What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

reply to post by rickyrrr

-Find a trivial and irrelevant mistake and use it to hurt the credibility of your opponent.

Opponent, lol. Dude, there ain't even a reason for you to be talking to me on basis of my original comment in the first place.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

So in short you're picking and choosing what you want to be true and what you want to believe is a lie, and all without a microbe of proof to back up either position. What's the difference between that and faith based logic?

David, you little see through tactics don't work, not on me at least.

The point is, if a truther is arguiing with a skeptic about wether or not the impacts caused fatal structural damage, he can say that even FEMA said that this wasn't the case.

Why wouldn't he? Because it seems unfair to you? Cry me a river David.

Not really, as one of my hobbies is scuba diving, and I've experienced first hand how much power a simple four foot wave has. If being hit by a four foot wave of water feels like being slammed by a brick wall, then logic dictates that thousands of gallons of aviation fuel would act like a wrecking ball on a tube frame structure such as the WTC, causing a chain reaction of fatal damage that won't be fully understood by those who don't take that into consideration

Ah, the mandatory personal anecdote, again. Good for you David. Thanks for sharing that totally irrelevant story. And what does that fabrication have to do with this question I asked you?

So all you are doing is using the sources that are convenient for you. Isn't that the same sort of thing?

That's right nothing. I assume that you know damn well that you are doing the very thing you accuse "truthers" of, hence the non response.

The truthers coining the term "official story" when you're now admitting there IS no single story to be "official" is even more telling.

Ehm, jeah, right. Don't try to skip and twist things. You said this,

I myself subcribe to the findings of the Purdue study, and both the Purdue study and the NIST study contradict the FEMA study, so it's absurd for the truthers to be accusing everyone of "goosestepping to the official story" when in many cases there really is no "official story" for anyone to be goosestepping to. Not even any of the report authors are insisting their findings are absolute.

You basically admit that the sources you base your statements on might be as wrong as any 911 conspiracy theorist, yet you are always in here passing of this stuff as absolute fact, David.

Originally posted by maxella1

Who did I lose? No one, thank god, personally in my family. Who was there..uncle..cousins....grandmother midtown, uptown and downtown. Every time i fly home and do not see the WTC I get choked up. You wouldn't and couldn't understand. As far as a bar, take your pick. Just find a 'fireman' bar. Go get some shots and talk #...

Start here...www.911memorial.org...
and this one- www.ttof.org...

So i have legacy to show my kids of our families support and can also try to help those who were left without a parent...

Point - 9/11 Sickness has nothing to do with debunking 9/11. I would like to see how you would tie them together though, probably with Newtons 5th law of science that only applies on 9/11/01.

Make you sick. If you think someone who wants to honor those that died is sick you need to check the meds McMurphy, OK?

I was in Florida on 9/11 to make sure I answered your questions. Getting pissed off...what, you gonna Hulk out on us???

Originally posted by maxella1
I keep trying to find where in that article he ever said that they were expecting a complete collapse.

Page four.

When buildings are damaged and on fire they are at risk of collapsing, but a complete collapse of a 47st skyscraper is not something that normally happens due to damage and fire only. Buildings collapse partially in most cases unless they are imploded. So find any FDNY Firemen that specifically state that what happened to WTC 7 was expected and I will believe him or them.

You are changing your story now. You asked if any firefighters knew WTC 7 was going to collapse and I gave you testimony of one. If you really need to resort to bickering over what the precise definition of "collapse" is and whether he meant "partial collapse" vs "complete collapse", then this isn't research. It's a desperate attempt at grasping at straws to avoid having to admit you were wrong.

At the end of the day, WTC 7 was suffering massive damage from the fires and firefighters knew simply from looking at it that it was going to collapse. Deal with it.

So you agree that “nobody could imagine jets used as weapons” excuse is a lie?

You're being fast and loose with your definitions again as it depends on who the "they" is who's saying this. If it's a mid-level military officer writing specific training exercises to combat hijackers using planes as suicide weapons, yes, it would be a lie. If it's a politician with little to no real military background who has a pile of ten thousand reports to read every day in addition to the report that mid-level officer wrote, then no, it probably isn't.

