How did we know...

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Ok, fair enough, I will read those. To be fair, too, I never saw how the towers could've been rigged with explosives without the people that work in them noticing.




posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by BobM88
 


It's not I'm afraid. It's bad enough that so far they've made 5 different versions, all with different claims and different takes on the subject.

Please please take the time to read at least the summaries of the NIST reports and the 911 commission. They contain a lot of valuable information that you won't find if you only watch the pro-conspiracy documentaries.


I guess it's ok to revise your theories and claims as long as you're NIST? Since when did the 911 commission become the bible of the event? It's been so exposed in both it's lack of thoroughness as well as it's completely questionable members (some of whom went on to question the very commission they were a part of) it's laughable.

I see you debunkers here 24/7. You rarely if ever comment on anything BUT 9/11. Now I'm not going to be a moron and call you paid shills, but lets be honest, you have an agenda, and that is validating your version of the truth. Anything contrary to that, you will not even consider for a moment. I wouldn't exactly define you as inquiring minds.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by BobM88
 


It's not I'm afraid. It's bad enough that so far they've made 5 different versions, all with different claims and different takes on the subject.

Please please take the time to read at least the summaries of the NIST reports and the 911 commission. They contain a lot of valuable information that you won't find if you only watch the pro-conspiracy documentaries.


Interesting you chose to open your comment that way. Who accused you of being afraid?
edit on 26-6-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
I guess it's ok to revise your theories and claims as long as you're NIST?

It's always ok to revise your theories, but you need to be heading towards a coherent and consistent hypothesis. This isn't what Loose Change did. Indeed even though they had inaccurate CGI and missed out items and I literally informed the makers, they continued to use this CGI and style in future productions. That was a big red flag for me.


Since when did the 911 commission become the bible of the event? It's been so exposed in both it's lack of thoroughness as well as it's completely questionable members (some of whom went on to question the very commission they were a part of) it's laughable.

I take it you've never actually read it then. It's a gigantic list of events and references to sources of information. No objections have been raised to the vast majority of its contents, and you're taking the criticisms out of context. Whether you agree with the conclusions or not, the facts presented in there are rarely presented elsewhere.


I see you debunkers here 24/7. You rarely if ever comment on anything BUT 9/11. Now I'm not going to be a moron and call you paid shills, but lets be honest, you have an agenda, and that is validating your version of the truth. Anything contrary to that, you will not even consider for a moment. I wouldn't exactly define you as inquiring minds.

That's because you can't comprehend how someone would disagree with you and not be hard hearted. The idea that there are debunkers with secret agendas is laughable. My only agenda is to foster good debate and to counter invalid claims.


Interesting you chose to open your comment that way. Who accused you of being afraid?

It's a British colloquialism. It means "I wish you were correct but you are not". We're a polite people



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

How likely is it that a passport (likely in one of the hijackers pockets) is blown out of the plane and the building with no fire damage after the plane it was traveling in (fully loaded with fuel) impacted the world trade center


It wasn't intact.

You are ill informed.


yet the black box of the plane did NOT survive,


It very well may have survived the crash.

Unlikely that if it was in the building, it would survive the collapse.


Of course it's not impossible. It's not impossible that aliens will land on the white house lawn tomorrow morning. Does that mean it will happen?


Your comparison fails. they are not equivalent.

I, on the other hand, compare the passport's survival to the suicide note. Very similar.


Furthermore, how likely is it that this same passport escaped damage from the very burning jet fuel the OS claims weakened the structural steel


It doesn't claim that.

You are ill informed AND are argueing against a strawman.


What is the likelihood that this would happen not once, but three times that day, with all of the buildings collapsing straight into themselves?


Well, since it collapsed due to natural causes 3 times that day, then I would say that the probability is 100%.


who couldn't even fly cessna's


This is a lie.

The instructors have stated that they are of the belief that they would have no trouble at all flying the jets into the buildings.

You are ill informed.

AGAIN.


pulled off the greatest attack on american soil in history, because it is apparently simpler (on the surface) than the alternative: The U.S Government lied to it's people.


