A question for 911 deniers, what about the NIST report was so conclusive and convincing for you to d

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by bsbray11

 

You have to read it before you can criticize it. You don't even know what it says.

I wasn't friggin criticizing it . Love the way you put a spin on my words there . It's times like this that I know to take a break , otherwise I will attract the attention of the mods and get penalized . And you are not worth it , so goodnight . Cast not your pearls before swine ...

do what the op asks prove it was caused by fire and planes instead of bitching makes you look silly

Well not necessarily prove, but at least sketch out what you think happened. So far, we are seeing the very definition of defeaning silence.

I must say I am a little shocked that we have not seen certain members on this thread yet. If I put up a thread about laser beams and holographic planes they would have been all over it in a matter of minutes, and we have all seen it happen. Yet here is a thread, not in judgment of, but simply asking for another point of view and to explain why "Trusters" believe what they do and all we have are the sounds of crickets. That is funny to me. If this thread were about "truthers" being asked what evidence they have, it would be 20 pages by now. As a matter of fact, I think I recall some threads just like that.

reply to post by MrWendal


Not Trusters, 911 deniers, as in there were no explosions, that wasnt an explosion, he did not see what he said he saw.

The "Trusters" camp is those who agree with the official story of 9/11... the "Truthers" camp is those who do not believe in the Official Story of 9/11.. so the "Trusters" in this case would be those who disagree with A&E for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 truth, First Responders, etc etc.

reply to post by MrWendal


I know, but I prefer to call them 911 deniers instead. Easier to distinct than trusters and truthers. It has a nicer ring too.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Well not necessarily prove, but at least sketch out what you think happened. So far, we are seeing the very definition of defeaning silence.

edit on 17-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

sorry thats what i ment

Funny how no trusters have ressponded with any thing credable

Must be some sort of government holiday. I can't recall ever seeing a 9/11 post where the usual characters do not jump in on the first day, first page.

reply to post by bsbray11

the obvious, that two planes hit two skyscrapers and then three skyscrapers were completely destroyed to the ground

That is it in a nutshell . Now , was that so hard to admit ?

I take it that you actually believe that airplanes struck the towers ? And , apparently , you have good reason to believe that ?

This is what I also believe , and I don't have to read some goddamned report to come to this conclusion .

Planes hit the towers , towers collapsed as a result of the damage incurred from the impacts and the subsequent fires .

HOWEVER , the root cause of the towers collapsing was due to faulty design , in my opinion .

NIST and the 9/11 Commission report have not influenced my opinion , as I have not read either , and don't intend to . So , it's not like I am advocating the "OS" , as I've not read any official reports . You guys are really sore-losers , you criticize those who have read the reports and accuse them of being "OS" supporters for having read said reports , and then you criticize those who Haven't read the goddamned reports .

Just goes to prove that you are doing nothing but grasping at straws to defend your position .

Grow up , and stop asking me to explain why I defend the "OS" . I defend my observations of the events , not some friggin report that I HAVE NOT READ . If I've not read it , what kind of IDIOT would be IGNORANT enough to accuse me of defending it ???

You people are pathetic . Just because someone disagrees with your new-found religion then they automatically support your opposition .

You people sound exactly like Bush , whom you loathe and despise ... " You're either with us , or against us ..."

If you have individual questions to ask of me , feel free . Don't ask me to explain why I defend the "OS" though , as it is apparent that I don't , since you guys define "OS" as a couple of reports that I haven't read . IF I"VE NOT READ THEM , HOW CAN I SAY THAT I SUPPORT THEM ?

If my take on the events of the day just happen to coincide with something in those reports , don't assume that it is because I gleaned it from them .

Hive-mentality . Look it up .

reply to post by kaya82

do what the op asks prove it was caused by fire and planes instead of bitching makes you look silly

I have a better idea ... You prove that it wasn't caused by fire and planes . That's how this works see , you are the accuser , therefore the burden of proof is on you .

And stop posting sarcastic one-liners , it makes you look silly . And immature .

reply to post by okbmd


Read my earlier posts. The NIST report proves it was not brought down by impact and fire. The subsequent testing proves it. Similar buildings with more intense fires prove it. The building codes prove that it was designed to withstand much, much more, and the NIST report shows no system or design failures leading to the collapse. The Firefighters (the experts on highrise fires) rushed into the building believing it to be safe.

The only thing we have stating that it was indeed the Fires, is a couple of paragraphs of summation that do not match the data in the report, and we have the word of some dirty politicians, currently being considered for charges relating to the actions following the collapse. (Tainted credibility.)

I believe the burden of proof here lies with the ones stating the unbelievable claims. Namely, those that would push the Official Story in spite of all data saying otherwise. You said it yourself, the burden of proof lies with the ones making the claims.

They claim the towers were brought down by impact and fire, so prove it. They did a massive study, so show us where in that study it blames the fires. They interviewed tons and tons of witnesses, so where are the ones that saw redhot beams beginning to buckle? I have seen plenty that saw and heard explosions, but I haven't seen any that saw beams buckling due to heat.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I am not entirely surprised you are unaware of witnesses to steel buckling at the WTC on 9/11, but they exist; police, firemen and civilians :-

www.representativepress.org...

Of course this was going on at great height where fire was raging at the plane impact points so not easy to see detail from the ground. NYPD helicopter had a good view though.