You conspircy therorists consistantly make the mistake that "the gov't" is some supercomputer in a basement or a disembodied collective of brains sitting in a tank of fluid, or something. The gov't is made up of lots and lots and lots of people and- pinch yourself, it's true- they're not cyborgs with some hive mind collective intelligence. Some are pretty intelligent while others are complete idiots, and others still are intelligent but are simply uninformed, so not everyone will know what everyone else is doing. So, before I answer, who is it precisely that's saying this scenario never occurred to them?

So what are you saying The FBI is incorrect because you say so?

No, more likely whatever it is you're quoting is being quoted out of context. Renee May called her mother and told her literally the same thing Barbara Olson told her husband Ted. There are only three explanations for this and only three explanations for this- a) Both Renee May *and* Ted Olson are following a script to cover up the murder of their family, b) Ted Olson has ESP and picked up the brain waves of the passengers on flight 77 without needing to have Barbara tell him, or c) whatever you're basing your statement on is incorrrect and he really did talk to his wife. There is no surprise fourth option D here.

So which one is it? I'm going to go out on a limb and say it ain't ESP.

So answer the questions .

So post the questions again. I have the facts on my side so I have no need to hide for honest questions, but that doesn't mean I'm going to search through all these pages and read through all your paragraphs to look up what they were, either.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I try not to frequent the 911 forum. The ignorance is so rampant that it really is commical.

My favorite thing is undertanding how construction really works, how a structure is built, and what it takes for a super structure to support it's own weight, resisting gravity.

Almost every single person that makes silly replies has never worked in the construction industry, turned a screwdirver, or wrench themselves.

It really is simple that a structure consists of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of connections that all have a job to do within their operating specifications. If the piece or part is subjected to any stresses or forces outside of their specifications the piece or part can fail. A building is not a magical entity, they have certain guidlines that must be followed to be structurally sound and perform it's duty without any problems.

edit on 20-5-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)

I would love to see how clever you really are, this is an opportunity to earn yourself 1million euros, and, my deepest respect.
This is after all your field, is it not?.

Buildings perform their "Duty" even outside of design specifications as a matter of the structural building codes.
Please, show me how clever you are.

An easy 1million euros

My favourite debunking tactic, put your brains/mouth where the money is.

Originally posted by NormalBates
reply to post by GoodOlDave
David, you little see through tactics don't work, not on me at least.

The point is, if a truther is arguiing with a skeptic about wether or not the impacts caused fatal structural damage, he can say that even FEMA said that this wasn't the case.

Why wouldn't he? Because it seems unfair to you? Cry me a river David.

No because it's being dishonest as hell. It would be one thing if the truthers were simply saying the FEMA report is incorrect, but they're not. They're insisting the FEMA report is a manufactured lie from A to Z...not even just incorrect, but an outright lie. When someone quotes information they're passing off as being correct that came from a report they're insisting is an outright lie, it's called cherry picking, and if someone needs to resort to cherry picking their facts to convince others, it's a de fact admission they know what they're saying is false.

Why do I even need to explain this? Heck, I don't quote anything from the FEMA report, and I'm supposed to be the sinister secret agent plotting to take over the world.

Ah, the mandatory personal anecdote, again. Good for you David. Thanks for sharing that totally irrelevant story. And what does that fabrication have to do with this question I asked you?

Of course, you have to know that I don't give a fried rat's bung hole whether you believe anything I say about my personal interests or not, for you are an anonymous nobody that I don't need to impress. You asked why I subscribe to the Purdue report over the other reports and I told you. If you cannot accept the fact I am basing my opinion upon real world events I have experienced which allows me to see the point they're making much more clearly, then that is your problem, not mine.

That's right nothing. I assume that you know damn well that you are doing the very thing you accuse "truthers" of, hence the non response.

?? non response? What is it I'm supposedly not responding to?

You basically admit that the sources you base your statements on might be as wrong as any 911 conspiracy theorist, yet you are always in here passing of this stuff as absolute fact, David.