Cuz there is no evidence of any inside job.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
I guess it's ok to revise your theories and claims as long as you're NIST?

It's always ok to revise your theories, but you need to be heading towards a coherent and consistent hypothesis. This isn't what Loose Change did. Indeed even though they had inaccurate CGI and missed out items and I literally informed the makers, they continued to use this CGI and style in future productions. That was a big red flag for me.


Since when did the 911 commission become the bible of the event? It's been so exposed in both it's lack of thoroughness as well as it's completely questionable members (some of whom went on to question the very commission they were a part of) it's laughable.

I take it you've never actually read it then. It's a gigantic list of events and references to sources of information. No objections have been raised to the vast majority of its contents, and you're taking the criticisms out of context. Whether you agree with the conclusions or not, the facts presented in there are rarely presented elsewhere.


I see you debunkers here 24/7. You rarely if ever comment on anything BUT 9/11. Now I'm not going to be a moron and call you paid shills, but lets be honest, you have an agenda, and that is validating your version of the truth. Anything contrary to that, you will not even consider for a moment. I wouldn't exactly define you as inquiring minds.

That's because you can't comprehend how someone would disagree with you and not be hard hearted. The idea that there are debunkers with secret agendas is laughable. My only agenda is to foster good debate and to counter invalid claims.


Interesting you chose to open your comment that way. Who accused you of being afraid?

It's a British colloquialism. It means "I wish you were correct but you are not". We're a polite people


Incorrect on all points


But seriously, Loose Change is just as valid as any source you can provide. There have been hundreds if not thousands of arguments as to why the NIST report is flawed (let alone it's counterpart, the 9/11 Commission report). To even suggest the commission report was thorough is ridiculous, since it didn't cover an in depth analysis of the collapse of building 7 at all (apparently this is just an after thought, and nobody in their right mind would find something strange about it).

To address what's left of your second point, I can and do consider alternate theories. It's why I haven't made up my mind yet. Unlike you, I am unwilling to have undying faith in the U.S government despite insurmountable odds and evidence. While you'd like to paint me as a crazy "troother" (to quote someone above) I am not convinced of any reality other than the one you are selling is complete bull @&!%. I remain open to scientific data, explanations, theories, etc. I will even go so far as to consider some of the debunkers ideas (such as inconsistencies in the OS and cover ups were propagated to cover up incompetence, rather than direct involvement). You however, do not display the same ability to use what is clearly the gifted mind you possess.

To address your final point: The British are assholes and everyone knows it.
edit on 26-6-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

How likely is it that a passport (likely in one of the hijackers pockets) is blown out of the plane and the building with no fire damage after the plane it was traveling in (fully loaded with fuel) impacted the world trade center


It wasn't intact.

You are ill informed.


yet the black box of the plane did NOT survive,


It very well may have survived the crash.

Unlikely that if it was in the building, it would survive the collapse.


Of course it's not impossible. It's not impossible that aliens will land on the white house lawn tomorrow morning. Does that mean it will happen?


Your comparison fails. they are not equivalent.

I, on the other hand, compare the passport's survival to the suicide note. Very similar.


Furthermore, how likely is it that this same passport escaped damage from the very burning jet fuel the OS claims weakened the structural steel


It doesn't claim that.

You are ill informed AND are argueing against a strawman.


What is the likelihood that this would happen not once, but three times that day, with all of the buildings collapsing straight into themselves?


Well, since it collapsed due to natural causes 3 times that day, then I would say that the probability is 100%.


who couldn't even fly cessna's


This is a lie.

The instructors have stated that they are of the belief that they would have no trouble at all flying the jets into the buildings.

You are ill informed.

AGAIN.


pulled off the greatest attack on american soil in history, because it is apparently simpler (on the surface) than the alternative: The U.S Government lied to it's people.


Cuz there is no evidence of any inside job.


And you are lying



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Men and women far more intelligent than I have presented ample enough evidence of that.


By your own admission, you know next to nothing.

How do you then decide who is bringing the correct evidence?

