How do the people you know feel about 911

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
everyone I know thinks it was an inside job yet continues on with life like that fact doesn't change anything.
it's so weird.




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Oh yes JREF.. fair and balanced, like Fox News. No bias over there at all... Why don't you find the original link to his statement and then we'll talk about it.

I did, posting links to other messageboards is against the rules. Google what I posted in the quotes.

Also no, JREF is not Fox News. The fact that you seem to have a pre-existing bias against them is curious, as you claim to only have started researching 911 relatively recently.


Logic and experience.. We discussed it before don't you remember? I'm okay with agreeing to disagree with you.

So you've done no analysis whatsoever, but you feel confident in saying how WTC7 would collapse? You must have a lot of faith in your own guesswork.


If you are then show me who testified that a complete collapse was expected, and I'll admit that you are right. Or you just don't understand what is the difference between what the firemen were saying and what actually happened to building 7?

Chief Nigro expected the collapse of WTC7. Why are you asking for something we are already discussing?


Again you are being a hypocrite... What is it that debunkers love to say, I think it's that if you want your source to be taken seriously you need to back it up with facts. So please get the confirmation of that letter legitimacy if you want it to be taken seriously

It's in the thread I gave you the title of.


If you don't want to that's okay with me, i'll just add this to the list of made up "facts" to back up the official conspiracy theory.

It'd be the first on your list.


NIST and FEMA were responsible for investigating WTC collapses and as I provided in another thread reasons to suspect that both agencies were under the same pressure from the White House as the Commission was, We have no reason to expect that any evidence of anything not approved by the White House would be included in their final reports.

So your evidence for there being something suspicious is that there's no evidence of anything suspicious? Come on man, this amazingly efficient secret conspiracy that removed all the controlled demolition evidence also leaves completely obvious signs of their attempts to limit culpability? You've got to be joking.
edit on 7/7/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Actually, I know the Commission report was lacking and that they were lied to and not allowed to investigate things fully. That's basically completely proven. What's not proven is what you and others here insinuate that it means. It does not automatically validate any one conspiracy theory about 9/11. All it proves is that someone in the government didn't want to take responsibility for the events, or that perhaps there was something else going on surrounding the events leading up to 9/11 and the way it was handled. The fact is that it is not fully known, so it cannot be applied to a conspiracy theory to give it more credence.

I'm very open about this, and I'm far more receptive to the possibility of a conspiracy than people give me credit for. I just need to see the evidence. All I'm given is backhanded comments about how I'll never listen, and things that are almost always subjective, or demonstrably wrong.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





I did, posting links to other messageboards is against the rules. Google what I posted in the quotes.

So this letter only exists in another message board.... Got it.... I'm gonna have to disregard it since you have no original source.


Also no, JREF is not Fox News. The fact that you seem to have a pre-existing bias against them is curious, as you claim to only have started researching 911 relatively recently.

Preexisting bias? No it's an imprecision I got after visiting that site for a while. Not preexisting... Well If you say 5 years or so is relatively recent.. I'm okay with it.. I guess people process information at different pace.


So you've done no analysis whatsoever, but you feel confident in saying how WTC7 would collapse? You must have a lot of faith in your own guesswork.

Since you cant remember that I already explained it to before, I'll do it again.. Make a note of it, because it's getting annoying..

I deal with all kinds of emergencies in the line of work that i do, and I have been to many building collapses, structure fires, construction accidents, and natural disasters over the years. I have never seen or even heard of partially damaged building completely collapsing like WTC 7 did. However, none of my previous experience with collapses involved a structure as large as WTC 7 and none of them were hit by a jet . I haven't found a explanation that makes sense to me as of yet, and when i look at the video footage of building 7 collapsing it appears like it was deliberately brought down. So for now I will have to agree to disagree with you until something will change my mind.

The example I used to explain my opinion in the other thread was the case i was working on where a young man was found dead after a fight, the people involved in that fight were saying that they did not have any weapons and it was an accidental trauma that killed this person. But i could see a bullet entry and exit wounds in the victims thigh where the femoral artery is. No weapon was found on the scene and nobody admitted that shots were fired, but it doesn't make a difference because it still is a gun shot wound, and even if the cause of death will be a heart attack or whatever, it will never change reality that this person was shot in the leg.
So this is how I look at WTC 7 for now.




