Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by thegameisup
I don't ever recall seeing any photographic, or video evidence of a 20 story hole! That would be a hole half the size of the building! I might
actually believe you if you have any video footage, or clear photographic images to show a hole half the size of the building.
So let me get this right. If firefighters say that they saw 'explosions'. You twist that to mean they saw 'explosives'. However, when they say
they saw a '20 storey hole' you deny its existence without video or 'clear' photographs?
Your bias could not be more prominent.
With the OS in serious question, any hearsay or falsified statements are worthless without visual proof to go with it. I could say the Empire
State building has a 20 story hole in it, but unless there is some visual evidence to prove that statement, then the statement is just a worthless
Here you dismiss everything that disagrees with you, and for some bizarre reason decide that photographs are the benchmark of truth, despite the fact
that it's a common truther claim that photographs are faked.
In essence here you state quite plainly that if any evidence disagrees with you, it will be accused of being fake and you will try and turn the burden
of proof around.
So because you say a fireman saw a 20 story hole in WTC7, which you have provided no hard evidence for, does that therefore mean that because
Jennifer Oberstein heard no plane, then there was no plane? I'm just using the same process to reach a conclusion as you, except at least in this
video there is actually an audio recording and not just some words on a computer screen.
If you think that this is the same process, you do not understand the very basis of logical thinking. Absence of evidence is not evidence of
but as we know, the tower came apart and there was nothing that substancial that would have, or could have caused a 20 story hole.
Exterior wall panels?
Even the buildings that were closer to the towers when they came down did not collapse, and the Marriott hotel (WTC3) that was spliced almost
in half because it was in the direct path, was still standing. Did they put a transit on that? Did they put a transit of WTC5 & WTC6 because they were
closer to the towers than WTC7 and suffered a lot of damage? I will post some overhead ariel photos of ground zero and the building orientations in a
What's the point? You're not basing your opinions on any fact, you've already dismissed the firefighter accounts so that you can maintain your
ignorance. Instead of posting some overhead photos and your own distorted views, why don't you find some way of distinguishing what evidence you'll
accept other than 'It agrees with me so it must be right!'
Just a thought.
I'me very confused again by your comments. You isolate a quote I made about WTC7, and you then proceed to say that I am twisting words around
relating to explosives/explosions? Where in that quote you highlighted do I mention explosions or explosives? Why would you highlight my words, then
write a response that bares no relevance to those words? It seems you are rather confused.
Yes, I will deny the existence of a 20 story hole until visual evidence is provided. Why would anyone take a few words on a computer screen as fact
without verifiable visual evidence to back up those words? That is surely common sense? In a court of law hearsay is invalid without considerable
proof to go with the hearsay. I do not see why asking for verifiable visual evidence would make me biased?
I really don't get some of the things you say, they don't seem coherent at times. Yes, I do not believe the OS, does that make me biased, well on
some aspects yes, I've never said all the OS is a lie, but many aspects of it appear to be that way, and I have come to that conclusion based on the
official evidence that is available to all. I approach any OS claims with caution, and will always need verifiable evidence, such as visual evidence
to go with copy and pasted words, otherwise that evidence is worthless. Do you not work that way, or do you just take everything you are presented by
the government agencies as truth? It appears that you are very biased to all the OS, I however have an open mind, and do take some of it as truth, but
there are many aspects of their reports and their evidence that do not hold up. Maybe you should scrutinise the OS a little more.
How is asking for visual evidence, about this alleged 20 story hole, that you or nobody has yet to provide 'dismissing everything that disagrees with
me', as you put it?
I am not a gullible person that would just believe any words that are written on a forum, or anything the media presents to me. I like that have all
the evidence about something before I make my conclusions, if you can post some video evidence of this hole, or some verifiable photographs, then I
will be more than happy to believe that the 20 story hole exists. As I say, I have an open mind, and do not believe everything people tell me with out
all the evidence, unlike some people.
You are making a lot of false allegations in your comments here, and you are making a lot of assumptions, these are not the actions of an intelligent
mind, I don't feel there is much to be learnt from you if you have that demeanour. I have not said that the 20 story hole is a fake claim, I just
find it very bizarre, that I have never seen this 'hole' that is half the size of the WTC7, and I have seen a lot of WTC7 images. If anyone is
twisting things around it is you, you are making a lot of false claims about what I have written, and my words are there for all to read, as are
You made this remark: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but absence of verifiable visual evidenc ethat WTC7 had a 20 story hole in it
mean I cannot take that claim seriously until someone provides that evidence. You might take everything someone says as fact without needing to see
some physical evidence, that is up to you, but I like to be a little more cautious before I decide what did and didnt happen. I think my way is a more
thorough way of examining the evidence, and this is the way I will continue to work. If you have the verifiable evidence in visual form that there was
a 20 story hole in WTC7, half the size of the building, then we can put this matter to bed and move on from it. Until then it is unverifiable and
I used the example of Jennifer Oberstein saying she was surprised to hear a plane hit the tower, because the audio is verifiable evidence, it was not
just some text on the screen. I feel I am a good judge of character, and her report on the first explosion, to me, seemed genuine, and I would
consider that particular news report as a sound witness statement. On the other hand, someone random on a forum just saying in a few lines of text
there was a 20 story hole in WTC7, is not enough for me, and I would hope most people would not take that serious until some visual evidence was
provided? Do you have any?
You say: "what's the point! What do you mean by this? Do you what is the point of asking if WTC 3, 4, 5 & 6 also had transits put on them? Or what
is the point of me posting ariel photographs?
Well, there is a point becuase if people are saying WTC7 had a transit put on it, then it would seem obvious that they would also put them on WTC 3,
4, 5, & 6.
And there is a point in posting ariel photographs of WTC7 because they show the extent of the damage to WTC 3, 4, 5 & 6, and from what I can see they
show that WTC7 has relatively little damage to it, and until I see visual evidence to prove otherwise then I will continue to believe that WTC7 should
not have come down the way it did.