Apparently. you believe at least 2 lies:

1- the passport was intact

2- that the OS claims that jet fuel caused the collapses.


That's enough for me to conclude that the official story doesn't hold water.


You are not equipped to make any conclusions.


it's enough to leave me asking questions


But apparently, not listening to answers that are contrary to what you want to believe



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph


And you are lying



Nope.

Everything I said is true.

The flight instructors said that.

The OS does not claim that.

There is no evidence of an inside job.

Sorry that it is not what you believe in, but like Bigfoot believers, you are wrong. The evidence that they bring is believeable to them only, but any sane person realizes it is ridiculous and does not rise to the level of evidence.

Same with 9/11 DSers (Delusional Story that 9/11 was an inside job)



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by DeadSeraph


And you are lying



Nope.

Everything I said is true.

The flight instructors said that.

The OS does not claim that.

There is no evidence of an inside job.

Sorry that it is not what you believe in, but like Bigfoot believers, you are wrong. The evidence that they bring is believeable to them only, but any sane person realizes it is ridiculous and does not rise to the level of evidence.

Same with 9/11 DSers (Delusional Story that 9/11 was an inside job)


Pretty sure this is trolling, but hey... have it. You guys are all hungry to capture someone's mind. That speaks for itself. In the end, all they have to do is their own research and look at the world around them



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Pretty sure this is trolling,


You would be wrong.

The mods may ban me right now if they believe it to be the truth.

But they won't cuz they are aware that what I said is true.

On the other hand, your refusal to debate the points I raised says loads about you.


. In the end, all they have to do is their own research and look at the world around them


Bingo.

ANd if they are sincere in their quest for truth, then they will know that the inside job beliefs are not credible.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Pretty sure this is trolling,


You would be wrong.

The mods may ban me right now if they believe it to be the truth.

But they won't cuz they are aware that what I said is true.

On the other hand, your refusal to debate the points I raised says loads about you.


. In the end, all they have to do is their own research and look at the world around them


Bingo.

ANd if they are sincere in their quest for truth, then they will know that the inside job beliefs are not credible.


Lets face it, you haven't said anything credible since you've been on this forum. You're practically the definition of a troll, and I am taking the bait.

In the end, You joined this forum with an agenda. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Unfortunately, You seem to think you are bright enough despite your obvious intellectual shortcomings to debate ideas that were being discussed by people more intelligent than you or I while you were still a toddler.
edit on 27-6-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Anyone with half a brain can see that.


Which is obviously why yopu believe that.

Oh, and in 9/11 was an inside job.


You seem to think you are bright enough despite your obvious intellectual shortcomings to debate ideas that were being discussed by people more intelligent than your or I while you were still a toddler.


I noticed that you don't debate anything, nor have any rebuttal to the points I made.

ALways good to recognize your shortcomings....



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Apparently. you believe at least 2 lies:

1- the passport was intact



The passport was intact. That is a fact. I hate it when Truthers wont correct other Truthers, If I didn't correct bad information, I would be just like them.




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
Incorrect on all points


But seriously, Loose Change is just as valid as any source you can provide. There have been hundreds if not thousands of arguments as to why the NIST report is flawed (let alone it's counterpart, the 9/11 Commission report).

Just because someone has made an argument doesn't mean there is any validity to it whatsoever. For example, the first Loose Change features claims that a large blue box containing something was carried off the Pentagon lawn. Do you believe this is a valid claim?


To even suggest the commission report was thorough is ridiculous, since it didn't cover an in depth analysis of the collapse of building 7 at all (apparently this is just an after thought, and nobody in their right mind would find something strange about it).

This claim is meaningless as the 911 Commission Report had nothing to do with WTC7. That is the focus of the NIST report.


To address what's left of your second point, I can and do consider alternate theories. It's why I haven't made up my mind yet. Unlike you, I am unwilling to have undying faith in the U.S government despite insurmountable odds and evidence. While you'd like to paint me as a crazy "troother" (to quote someone above) I am not convinced of any reality other than the one you are selling is complete bull @&!%. I remain open to scientific data, explanations, theories, etc.