Chief Nigro expected the collapse of WTC7. Why are you asking for something we are already discussing?


Okay I see that you will continue to pretend that you don't get it..



It's in the thread I gave you the title of.

You gave me the title of a thread on another forum, moving on...




It'd be the first on your list.


Right after the 9/11 Commission Report




So your evidence for there being something suspicious is that there's no evidence of anything suspicious? Come on man, this amazingly efficient secret conspiracy that removed all the controlled demolition evidence also leaves completely obvious signs of their attempts to limit culpability? You've got to be joking.


So you agree that 9/11 Commission Report is full of sh** but not the NIST and FIMA reports?
edit on 7-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
So you agree that 9/11 Commission Report is full of sh** but not the NIST and FIMA reports?
edit on 7-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Well, you have to admit that they were very different groups that investigated different things to different extents. The Commission Report was supposed to figure out why and how the attack happened, FEMA was meant to make a preliminary idea of how the collapse happened, and NIST was meant to figure out exactly how the collapse happened and how to prevent it in future buildings.

They each have their own variable credibility. One being bad does not make the rest false by proxy, especially since they weren't based off each-other, or even analyzing the same things.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I've made my father aware of certain details. My mother has spent most of her life trusting the "authorities," and considers anything that appears on television as Gospel.

If there wasn't any other element of proof that the truth about 9/11 has been covered up, I'd still consider the way people get treated on this very forum, if their opinion dissents from the official story, as evidence.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by maxella1
 


Actually, I know the Commission report was lacking and that they were lied to and not allowed to investigate things fully. That's basically completely proven. What's not proven is what you and others here insinuate that it means. It does not automatically validate any one conspiracy theory about 9/11. All it proves is that someone in the government didn't want to take responsibility for the events, or that perhaps there was something else going on surrounding the events leading up to 9/11 and the way it was handled. The fact is that it is not fully known, so it cannot be applied to a conspiracy theory to give it more credence.

I'm very open about this, and I'm far more receptive to the possibility of a conspiracy than people give me credit for. I just need to see the evidence. All I'm given is backhanded comments about how I'll never listen, and things that are almost always subjective, or demonstrably wrong.


You admit that the Commission were lied to and not allowed to investigate fully but you don't think that the reason for it could be that it was in fact some type of an inside job... Okay.. what didn't they want us to know? and why should we believe them that it's not criminal involvement that they were covering up?

I remember that you wrote that you think the government could have provided cover for the terrorists to help them hijack the planes, but you think there is just NO WAY they could have provided cover for the terrorists to plant explosives in the buildings. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't make any sense now.. Sorry...



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
So you agree that 9/11 Commission Report is full of sh** but not the NIST and FIMA reports?
edit on 7-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Well, you have to admit that they were very different groups that investigated different things to different extents. The Commission Report was supposed to figure out why and how the attack happened, FEMA was meant to make a preliminary idea of how the collapse happened, and NIST was meant to figure out exactly how the collapse happened and how to prevent it in future buildings.

They each have their own variable credibility. One being bad does not make the rest false by proxy, especially since they weren't based off each-other, or even analyzing the same things.


And all three of them had White House insiders deciding what goes into the final Report. Or at least NIST and the Commission did, I'll have to check about FIMA later.
edit on 7-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
You admit that the Commission were lied to and not allowed to investigate fully but you don't think that the reason for it could be that it was in fact some type of an inside job... Okay.. what didn't they want us to know? and why should we believe them that it's not criminal involvement that they were covering up?

I remember that you wrote that you think the government could have provided cover for the terrorists to help them hijack the planes, but you think there is just NO WAY they could have provided cover for the terrorists to plant explosives in the buildings. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't make any sense now.. Sorry...


That's the problem. I don't know what they were trying to cover up and neither do you. You therefore cannot assume that the popular conspiracy theory is automatically correct. That's just silly logic.


And all three of them had White House insiders deciding what goes into the final Report. Or at least NIST did, I'll have to check about FIMA later.


They did? What kind of "insiders?" I'm genuinely curious, as NIST is an engineering organization that advises architects on safe building practices and influences code changes. It seems strange that they would make things up and change building codes to knowingly cover up your specific version of the 9/11 conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
So this letter only exists in another message board.... Got it.... I'm gonna have to disregard it since you have no original source.

Ignoring evidence that proves you wrong? What a shock! It's almost like I predicted that in a previous post!


