Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


it's been 5 pages, and i've asked you to answer my question. you've only linked to other sites dealing with it, which i debunked. hypocrisy much?

oh yeah, and you've repeated debunked rhetoric multiple times after being shown you're wrong. i don't mind discussing 9/11 with people who disagree, but once someone shows themselves to be a fool, there is no point.

i'd advise everyone discussing here to move to a different thread, you'll find a greater level of decency and honesty elsewhere.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Mmmkay. Well, thanks for backing up your claim. I've never seen any image of WTC 7 engulfed in flames. The available images do only show a few fires burning on a few floors.

really? So all that smoke pouring out of the entire south face was from what exactly?

You're giving votes to people who haven't voted. There are over 1500 architects and engineers that have come out publicly against the official theory. You can't even come close to finding that many architects or engineers who have come out publicly to support the official theory.

You cannot count any architect or engineer who has not come out publicly to state their opinion one way or another. And you also cannot claim that anyone who has not come out publicly, automatically sides with the official theory. You have no idea what someone believes or doesn't believe just because they choose to be silent or are ill-informed of the facts, or don't even care one way or another.

The fact is: there are more architects and engineers that have come out publicly against the official theory, than have come out publicly for the official theory.

Ah yes, and the fact that ASCE has not found fault with NIST's findings doesnt ring a bell? 1500 "professionals" I use quotes, because out of that "1500" probably ten, maybe eleven, have any experience or authority to comment. i dont see how interior home designers, and small scale architect designers have any say so regarding something as complex as the WTC and controlled demolition.

You are either misstating the facts, or again twisting the facts to manufacture an argument. Reputable physicists (and independent researchers) have found what appears to be unignited thermitic material found in different samples of WTC dust.

Physicists? Really? I thought to find out what a certain material is, or a substance, I'd send it to a chemist. what abilities does a physicist have to run chemical tests? Strange. But not really considering the person leading the Truther religion is Dr. Griffin, a theologian. But hey, theologians are all well versed in engineering, physics, controlled demolitions, chemistry, metallurgy. Right? Right? And Kevin Ryan. Poor guy. Couldnt even do a simple chemical experiment correctly. Oh and then LYING about what UL does. And LYING about his position in UL. And LYING about his expertise! What does testing water have to do with testing steel??

Mmmkay. Well, thanks for backing up your claim.

Ah yes, Old Richard "Boxboy" Gage, is so reliable.

I'll ask you to provide proof that he has deliberately falsified evidence, or otherwise manufactured evidence.

Well for starters, there is a reason we call him "boxboy". Remember why? Also, he is an architect. Yeah i dont see in his achievements, anything about helping construct 110 story buildings. Also, why does he insist on calling thermite "high tech explosives"? Uhhhh thermite does not explode. I thought someone so "intelligent" like Gage would have known that. Also, his deliberate twisting of the whole "50 ton press" disappearing fiasco. The way he made it sound as if the whole damn thing weighed 50 tons!

As you can see, almost all of your points have been found to be false themselves. So, before you go calling out others about their "false" statements, I'd ask that you do some real research, and get informed before you spread any more false statements of your own.

I will be waiting for you to provide proof that Richard Gage has deliberately falsified or manufactured evidence.

Well I hope I helped in fixing your errors. No, in fact your points have been found to be false or incorrect or based on garbage. Yeah, real research does wonders! Too bad you researched in the wrong areas! I did mine in the real world!

edit to add: some insite into Richard "Boxboy" Gage:
screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

I love this one:
screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

Richard Gage Opposed to NIST Safety Regulations
Usually I just make fun of these idiots, but the recent debate between Richard Gage and Chris Mohr shows just how scary these people can be. I suppose we should be thankful that Gage is now a full time nutter and not an actual working architect anymore. Based just on this exchange regarding the NIST World Trade Center 7 report, he should have his license pulled. From around 1:52 into the debate.

Mohr: Do you also oppose the fire and safety regulations that NIST has proposed in these reports?

Host: Well we have one minute now for Richard to discuss that, perhaps Richard would like to…

Gage: In fact I do, there are billions of dollars that are spent needlessly as a result of the recommendations that NIST forced, that were forced on several other building codes.

Mohr: That would scare me.

Gage: It is needless, and architects and engineers, 1400 of us are crying for a new investigation.