Your statement is self defeating. You can't be open minded but also completely convinced that some theory you don't even seem to have read is wrong. Would you answer this simple question for me? Have you read the full summary reports for each NIST report section? Have you read the 911 commission report?


To address your final point: The British are assholes and everyone knows it.
edit on 26-6-2012 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

At least we can spell it properly



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by BobM88
2nd post about the passports...

Ok, I remember the day vividly...and yet, I never heard that about the passports, and I've always thought of myself as one that knew what was going on in the world....

So, if I get you guys (the two of you that have mentioned the passports now) right...the aircraft hit hard enough to bring down the twin towers, but a paper passport survived the fires we all saw?

I'd have to say that is remarkably convenient.


I was 13 the day 9/11 happened. The passport found on the street was the one thing that stuck out in my mind that day and is what led me down the rabbit hole. I credit that passport with the awakened person I am today.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
WOW I must have tugged on a short hair !!
They brought out a MASTERdeBATER !!! So anyway, a few observations from my life. In the Marine Corps Infantry, at Jungle Warfare Training School I got in trouble (won't go there) and pulled crapper burning detail. These were 55 gallon drums cut in half, you add diesel and burn all crap and paper down to ashes in a VERY THIN sheet metal drum. These drums are probably still in use. Second, I live in a rural area and have had a few burn barrels for the junk mail, etc. Rust was their biggest enemy. Third, the launch towers get exposed to brief but EXTREME temps during launches and get/got used many times with no structural damage. SO from my perspective 1- Diesel/kerosene fire will NOT melt structural steel. 2- Paper/drywall backing fire will NOT melt structural steel. AND 3- Babysh!t insults and namecalling is NOT becoming. Pity you



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by skycowboy
WOW I must have tugged on a short hair !!
They brought out a MASTERdeBATER !!! So anyway, a few observations from my life. In the Marine Corps Infantry, at Jungle Warfare Training School I got in trouble (won't go there) and pulled crapper burning detail. These were 55 gallon drums cut in half, you add diesel and burn all crap and paper down to ashes in a VERY THIN sheet metal drum. These drums are probably still in use. Second, I live in a rural area and have had a few burn barrels for the junk mail, etc. Rust was their biggest enemy. Third, the launch towers get exposed to brief but EXTREME temps during launches and get/got used many times with no structural damage. SO from my perspective 1- Diesel/kerosene fire will NOT melt structural steel. 2- Paper/drywall backing fire will NOT melt structural steel. AND 3- Babysh!t insults and namecalling is NOT becoming. Pity you


Your opening and closing comments are cute, but hardly original... That display of arrogance is why I'm replying. Otherwise, I wouldn't waste my time with a response...

There are several problems with your post. One - the steel in the WTC did not melt. It weakened. Two - Your crapper and junk mail burn barrel analogy is flawed in that there was no weight (stress on either of them). If you had put weight (more appropriately a dynamic (falling) weight) on them proportional to what occurred at the WTC you would have seen different results.

Three - I presume you are talking about the Space Shuttle launch towers with your other analogy... Guess you don't know there are blast shields at the base of those towers which diffuse the intense heat from the rocket engine exhaust. The metal tower itself is not subject to direct heat from the engines. You could also use a jet engine exhaust system or even the exhaust system on a car or truck engine, as well, but the same applies. A dynamic weight dropping on those heated items (equivalent to the proportional weight in the WTC would produce significantly different results.

Did you ever wonder why fireproofing is put on all of the steel in a steel structure? Did you think it was for decoration or are you simply unaware it is used? I'm sure you don't know that the codes for that fireproofing were changed after the events at the WTC...

Four - None of the items you mentioned had a 100 ton aircraft smash into them at over 500 MPH before they were heated....

For your benefit, I'd suggest you stick to burning crap in a barrel instead of showing your profound ignorance in front of an International audience by posting such nonsense in an open Forum....
edit on 30-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join


ATS Live After Midnight IS ON-AIR! (there are 32 minutes remaining).
AFTER MIDNIGHT: 151: You Don't Know...

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def