Nowhere have I ever stated any of the reports that attempted to explain the collapse of the buildings are absolute fact. The only things I post when I say are absolute fact are those things which have enormous amounts of supporting evidence for, such as the multitudes of people who specifically saw a plane hitting the Pentagon...which IS an established fact, regardless of whether you want to believe it or not.

If you're going to criticise me then at least get your criticisms right.

Originally posted by NormalBates
reply to post by maxella1

 

*-You thruthers always parrot the same debunked conspiracy sites!

*- My Brother in law saw the plane hit with his own eyes. Are you saying my brother in law is lying?

*-Oh, not this again, this was debunked a long time ago.

*-I am an experienced pilot bla bla bla...

My friends husband was on the plane that hit the pentagon. Last I checked, they don't sell tickets for people to ride on rockets

reply to post by GoodOlDave

You are changing your story now. You asked if any firefighters knew WTC 7 was going to collapse and I gave you testimony of one. If you really need to resort to bickering over what the precise definition of "collapse" is and whether he meant "partial collapse" vs "complete collapse", then this isn't research. It's a desperate attempt at grasping at straws to avoid having to admit you were wrong.

I changed nothing. I'm saying that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing but no firefighter that I'm aware of ever said that it looked like it was going to completely collaps. There is a big difference, and you are pretending like you don't know it.

You conspircy therorists consistantly make the mistake that "the gov't" is some supercomputer in a basement or a disembodied collective of brains sitting in a tank of fluid, or something. The gov't is made up of lots and lots and lots of people and- pinch yourself, it's true- they're not cyborgs with some hive mind collective intelligence. Some are pretty intelligent while others are complete idiots, and others still are intelligent but are simply uninformed, so not everyone will know what everyone else is doing. So, before I answer, who is it precisely that's saying this scenario never occurred to them?

lol, President Bush, Condoleezza Rice for example. You didn't know that they were saying it ?

No, more likely whatever it is you're quoting is being quoted out of context. Renee May called her mother and told her literally the same thing Barbara Olson told her husband Ted. There are only three explanations for this and only three explanations for this- a) Both Renee May *and* Ted Olson are following a script to cover up the murder of their family, b) Ted Olson has ESP and picked up the brain waves of the passengers on flight 77 without needing to have Barbara tell him, or c) whatever you're basing your statement on is incorrrect and he really did talk to his wife. There is no surprise fourth option D here.

Talk about cherry picking. You are a joke .

So post the questions again. I have the facts on my side so I have no need to hide for honest questions, but that doesn't mean I'm going to search through all these pages and read through all your paragraphs to look up what they were, either.

Here ya go

To the "there's no such thing as al Qaida", I point out the courier that was arrested in Vienna with documents showing Al Qaida was responsible for the 7/7 attack...and then I ask "Why is the Austrian government lying?"

Where did it come from? Why are we supporting them in Libya or is it Syria? And why oh why did we dump bin ladens body into the ocean?

Bring out the facts

reply to post by esdad71

Make you sick. If you think someone who wants to honor those that died is sick you need to check the meds McMurphy, OK?

How are you honoring the victims? By running your mouth on the web? I would like to have some shots with you and talk some shi*.
You are piece of shi* and You do make me sick.

reply to post by wrkn4livn

My friends husband was on the plane that hit the pentagon. Last I checked, they don't sell tickets for people to ride on rockets

I'm sorry to hear that.What was his name if I may ask?

The one thing that totally convinced me the official story is not true was the pentagon pic posted on a french guys site, I have searched but its long gone...so I enclose a link to another site that has the one pic that shows the plane hitting the pentagon is NOT true.... and if they lied about that they could very easily have lied about everything else. (make up your own minds)

911review.org...

The picture there shows there is no way it was a plane that hit that building, its impossible to argue with it, there just isnt any damage consistant with an aircraft of any size having hit it never mind a fully laden passenger jet.
That one pic aroused my interest and I researched many of the other "anomalies" about that tragic day.
I wont try and convince anyone of anything, all the evidence is there for everyone to make up their own mind all thats needed is a basic knowledge of physics...because that CANNOT lie !