Obviously truthers would prefer to pretend these witnesses don't exist because because steel buckling in fire rather makes a nonsense of alleged controlled demolition.

Now now let them piece toegether their account of the events undisturbed.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


I agree that the movement is dead. It was dead before it started. The truth will never come out.

That doesn't mean that I am a nobody. My degree work is in Chemistry and Engineering. My brother's degree is in Physics. I have discussed the ins and outs of this subject with career Professional Engineers (P.E. designation is a coveted thing), and nobody believes that a kerosene fire compromised the integrity of that steel structure. Nobody believes that the top part of that building would have fallen without torqueing on all three axes. Nobody believes that the hundreds of beams all gave way simultaneously and thus allowed the "pancake" that we saw.

If I give the Official Story a whole lot of unlikely what-ifs, it still won't work out. (a) Lets suppose that this particular kerosene + aluminum hull + office furniture, carpets, etc. = intense heats rivalling a chemical fire. Very unlikely, but lets suppose that happened. It still would have taken at least 12 hours to compromise the steel......but lets give another unlikely factor, (b) lets suppose the impact compromised the fire retardent and insulation of the beams so that they were immediately exposed to the heat. Unlikely on any massive scale, but lets suppose it anyway. (c) Then, lets suppose that all the prior engineering, loading, and structural testing was somewhat faulty. Instead of overengineering with a margin for error, maybe they cut corners, maybe they bribed somebody, maybe they got it built to the bare minimum standards...unlikely on that project, but lets suppose it.

(a)(b)(c) If we give up all those unlikelies, then maybe a perfect storm of accelerants, bad construction, and particularly lucky impact zone compromised those beams. It would still only be those particular beams. Radiating out from the impact there would be stronger and stronger beams. As some collapsed, others would have held on, and the top portion of that building would have began to torque and twist as more and more beams became overloaded. Some sections would have ripped apart at the pre-designed junctions meant to giveway, and others would have sprung back elastically. The building would have swayed violently, it would have been visible and audible as creaking and groaning, not explosions, squibs, and pressurized blowouts. The top part might have fallen to one side, and the subsequent fatigue on the existing beams might have lead to further collapse in the opposite direction. It doesn't seem to have ever happened before, but we are already reaching WAY out there, so maybe it is "possible."

If we give up all those unlikely scenarios, and we say maybe it did initiate the collapse, we still get a much different looking, violent, and uncoordinated collapse fraught with much swaying, buckling, and generalized disarray!

reply to post by getreadyalready


Please let them piece toegether their version of the accounts. There are plenty of other threads for debate.

reply to post by Alfie1


I have seen some of the video of buckling, and I have seen the video of the bulge. I don't doubt that the planes hit the towers. I don't doubt that there was major damage. I don't doubt that there was a raging fire on multiple floors. I don't doubt that the collapses caused major damage on the surrounding buildings.

I doubt that it caused such a uniform collapse without torque and sway. I doubt that it would have brought down the entire building. I doubt that the fire was burning at ideal temperature, because it was severely damped, and even at ideal temps, kerosene does not burn hot enough to compromise the steel. I doubt that it could possibly have happened in such a short time frame, it would have taken at least 12 hours. I doubt the firefighters, being experts on highrise fires, would have rushed on in full-force if there was any remote chance of collapse. They have abstained from going into many buildings, but not this one.

I highly doubt both buildings would have come down so similarly and in such a similar time frame.

I entirely do not believe that the mistaken BBC newscast was just an error, because the building was clearly standing on their screens!

I entirely do not believe that the damaged and burned vehicles many blocks away make any sense whatsoever.

I don't know what happened that day, I was watching it live on television the whole time, and I work with a girl that watched live in person from a nearby Federal Building! I just believe that we deserve a better explanation, with better facts, and a more logical chain of events, so that I can buy the story. They can lie if they want, but please make it sensible, so I can believe it.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Please let them piece toegether their version of the accounts. There are plenty of other threads for debate.

You are correct, but they seem to just be attacking the truthers, instead of pulling anything out of the report to debate.

No one has pulled a piece of the NIST report and said "look" here is some evidence.

I will leave it alone for awhile, but it bugs me when people are too lazy to go look for data, or too uneducated to read and interpret for themselves, yet they are more than willing to accuse us of being as naive and uneducated as them!

reply to post by getreadyalready


Believing in the NIST report is in my opinion an act of faith. With little going for them they resort to ad hominem attacks, much like a very religious person who has his faith challenged by an evolutionist.

However I might be wrong and thats why I wanted to see what they have to say for their side of the story. Doing so without debate they might be able to produce content, without it deoriating into namecalling.

Thanks for leaving it alone for a while. I understand how easy it can be to feel attacked and how hard it can be to let it go.

Originally posted by Alfie1
www.representativepress.org...

Hmm. A website that is asking for donations. I thought that was a big no-no to you debunkers?

I am working hard to set the record straight and end the risk of terrorism. Please Donate to help me get the truth out. Those conspiracy websites are clearly well funded and like I have said, they misdirect the American public away from questioning specific foreign polices like U.S. support for Israel. I need some money to work with to undo the damage these websites are doing and get the facts to the people. 9/11 was not a game, these conspiracy theories undermine efforts to get the government to change the unjust Middle East policies: Please donate to help Representative Press get the facts out to the people.