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...
More fun here:
screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Elbereth

Originally posted by GenRadek

Well you know, the way the WTC floors were set up, its no wonder they progressivly collapsed the way they did. And yes, guess what, that pesky steel only tube in tube design is what helped. What held up each floor? Steel seats upon which floor truss ends sat on. The same design from top to bottom, save for the technical and mechanical floors. So, yes, Verange would have worked here.

my bolding

The 76,000 member American Institute of Architects (AIA) would not agree with the above statement by the General.
-------------------------

From the American Institute of Architects written testimony for the House Science Committee's hearing on NIST's Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse:

The major finding of the NIST report is that the design and construction materials of the World Trade Center did not contribute to the disaster; they performed exceptionally well. Despite this fact, the report offers several recommendations that are not supported by the investigation, nor are they backed by substantive research. In fact, the premises of some of the statements appear to be in error.

Did you forget the fact that NIST tested the materials WITH fireproofing, without damage?

Also read on in your report:

Conclusion

NIST has undertaken an extraordinary effort to investigate and understand the consequences of the most devastating terrorist attack in our nation's history. It should be reassuring to the public that the report concludes that the World Trade Center towers were well within the contemporary norms of design and construction, and that the buildings were able to stand long enough to allow thousands of people to escape.

But the terrible loss of life that day demands that we study the results of this investigation closely to learn what the design and construction professions have done right, and where improvements can be made to better protect people in buildings.

The recommendations in the NIST report are useful guidelines towards that end. However, the AIA believes that at times the recommendations overlook measures and technologies that are already in practice, or go in directions that are not supported by either the investigation or scientific research....................
...........
The NIST report and recommendations raise powerful issues about how best to achieve building safety and security. The AIA encourages NIST to further investigate areas such as actual building occupant loads and develop data on actual building performance through additional testing of full-sized components. NIST provides an ideal platform to investigate and report fairly these issues. However, it will be necessary to gather much more data to verify any change in the direction of model building codes. The AIA continues to believe that the best way to ensure that building codes protect the public is to ensure that model codes are developed through an open, consensus based process.

You see, they were lamenting the fact that the tests were still limited. Also, some have questioned the design safety as well:
www.designnews.com...

reply to post by GenRadek


Yes, you quoted the AIA's ass-covering lick-slurping of the NIST. The meat of the report is not in sync with those paragraphs. Am I correct that you reject the specific AIA statements I provided?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Time and time again I see the same BS from the Truther movement and time and time again, when they're presented irrefutable facts they stop posting on threads and disappear.

So, enough of that.

I'm calling you out.

Here's some BS you can no longer claim to be true:


1. No other building ever collapsed from fire - A BS argument:

- No other buildings have been built like the Twin Towers
- No other sky scrapers have been hit full speed by planes that size
- The only two buildings built like the towers, hit by planes, both behave EXACTLY the same way

2 .The building looked like demos/ There's no other explanation a rational, intelligent person can reach - NOT TRUE:

- No one saw or heard hundreds of timed explosions

- The French use a demo technique, that doesn't use explosives, but does use the weight of upper floors to crush the lower floors. And guess what, a building destroyed this way looks EXACTLY like the Twin Towers.

3. Top down demolition with no visible or audible explosions , in which the timing of the collapse gradually increases to the speed of free fall is a rational explanation. - NOT TRUE.

Top down demo has never been used for skyscrapers, for pretty obvious reason.
The idea that these invisible and inaudible explosions were timed in such a way to gradually increase in speed as they moved down the building is absurd and has never been used in any demo EVER.

4. Building 7 only had a few fires - NOT TRUE

5. No one saw a plane at the Pentagon - NOT TRUE

6. 1/10th or 1% of active engineers in America is a meaningful amount. - NOT TRUE

- In most polls you see, the margin of error is between 1-3%, the Truthers can't even get a 10th of that number of ACTIVE AMERICAN ENGINEERS on their side. If you include retired Engineers (a significant number of their signees are retired) the number drops to something like 1/100 of 1%, add Architects and it's like 1/1000%. Make that a worldwide number (they do btw) and it's like 1/10000 of 1%. So, 1 in 100,000 of all Architects and Engineers worldwide have signed this thing. Not so impressive. In fact, I'd rather trust the 99,999/1000,000 who haven't.