You guys are going to get this thread closed with the insults, I suggest everyone stick to the thread's OP, What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics? in the meantime I think Ol' Dave and Master Bates should get married, 'cos they are too long winded here.

I would have to say that my favorite tactic for debunking the official version of events would have to be this.

All three buildings fell symmetrically into their own footprint at free fall speed. The conditions needed to allow for this to happen would have to be that all the underlying structure for any of the towers would have to have been simultaniously removed. This is only possible with timed charges. You can't do that with airoplanes or fire.

debunk that!

reply to post by maxella1


No, by my donations, that is how I honor them. Man, you really need to relax, or in the real world, if you talk to certain people certain ways they will not think twice to let you know how they feel. Do you realize that all i have done is call you out on what you have posted and you cannot put together sentences. Only empty threats and nothing to do with 9/11. An open ended question so you can punch around what others say. Man, you're a bully. Now I get it.

All I have done is told you to go tell your stories to some firemen... or some NYPD...or Port Authority...or how about a few Marines ..some Army...etc...real men and women who believe in what I do..convince them. People who have lived and breathed what is going on. Again, everyone has the right to opinion and I will not argue that nor am I saying the 9/11 truth movement is wrong, just that they are NOT doing anything nor is there anything new.

Why are you here. To drum up stars for your profile or to actually further the argument that the US government covertly planned and executed the 9/11 attacks? Your OP does not even have a basis to be on here. You are blogging and not formulating a discussion that will help the 9/11 Truth movement.

Again where are the explosives and the physical proof?
You started an open ended question in a 9/11 conspiracy forum and you think you can control it. Man, you are hulking out

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by tbonethedstroyer

Originally posted by maxella1
Mine are;

*The government is so incompetent that they cannot do anything right.
* It's impossible that they could keep it a secret because so many people had to be involved, somebody would blow the whistle.
* So what if they lied to the people about almost everything they do?
*The only evidence truthers have is YouTube videos.
*They are covering up their incompetents not crimes.

And my favorite of them all is

*Truthers make things up because it's so much more fun to think that it's a government conspiracy.

Yet you believe that not one but two passports morphed through the fireballs flew through the air virtually undamaged, wafted gently down to the ground only to be found amongst millions and millions of papers just by coincidence. . .

Oh and building 7!

Total fail.

edit on 21-5-2012 by tbonethedstroyer because: oopsies

You think identification documents can never survive horrendous crashes ? Have a look at this video :-

news.bbc.co.uk...

So they couldn't find the massive orange black boxes but they found two passports. Go away you coward.

All anyone needs is the very most basic ability to use common sense to know that we are not, nor will be told the truth regarding 9/11.

There is nothing more to be said, debated or argued.

Originally posted by knows_but_doesnt
All anyone needs is the very most basic ability to use common sense to know that we are not, nor will be told the truth regarding 9/11.

There is nothing more to be said, debated or argued.

Too true, even those in the 9/11 commission said that, without much caveat added.

reply to post by esdad71

For some reason you seem to think that you know who I am and what my background is.
I'm here because 9/11 is a personal issue for me. And I'm sick and tired of all the BS that you and others are trying to make people believe.
There were no justice served for the victims, stop making excuses for the criminals. Feel free to read my other threads, and you will see what I'm trying to prove.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by 4hero


Wow, you still hugging onto the fuel theory! Judging by your 'assumptions' you know little about the behaviour of jet fuel, and the role it played that day.

You lot are the 'truthers' you are clinging onto what you feel was the true story, but in reality, not many people actually believe that yarn anymore.

Can you please start acting like an adult rather than an ignorant child?

What did I say? Fire likes to spread towards more areas where there is more fuel. As in, fuel for the fire, ie: paper, wood, plastics, rags, people, office supplies, desks, chairs, flammable materials. That kind of fuel. Geeze I thought that was obvious in the context I provided. I guess I need to resort to sock puppets to explain simple things that adults should know or at least be aware of.

What exactly did I say that made me sound childish? Back up this odd remark with some kind of explanation at least!

