaped with their lifes. Slimy truthers? Still I find it very odd that you are trying so hard. One could think thats how you make a living. But if you want to keep on believing that fires took down WTC 7 in a fashion that just happened to look like a controlled demolition go right ahead.

If you want to convince me, convince the experts outside the NIST umbrella who were not very convinced by their report. Untill then I think I am going to side with the majority on this one and rather not embrace the NIST report, which would put me on the fringe of society.

edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Cassius666


Unfortunately, most of the "engineers" don't listen to logic. Almost all of them subscribe to many other conspiracy theories and are following their path because they feel "in their heart" that something was up. It doesn't mean they did math and science to come to their conclusions. If you looked at that post I linked, the last link within my evidential list was an engineering journal completely unassociated with NIST. But, I suppose by "out of NIST's umbrella," you mean someone who disagrees. I gotta tell you, nobody but conspiracy theorists seem to have trouble with this.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Unfortunately, most of the "engineers" don't listen to logic. Almost all of them subscribe to many other conspiracy theories and are following their path because they feel "in their heart" that something was up. It doesn't mean they did math and science to come to their conclusions. If you looked at that post I linked, the last link within my evidential list was an engineering journal completely unassociated with NIST. But, I suppose by "out of NIST's umbrella," you mean someone who disagrees. I gotta tell you, nobody but conspiracy theorists seem to have trouble with this.

Sure experts not payed to produce the NIST report dont listen to logic and side with conspiracy theories. All the fantastic tales in the report must be true then. You see the thing ist, I dont want to be singled out as the crazy guy who believes in UFOs and the NIST report. You make more people embrace the NIST report and I might change camp. Untill you do that, I would rather not embrace the NIST report which would put me on the fringe of society.

Maybe aliens exist, maybe they dont. Maybe the NIST report is true and all those coincidences and unique events happened. Maybe they did not. I admire your persistence, but Id prefer to not go through life talking of UFOs and how the NIST report is the real deal and be known as the odd crazy guy who thinks UFOs and the NIST report are the real deal.

reply to post by Cassius666


But, you see, most people DO support the NIST's report. People like you just chalk all them up in the same group. Just because they agree with their findings, you say they're being paid or that they're crazy.

If I told you that I believed the sky didn't exist because I had found 2000 scientists who all questioned the existence of the sky, would that make me reasonable when the rest of the scientific community does think the sky exists? And would it be reasonable to believe them if these 2000 scientists were made up of guys that also believed the world was flat, that the devil is trying to make people deviate from God, and that John Stuart reports real news?

reply to post by Cassius666

BBC reports collapse before it happens, or something like that.

I know that, however you said they gave a detailed report on the cause of the collapse before the collpase - where is that? Imagination?