What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by 4hero

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by secgovwiki

 

I can prove the government story wrong is one simple phrase: the collapse, destruction, storm & inferno of the towers violates The Law of Conservation of Energy.

OK...how. How does that statement resolve 9/11? If it violated a Law of physics, it would have acted in a manner that did not match those laws. It did not. This is simple physics and not complicated.

Gravity won on 9/11. Plain and simple.

You obviously have very limited physics knowledge to make such a statement!

Please do provide you precise physics equations on how gravity brought down these 3 buildings with zero resistance!

You're lying. The three buildings didn't come down "with zero resistance". Not even true controlled demolitions come down with "zero resistance". Every video in existence shows the two towers collapsed floor by floor so one floor hitting another floor on its way down to the ground is still resistance, and the collapse of the penthouse in WTC 7 showed it fell at an angle, meaning one section of the support was holding up it longer than the other sections, which also means there was resistance durign the collapse.

Let's face it, you're just quoting some sexy sounding buzzwords you got off some damned fool conspiracy website and you don't even know what it even means. You know that and so do I.

reply to post by maxella1


Hi, nice pics above, good work

Maybe its been mentioned but the constant ridicule of OS's here takes the biscuit and must be considered a tactic used to literally poison the well of debate. I mean, how can I have a debate with just you Max1, for starters I agree with most of your points and secondly I might be subjected to a barrage of abuse.

Saying 'you get your information from damn fool conspiracy sites

Labeling people (and I know I did so above myself ) as such and such and believing such and such and taken as a generalism to the extreme. All truthers believe in rockets from outer space, all truthers believe wacky claims.

That is just some of them.

Ignoring visual evidence add that to the list.

Deliberately confusing the idea of a theory with the idea that this is a presented belief.

Peace, great thread.

reply to post by esdad71

1. The Opps you guys set this bomb off early. Let me explain. The inside of the building is falling into itself. as it does this, the intense pressure caused blows out the lower level windows. There are numerous videos that show this.

How many floors do you estimate this intense pressure that you're talking about skipped to blow out the window in that picture?

Watch a CD. THe explosion happned BEFORE it collapses, not during.

lol, does the statement below ring a bell?

Unique occurances must be applied to the entire scope of the incident and not just what fits your story. That is what research is for.

2. Your second picture actually shows how it is tilting and not falling into it's own 'footprint; nor symmetrically

Am I the only one that finds this hilarious? Please refer to your own bullsh** for a reply to this nonsense...

The inside of the building is falling into itself. as it does this, the intense pressure caused blows out the lower level windows.

3. WTC pic - Again, it shows the collapse and nothing else.

Actually it shows the explosion that started the collapse.

4. Bush knew.... Clinton knew...the CIA...the FBI...THE PDB did convey this in the months leading up to 9/11 but I suggest you read the 9/11 commission report. If you do not you can not possibly be prepared to discuss 9/11.As i have, someone who does not believe the OS should study the other side. Know who you consider your advisory and

I appreciate your expert advise. Please note that I did read the 9/11 Commission Report cover to cover.
And I also read a book called The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Philip Shenon, and I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn what was the purpose of the 9/11 Commission. If you haven't read it yet, you should before discussing the Commission with me.

5. It was collapsing. It was reported that day as a building that may collapse. Those new reports are out there also but no one ever posts them because it does not fit your theory..I iwll admit this one seems the strangest but explosives did not bring down WTC7. If so, where is the physical evidence?

So you want me to believe that BBC made an honest mistake by reporting the collapse of WTC 7 prior to it actually collapsed? Or are you saying that they consulted a psychic and was given the information about an event that happened 20 minutes later?

At least you admit that WTC 7 is the strangest. Maybe there is hope for you after all. What physical evidence do you want me to show you if explosives were ruled out before the investigation even began?

There were also supposedly missiles shot from the Woolworth building and an attack outside a federal building. Lots of 'things' were said that day but it does not make it automatically true.

One of the most amazing things that were said on 9/11 is the prediction by prophet Mark Walsh of the final conclusion of all government investigations of the reason the buildings collapsed .


Here's a question for you.. do you think that the governments interpretation of the attack on 9/11 is just like the governments interpretation was of the attack in Gulf of Tonkin?

Anybody know who found the passport at ground zero?

Originally posted by maxella1


Anybody know who found the passport at ground zero?

edit on 23-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Reported that the passport was handed to NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin by an unknown male :-

www.911myths.com...

reply to post by maxella1


You want to tell me you read the report but you want someone to tell you who gave the cop the passport? I call bs man...you read nothing.

I also like when people take a post I made, use it to make a point for themselves, then tell me how screwed up I am...

My favorite debunking tactic is simply telling the truth and the whole story, not the edited for 9/11 truth version.