Also, the comment about fuel is utterly ridiculous, fires do not have a mind of their own, they dont go in search of paper and stuff that is flammable, they will of course burn them if the fire reaches them. In you previous comment you said no such thing. For you this is just a massive p*ssing contest, you have no valid input into this topic, never had done, never will do...

The Top Ten Reasons to Doubt The Government Story of The Events Before, During, and After The Events of 9/11/2001

1. Physical phenomenon: The collapse or “destruction” of The Twin Towers in a nearly identical manner and at the same high-rate of speed. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, The South Tower collapsed in ten seconds.

“Both towers had 110 stories, were about 1,350 feet high, and were square; each wall measured 208 feet in length.” – The 9/11 Commission Report. If The South Tower is 1,350 feet high and collapsed in ten seconds, as specified above, and all is equivalent, this means 135 feet (45 yards) of building would have to go away per second. The speed for this to occur would be roughly 92 mph.

2. Physical phenomenon: To use phrases from The 9/11 Commission Report, the “massive dust cloud”, “ferocious windstorm”, or “violent roar” the destruction of the towers created implies a great amount of kinetic energy. See The Law of Conservation of Energy: “Energy is never destroyed, only transformed.”

3. Physical phenomenon: The furnace within the ruins and rubble of twisted metal in the craters the destruction of The Twin Towers created that burned for weeks and months after the initial destruction of the towers.

4. On the day of 9/11, people of all walks of life, firefighters, policemen, helicopter pilots and pedestrians report explosions shortly before either plane struck the towers, during the carnage, and shortly before collapse.

5. The collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 at near free-fall speed.

6. A scientific paper reporting explosive or incendiary material referred to as “active thermitic material”, a “pyrotechnic nanocomposite” or “nanothermite” found within the dust from the collapse of The Twin Towers.

7. The behavior of The Bush Administration after the events of 9/11. A commission to investigate the attacks was opposed. President George W. Bush and his vice-president, Richard B. Cheney would not testify separately nor under oath.

After the “persistence and dedication” of the families of 9/11 “helped create the Commission” to quote from The Preface to The 9/11 Commission Report (printed edition) which was authored by Thomas H. Kean, Chair and Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chair, Public Law 107-306 was passed on November 27, 2002 to create the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. According to the law, the purpose of the Commission was to: “examine and report upon the facts and causes relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, occurring at the World Trade Center in New York, New York, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon in Virginia”. The conclusion that the events of 9/11 was an attack of terrorists was written into the law creating the commission before even an investigation could determine whether such a conclusion was correct from the beginning. According to the Preface as mentioned above, “Our aim has not been to assign individual blame. Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned.”

8. The pre-9/11 and post-9/11 world existing and propagated by the ship of state as a political, social, moral, and legal reality. Without this radical change in society, a policy of preemptive warfare, which has spanned Administrations, toward the nations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Oman, The United Arab Emirates, and Iran, would not be possible.

Thus the events of 9/11 could be seen as an act of violence in the style of guerrilla warfare (and an application of the military doctrine: shock & awe) to create the conditions required for the revolution, meaning it was coup d’état, change by force, a stroke of state in the classic sense to install a small group of people into power and grant them control over the nation’s institutions. The act of violence was the launch of the perpetual warfare state; a crumbling republic has become a new empire.

9. Bush I, Iraq War I. A respite. Bush II, Iraq War II.

10. Smedley Butler, and his treatise: “War is A Racket”. His claims of the existence of “The Business Plot”. From this point of view, the events of 9/11 are explained by The Corporate Logic: Profits Over People upon a scale of international conquest.

Add to this, the information presented in the Bill Moyers documentary, The Secret Government. The below two quotes from it are of great significance:

"The Director [sic. CIA] was interested in the ability to go to an existing, as he put it “off-the-shelf, self-sustaining, stand alone, entity” that could perform certain activities on behalf of The United States.” – Oliver North to a congressmen in The Secret Government [emp. mine]

“The Secret Government is an interlocking network of official functionaries, spies, mercenaries, ex-generals, profiteers and super-patriots who for a variety of motives operate outside the legitimate institutions of government.” – Bill Moyers in The Secret Government