7. A reputable journal of science tested something and found nano-thermite - NOT TRUE

8. Richard Gage is an honest guy - NOT TRUE

- Richard Gage has been busted falsifying evidence. And he's repeatedly lied and exaggerated to convert people to his belief. He's not some super honest guy.

9. The Pentagon had a missile defense system - NOT TRUE

-----------------

Enough with the BS folks. You need to self-police and stop your rank from posting the same lies again and again if you ever want to be excepted by the mainstream. And if you ACTUALLY want to accomplish something, you'll need to be accepted by the mainstream.

No, I'm calling YOU out.

There is only one form of B.S. that I see perpetually touted around here, and that is that those towers, including Building 7 collapsed because of airplane crashes, fires, and structural damage from falling debris.

It does NOT take a physics expert, an architect, an engineer, or any other scientific mind to know this. However, this is the continuous illusion that you people have shoved down the public's throat for a damn decade now.

When this thing eventually reaches the boiling point, and enough people demand action, you and those of your ilk had better head for the hills, just the same as the big players in this farce, because we're coming for you, too, for being purveyors of the lie....the treasonous lie.......

I don't care about Richard Gage.....I don't need to know anything about him, because he's in no way, shape, or form, the DEFINING voice of the people who want a new investigation, as much as you would like to think he represents one and all "truthers." He is irrelevant....really....

The outcry is growing. It may be quite a while before some historical turn of events takes place and results in justice, but it will come....it will come.....

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

Riiiight which is why NO Truthers will answer basic questions and why so many of their theories are contradictory and why most of them post debunked "facts".

Wow....someone doesn't know how to use the ATS "SEARCH FUNCTION?" Why the hell would any "truther" be inclined to indulge you in debating the same issues that have been beaten to death 1,457,663 times here on ATS since the dawn of man? Are these points any more relevant now just because YOU'RE the one bringing them up? Quite an ego, there.....

Try reviewing the million threads that have already covered these issues...I'm sure it should become quite clear to you why no one wishes to do this yet again.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Also funny you use firefighter oral histories to back up your claim that they heard explosions. Ok, fine they heard explosions in one of the largest fires in an office building with two airliners inside. Does this mean you will also look to those same firefighters that commented on the condition of the WTC7 and their observations and decisions to let it burn, plus their correct prediction its going to collapse? Will you give them the same amount of consideration as your "hearing things go boom" in the WTC? This includes the mentions of the worsening conditions in WTC7, fires out of control over multiple floors, creaking, groaning, and other sounds of structural instability, as well as tilting, leaning, and the set up of surveyor transits to track the creep movement of the building prior to collapse. Will you also take them into account? Or are you picking and choosing what fits your preconceived notions and assumptions? I dont deny the sounds of explosions. just the sources.

Even popcorn is a miniature explosion. Firewood burning and crackling is also a miniature explosion. So people heard explosions, what else would happen in a building that is full of combustible materials like furniture and computers when they are on fire. Well naturally, they would explode. What those people heard as explosions were indeed that, but conspiracy theorists automatically jump to the conclusion that if there was an explosion then it must be bombs. Didn't the Windows on the World restaurant use gas stoves? And the air conditioning system, would it not also explode?

Buildings on fire tend to explode, it is unavoidable. And why would bombs be necessary for explosions when a building is already on fire? "Truthers" are mere conclusion jumpers.

When my house was on fire in 1999, it sounded like an explosion that woke me up from my sleep. But I never attributed it to a bomb or a controlled explosion. In fact, don't most demolition experts say that it is really hard to control an explosion and predict the way the building will fall?

I think the one link someone used is funny, "a resident of Manhattan got a sample of dust"...that would be impossible seeing as how police barricades were set up immediately after it happened. The police did not let anyone go except rescue workers. And that was for days. Not one policeman has come forward to say they were told by any person to not let people in. Policemen keep people away for a reason, and that is for safety. The firemen that were killed were the earliest dispatched ones, the others came later. And their first priority was to get as many people possible out of there.

I think it is sad to hear the audio from those firemen who were inside. They talked about jet fuel, they talked about the windows blown out. They talked about their immediate duty to get people out. Firemen, especially those of the Port Authority, are trained to deal with every type of fire possible.