I mean, what the hell would a building sound like if it was collapsing? An explosion maybe...c'mon folks, of course they(firemen/nypd) heard sounds that sounded like explosions. Buildings were falling.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1


Anybody know who found the passport at ground zero?

edit on 23-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Reported that the passport was handed to NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin by an unknown male :-

www.911myths.com...

I already said that I have read the commission report. So lets think about it for a second. The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2.The tower collapsed shortly afterward. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11.
Page 40 of the commission report.

We don't know who actually found it, and the story above was given to the Commission by Bernard Kerik.

Bernard Kerik is a convicted felon doing time in prison at this time. So please explain to me how do you know that this passport wasn't planted by a very corrupted New York City Police Commissioner?
www.nydailynews.com

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by maxella1

 

You want to tell me you read the report but you want someone to tell you who gave the cop the passport? I call bs man...you read nothing.

I also like when people take a post I made, use it to make a point for themselves, then tell me how screwed up I am...

My favorite debunking tactic is simply telling the truth and the whole story, not the edited for 9/11 truth version.

I mean, what the hell would a building sound like if it was collapsing? An explosion maybe...c'mon folks, of course they(firemen/nypd) heard sounds that sounded like explosions. Buildings were falling.

Slow down there Speedy Gonzales.. I guess I should have been more specific for the mentally challenged.

My question was if anybody know who actually picked it up off the ground. The point I was trying to make is right below your ridiculous post.

And when are you going to answer my questions?

reply to post by maxella1


OK, if you are going there, with NY corruption, how in the hell did 'organized crime', which I still think has a hand in unions and construction in NY, let the WTC be wired or allow non union workers in any of the buildings. Last time I checked there were no Abaazzi Hassan Gotti's running around NY/NJ....

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by maxella1

 

OK, if you are going there, with NY corruption, how in the hell did 'organized crime', which I still think has a hand in unions and construction in NY, let the WTC be wired or allow non union workers in any of the buildings. Last time I checked there were no Abaazzi Hassan Gotti's running around NY/NJ....

I like you today even more then yesterday.. backed into a corner hah?

How the hell was the pentagon allowed to be hit with a f*****g plane? my answer is who the F***k knows?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by maxella1

 

OK, if you are going there, with NY corruption, how in the hell did 'organized crime', which I still think has a hand in unions and construction in NY, let the WTC be wired or allow non union workers in any of the buildings. Last time I checked there were no Abaazzi Hassan Gotti's running around NY/NJ....

If with this stupid question you are trying to somehow defend the fairy tail you believe. The least you could have done was think for a second or two and try to remember what the mafia is. It's an organized criminal gang, and they actually are pretty well known to be killing people for money.

Even if the mafia still controls anything that you are imagining tell me why would they not allow it?

Originally posted by maxella1

 

And that is your opinion based on NIST theories. Not based on the firefighters testimony.

That is true to some extent...but I'm also basing it upon the video footage of the Penthouse of the WTC 7 building six seconds before the collapse of the north facade. If the south side fell at the same time that the north side did as you/Gage are implying then this means the building collapsed from the inside out. This is so bizarre that it seems more logical that this is NOT what happened, but rather the penthouse collapse was really the south side collapsing first six seconds before the north side.

I'm not suggesting anything at all. I'm saying that you need to stop making things up about what the firemen said on 9/11.

..and I would appreciate it if you would stop lying to avoid having to admit you're wrong. I pointed out that firefighters did in fact see massive trauma occurring to the building because of the fires and they did in fact know the building was going to collapse, which by all accounts makes the explanation of the collapse being caused by fire induced loss of structural integrity plausible. Your trying to weasel out of this by bickering whether they meant a "full" collapse or a "partial" collapse is only making your own credibility look questionable, not mine.

Again you are playing dumb. You know that I was not talking about the drills on 9/11, I was talking about the drills prior to 9/11 where one of the scenarios was that a plane was crashed into the pentagon.

No, actually, I didn't know that was what you're referring to because up until now you truthers were consistantly griping about "military drills during the 9/11 atatck". What drills are you referring to?

Let me guess- you're dredging up drills held back in 1996 and you're griping that Bush and Rice should have been experts in the details of military exercises held years before they were even elected.

And once again you didn't make an excuse for Condoleezza Rice. Because you know that she stated that nobody could even imagine that jets would be used as weapons. And you also know that it isn't true, don't you?

Well if you're going to be that hard core anal retentive about it, no, it isn't entirely correct that "nobody" could think of using planes as a weapon. In the book "Debt of Honor" Tom Clancy came up with the plot line of a Japanese pilot crashing a JAL passenger liner into the Congress building, and that was back in 1994. That's not to say that it would occur to anyone that someone was ever seriously going to do it and it certainly doesn't mean Tom Clancy is a sinister secret agent plotting to take over the world.