Firemen are underpaid. They deserve better pay.

reply to post by GenRadek

Well I hope I helped in fixing your errors. No, in fact your points have been found to be false or incorrect or based on garbage. Yeah, real research does wonders! Too bad you researched in the wrong areas! I did mine in the real world!

And yet...still....there are those ridiculous individuals who think they can come into these forums and attempt to discredit BoneZ........

Truly the last grasp at straws for those who are "circling the drain."

Originally posted by NightGypsy
It does NOT take a physics expert, an architect, an engineer, or any other scientific mind to know this.

Of course it doesn't! The "common sense" approach of someone who has watched a few movies and fiddled about on the internet is far more valuable than expert opinion.

[note - here's where you wheel out a vanishingly small number of "architects" and "engineers" who are mostly kicthen designers and computer programmers answering a question about whether they dislike George Bush]

When this thing eventually reaches the boiling point, and enough people demand action, you and those of your ilk had better head for the hills, just the same as the big players in this farce, because we're coming for you, too, for being purveyors of the lie....the treasonous lie.......

Wow. What will you do to us? How about a lynching? A good, old fashioned lynching...

I for one am terrified. You guys have got so much support, what with the constant rallies one sees in the streets, the vigorous organisation and action, the fund-raising and campaigning.

Oh no, hang on. You just sit on the internet doing nothing. Good luck with that revolution.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by NightGypsy
It does NOT take a physics expert, an architect, an engineer, or any other scientific mind to know this.

Of course it doesn't! The "common sense" approach of someone who has watched a few movies and fiddled about on the internet is far more valuable than expert opinion.

[note - here's where you wheel out a vanishingly small number of "architects" and "engineers" who are mostly kicthen designers and computer programmers answering a question about whether they dislike George Bush]

When this thing eventually reaches the boiling point, and enough people demand action, you and those of your ilk had better head for the hills, just the same as the big players in this farce, because we're coming for you, too, for being purveyors of the lie....the treasonous lie.......

Wow. What will you do to us? How about a lynching? A good, old fashioned lynching...

I for one am terrified. You guys have got so much support, what with the constant rallies one sees in the streets, the vigorous organisation and action, the fund-raising and campaigning.

Oh no, hang on. You just sit on the internet doing nothing. Good luck with that revolution.

ROFL, you get a star from me. And you would not believe how many people watch movies thinking they are real.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Of course it doesn't! The "common sense" approach of someone who has watched a few movies and fiddled about on the internet is far more valuable than expert opinion.

How do you feel about this expert opinion?
--------------------------------

STATEMENT BY JAMES G. QUINTIERE
PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND for the House Science Committee's hearing on NIST's Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: (Over 35 years of experience in fire research. Worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. Currently at the University of Maryland. Founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research.)


"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."
my italics

The above is damning enough, but the rest of this guys statement to the House Science Committee (linked above) is incredible. Hooper, again I can't thank you enough for pointing me in this direction.

Delighted to see 51 flags and 37 pages, feeling beaten much already? Thats what happens when you try putting your oppinion in front of the rest of the world, you need steel kugel to stand for them. As said, loving to see the OSrs threads get busted.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Wow. What will you do to us? How about a lynching? A good, old fashioned lynching...

Don't tempt me.

I for one am terrified. You guys have got so much support, what with the constant rallies one sees in the streets, the vigorous organisation and action, the fund-raising and campaigning. Oh no, hang on. You just sit on the internet doing nothing. Good luck with that revolution.

Your stand-up comedy routine is making me yawn. And I'll be damned if on top of that, you aren't the "amazing" Sylvia Browne, who can use her psychic gifts to determine what I do or don't do with my time.

Apparently, I am not the only one "sitting on the Internet doing nothing" in this 9/11 thread. You must be doing the same if you are so keenly aware of my activities. The only difference is, one of us isn't sitting on a ".gov" computer getting paid to deceive. I wonder which one of us that is?

Perhaps the frustration of having to keep the momentum going for the crap you try to peddle is getting to you. Why don't you shoot your boss an email and see if you can take a little vacation. Don't be gone too long, though..because we will be hanging on the edge of our seats awaiting your newest "deeply scientific" and "highly technical" evidence that will, once again, prove nothing except how desperate you are.