What's the question ?

You know what the question is. Renee May called out from flight 77 to her mother and told her the same hijacking situation that Barbara Olson told Ted Olson. Is Renee May's mother lying about talking to her daughter, or is Ted Olson telling the truth about talking to Barbara Olson? Ted Olson obviously doesn't have ESP and wouldn't know about the hijacking from mentally picking up his wife's brain waves, so it's got to be one or the other.

Telegraph.com.u k

examiner.com

You are being really, REALLY fast and loose with your definitions again. According to your own links, a handful of Libyans fought with Al Qaida, and a handful of THOSE are fighting Quadaffi. This isn't "supporting Al Qaida". This is supporting a popular uprising in an area that also has Al Qaida sympethisers so it's disingenuous to say we're "supporting al qaida in Libya". According to Reuters, noone knows how much influence Al Qaida actually has on the popular uprising-

Reuters: Libyan rebels not anti-west, btu Al Qaida a worry group

...and what the heck does that have anything even remotely to do with "favorite debunking tactics"? Stick with the topis of the thread, please.

Originally posted by maxella1
Bernard Kerik is a convicted felon doing time in prison at this time. So please explain to me how do you know that this passport wasn't planted by a very corrupted New York City Police Commissioner?
www.nydailynews.com

...and how do YOU know the passport wasn't left behind at the hijacker's apartment because they obviously didn't care about luggage? After the attack the FBI obviously traced the appartment from the hijacker's name so they could have stormed the apartment without a warrant and siezed the passport. They can't keep anything found during a warrantless search and siezure so they could have come up with a phony "they found it in the street" story to keep it as evidence. If you don't require any actual proof to back up your hypothetical claims then neither do I.

Of course, we both know you won't accept THIS conspiracy theory because it simply isn't fashionably sinister sounding enough for you.

reply to post by maxella1


backed into a corner? You just deflected by asking me why was a plane allowed to hit the Pentagon...again, if you read the 911CR you would know that one of the planes was delayed, 93, or else it would have hit the around the same time as the Pentagon. It was on its way to the White House and/or Capitol.

Why must all of these threads go the same way with those who do not believe the events that unfolded that day. I cannot believe that Northwoods has not been brought into this yet.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by maxella1

 

OK, if you are going there, with NY corruption, how in the hell did 'organized crime', which I still think has a hand in unions and construction in NY, let the WTC be wired or allow non union workers in any of the buildings. Last time I checked there were no Abaazzi Hassan Gotti's running around NY/NJ....

Mayor Giuliani most likely had a finger in it, bent as a nine bob note. Bizarrely got an honourary knighthood from the Queen of England for 9/11! She obviously does not care about his history.

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by maxella1


Anybody know who found the passport at ground zero?

edit on 23-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Reported that the passport was handed to NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin by an unknown male :-

www.911myths.com...

I already said that I have read the commission report. So lets think about it for a second. The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2.The tower collapsed shortly afterward. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11.
Page 40 of the commission report.

We don't know who actually found it, and the story above was given to the Commission by Bernard Kerik.

Bernard Kerik is a convicted felon doing time in prison at this time. So please explain to me how do you know that this passport wasn't planted by a very corrupted New York City Police Commissioner?
www.nydailynews.com

OK let us think about it a second. There are loads of examples of flimsy documents surviving horrendous crashes.

No-one has suggested, let alone proved, that it was not a genuine Saudi passport.

The Saudi government has acknowledged that the passport holder, Satam al Suqami, was one of the hi-jackers and a now deceased Saudi citizen.

The fact that former police comissioner Kerik was later found to be financially corrupt has nothing to do with it. Why would the NYPD in general have an interest in furthering insane plans for middle eastern wars .

How did supposed conspirators get hold of this passport and what was the point ? What did it add ? Why add further potential whistle-blowers in the NYPD ?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by maxella1

 

backed into a corner? You just deflected by asking me why was a plane allowed to hit the Pentagon...again, if you read the 911CR you would know that one of the planes was delayed, 93, or else it would have hit the around the same time as the Pentagon. It was on its way to the White House and/or Capitol.

Why must all of these threads go the same way with those who do not believe the events that unfolded that day. I cannot believe that Northwoods has not been brought into this yet.

The threads go the way they do because we are dealing with people that like to lie every time they type a reply.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

...and how do YOU know the passport wasn't left behind at the hijacker's apartment because they obviously didn't care about luggage? After the attack the FBI obviously traced the appartment from the hijacker's name so they could have stormed the apartment without a warrant and siezed the passport. They can't keep anything found during a warrantless search and siezure so they could have come up with a phony "they found it in the street" story to keep it as evidence. If you don't require any actual proof to back up your hypothetical claims then neither do I.

Of course, we both know you won't accept THIS conspiracy theory because it simply isn't fashionably sinister sounding enough for you.

Because there were no hijackers!

reply to post by GoodOlDave

That is true to some extent...but I'm also basing it upon the video footage of the Penthouse of the WTC 7 building six seconds before the collapse of the north facade. If the south side fell at the same time that the north side did as you/Gage are implying then this means the building collapsed from the inside out. This is so bizarre that it seems more logical that this is NOT what happened, but rather the penthouse collapse was really the south side collapsing first six seconds before the north side.

Six seconds period between the penthouse does not explain this;

or

..and I would appreciate it if you would stop lying to avoid having to admit you're wrong. I pointed out that firefighters did in fact see massive trauma occurring to the building because of the fires and they did in fact know the building was going to collapse, which by all accounts makes the explanation of the collapse being caused by fire induced loss of structural integrity plausible. Your trying to weasel out of this by bickering whether they meant a "full" collapse or a "partial" collapse is only making your own credibility look questionable, not mine.

Your buddys, who believe that the government is perfectly capable to aid the terrorists in obtaining control of the plane which would be used to kill regular innocent people, but no way they would aid them in anything else. and you, are the people who make things up. And you need to specifically tell me what is it that you thing I’m lying about. Partial and complete collapse of a 47 story skyscraper are two very different things. Damage to the south side of WTC 7 does not explain the complete collapse and the firefighter who said that a collapse was going to happen know what I’m talking about. And so do you! Stop pretending already!

No, actually, I didn't know that was what you're referring to because up until now you truthers were consistantly griping about "military drills during the 9/11 atatck". What drills are you referring to? Let me guess- you're dredging up drills held back in 1996 and you're griping that Bush and Rice should have been experts in the details of military exercises held years before they were even elected.

These drills..
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

and I assume that your excuse for them is that nobody told Bush Administration during the transition from the Clinton Administration.

Well if you're going to be that hard core anal retentive about it, no, it isn't entirely correct that "nobody" could think of using planes as a weapon. In the book "Debt of Honor" Tom Clancy came up with the plot line of a Japanese pilot crashing a JAL passenger liner into the Congress building, and that was back in 1994. That's not to say that it would occur to anyone that someone was ever seriously going to do it and it certainly doesn't mean Tom Clancy is a sinister secret agent plotting to take over the world.

The point is that they lied and lied and lied and lied.. but they would never lie about anything else, right? We should believe what they told us about 9/11 because they would never do anything like that?

Except for lying about WMD's, the Gulf of Tonkin, Monica Lewinsky, giving people syphilis, selling weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico, Iran contra, Watergate, etc, etc.

You know what the question is. Renee May called out from flight 77 to her mother and told her the same hijacking situation that Barbara Olson told Ted Olson. Is Renee May's mother lying about talking to her daughter, or is Ted Olson telling the truth about talking to Barbara Olson? Ted Olson obviously doesn't have ESP and wouldn't know about the hijacking from mentally picking up his wife's brain waves, so it's got to be one or the other.

I never said that Renee May was lying. I said that according to the FBI Olson’s call lasted zero seconds. I don't know who is lying and who isn’t when it comes to the phone calls. I don't know anything except what is available for me to read, listen or watch on TV. I do know however that the story you are in love with and defend like a warrior doesn’t add up to me and quiet a few other people as you know. I also know that the government is covering up, and history shows that they have no problem lying to, and killing people for something that is in their own interest only.

edit on 23-5-2012 by maxella1 because: Wrong picture

edit on 23-5-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

You're lying. The three buildings didn't come down "with zero resistance". Not even true controlled demolitions come down with "zero resistance". Every video in existence shows the two towers collapsed floor by floor so one floor hitting another floor on its way down to the ground is still resistance, and the collapse of the penthouse in WTC 7 showed it fell at an angle, meaning one section of the support was holding up it longer than the other sections, which also means there was resistance durign the collapse.

Let's face it, you're just quoting some sexy sounding buzzwords you got off some damned fool conspiracy website and you don't even know what it even means. You know that and so do I.

Hahaha! That's rich coming from you, a person paid to lie on a daily basis!

OK, so you want to be pedantic, you know what I meant, they were falling at pretty much freefall speed, they did not 'collapse' in the way a pancake collapse would normally happen, you know this but you choose to nit pick over irrelevant things.

WTC7 may have had a slight delay before reaching freefall, but that would have most likely been because a charge was fractionally delayed. you know perfectly well what I'm getting at and all this pedantic rubbish does not change the fact these were brought down in a controlled manner.

Still waiting for those physics equations, they wont come because you've got nothing.