Take the rest of the night off.....you're getting cranky.

reply to post by NightGypsy


Correct me if I'm wrong, but this IS a 9/11 forum right? Isn't the whole point to debate and share information?

Nothing wrong about re-hashing old information. It keeps those of us that really care on our toes, and each time I see a debate like this, I learn something new. Which in turn, makes me seek out more information and knowledge that I can use to wake people up. Its not about being a "truther"....the term is stupid and derogatory anyway. It's about standing up for your convictions and daring to make a difference...to make a stand for whats right.
Also, who really uses "search" anyway? This thread was featured on the home page so I clicked. Maybe there's neophyte scanning this thread because they clicked on the homepage link like me. Maybe its the first time they're reading about what we believe. It's new information for THEM.

It's YOU that seems to think you're special. Don't speak for all of us "truthers"...this thread has 40 pages and counting of replies. Obviously we aren't tired of beating a dead horse.

Have a super day!

reply to post by obamasaliar

Nothing wrong about re-hashing old information. It keeps those of us that really care on our toes, and each time I see a debate like this, I learn something new

Obamasaliar, I can appreciate your position...I really can, but seeing as you only registered as a member today, I need to point out that what this OP is trying to do is incite "truthers" to engage in the same old arguments which do nothing to help us get any closer to the truth. The reason for this is that there are certain members of this website that exist here for no other reason than to attack the 9/11 threads, call people lunatics and liars, and derail threads. If you do not know who these people are yet, I suggest you become acquainted with them because, trust me, they have NO interest whatsoever in any facts presented in these forums. They are here for one purpose and one purpose only.

That said, I would encourage you to peruse the multitudes of threads we have on ATS on this topic because there, indeed, is compelling information for both sides of the argument if you can sift through all the bull in between.

I intend no offense in my next comment, but I think you should try to refrain from lecturing other members about their comments in these 9/11 threads until you have some more posts to your credit. This is a topic that is highly charged and it appears you don't see how this OP's claim that no "truthers" are willing to debate the issues is a laughable suggestion at best. After 10 years of this "debating" there is very little "new" stuff to debate anymore. We are at a crossroads, my friend.

Feel free to "rehash" any issues with these debunkers that you wish, but I believe I probably speak for several on ATS who, at this point, have no need to do so...."Been there, done that."

Good luck in your research and welcome to ATS.

Originally posted by WarminIndyI think the one link someone used is funny, "a resident of Manhattan got a sample of dust"...that would be impossible seeing as how police barricades were set up immediately after it happened.

From what I saw there was a whole lot of dust and it got spread over a pretty wide area, including on top of people. Don't see why its so hard to believe someone could have scraped some into a jar. On the other hand I don't see why anyone would do that either, but to each their own.

Originally posted by obamasaliar
Sept 10, 2001: Mr. Rumsfield tells us that the Pentagon has lost over two trillion dollars, but they'll find it. The next day a "plane" hits the exact spot where all that accounting paperwork for those lost trillions are. Burned...lost forever and never mentioned again.

Why do some people keep bring up this much debunked lie?
www.911myths.com...

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by obamasaliar
Sept 10, 2001: Mr. Rumsfield tells us that the Pentagon has lost over two trillion dollars, but they'll find it. The next day a "plane" hits the exact spot where all that accounting paperwork for those lost trillions are. Burned...lost forever and never mentioned again.

Why do some people keep bring up this much debunked lie?
www.911myths.com...

The below AP article (partially excerpted here) was referenced in the 911Myths debunking you linked to and cited as support for their analysis. I would be curious to know how much, if any, of the documentation related to the $7 trillion in forced adjustments this article mentions ceased to exist on 9/11? It certainly seems to have ceased to exist as an issue, considering the tsunami of resources that has swept through the Pentagon since 9/11.

The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday. The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments. Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said. "These ($6.9 trillion in) entries were processed to force financial data to agree with various data sources, to correct errors and to add new data," the inspector general said. "The magnitude of accounting entries required to compile the DoD financial statements highlights the significant problems DoD has producing accurate and reliable financial statements with existing systems and processes." The department's "internal controls were not adequate to ensure that resources were properly managed and accounted for, that DoD complied with applicable laws and regulations and that the financial statements were free of material misstatements," the report said.

(my bolding)

Pentagon's finances in disarray

edit on 16-9-2011 by Elbereth because: add