Since you cant remember that I already explained it to before, I'll do it again.. Make a note of it, because it's getting annoying..

I deal with all kinds of emergencies in the line of work that i do, and I have been to many building collapses, structure fires, construction accidents, and natural disasters over the years. I have never seen or even heard of partially damaged building completely collapsing like WTC 7 did. However, none of my previous experience with collapses involved a structure as large as WTC 7 and none of them were hit by a jet . I haven't found a explanation that makes sense to me as of yet, and when i look at the video footage of building 7 collapsing it appears like it was deliberately brought down. So for now I will have to agree to disagree with you until something will change my mind.

I'm sorry but no matter how many times you post this, it will never be acceptable.


Right after the 9/11 Commission Report

Name a lie in the commission report please!


So you agree that 9/11 Commission Report is full of sh** but not the NIST and FIMA reports?
edit on 7-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

I agree that there's definitely evidence of political manoeuvring in the commission report. I've seen no evidence of any political connection whatsoever in the FEMA and NIST reports. They don't attempt to assign blame, so the Bush Government had little to fear from them.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





That's the problem. I don't know what they were trying to cover up and neither do you. You therefore cannot assume that the popular conspiracy theory is automatically correct. That's just silly logic.


Agreed... You therefore cannot assume the official conspiracy theory to be correct. That's just silly logic.




They did? What kind of "insiders?" I'm genuinely curious, as NIST is an engineering organization that advises architects on safe building practices and influences code changes. It seems strange that they would make things up and change building codes to knowingly cover up your specific version of the 9/11 conspiracy.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll check about FEMA when I'll have more time, cant remember right now and don't feel like digging it up.

edit on 7-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





Ignoring evidence that proves you wrong? What a shock! It's almost like I predicted that in a previous post!


Evidence ? That's funny because all I see is a debunker website making stuff up without any source to back it up. Give me the original source and then we can discuss it.




I'm sorry but no matter how many times you post this, it will never be acceptable.


What won't be accepted and who won't accept it?




Name a lie in the commission report please!


Here's one off the top of my head.... [failure of imagination]




I agree that there's definitely evidence of political manoeuvring in the commission report. I've seen no evidence of any political connection whatsoever in the FEMA and NIST reports. They don't attempt to assign blame, so the Bush Government had little to fear from them.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
I think that the federal government would be pretty upset if NIST admitted that explosives were used...



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Evidence ? That's funny because all I see is a debunker website making stuff up without any source to back it up. Give me the original source and then we can discuss it.

The original source is the person who posted the letter in that forum. He is the person who corresponded with Daniel Nigro and solicited the quote.


What won't be accepted and who won't accept it?

You relying on your personal bias is not a valid debate point. I could say that to me 911 makes perfect sense because I have a good understanding of the issues, but that doesn't help anyone and I certainly wouldn't expect you to accept it if you disagree.




Name a lie in the commission report please!

Here's one off the top of my head.... [failure of imagination]

Wasn't this a lie told to the commission, rather than by the commission? I admit I didn't make the distinction in my post but I thought it was implied.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
I think that the federal government would be pretty upset if NIST admitted that explosives were used...

That's your evidence of politicising? Do you accept 'well maybe' explanations for everything? Sorry man but I don't find that remotely convincing, NIST is a massive group of engineers. If their report was edited to remove the real conclusion they're not going to remain silent on it.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Agreed... You therefore cannot assume the official conspiracy theory to be correct. That's just silly logic.


Agreed, which is why I do not use it to define which theory I consider more correct. I use the other evidences available to me.




www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'll check about FEMA when I'll have more time, cant remember right now and don't feel like digging it up.

edit on 7-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


That didn't actually prove anything. It doesn't show that Donald Evans was filtering what NIST was saying. It just says that he was friends with Bush and that he headed some commerce stuff. Google is only showing me his commerce work.

I still don't see anything that would blanket-discredit NIST's work. If you have specific qualms with claims NIST made, I'm sure you can make a thread on it and people will gladly let you know what they think about it.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
most of my friends don't think about it at all. i suspect that for them, it ended with the official report and faded from their consciousness. i'd imagine most accept the OS. i never try to convince them not to.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 





The original source is the person who posted the letter in that forum. He is the person who corresponded with Daniel Nigro and solicited the quote.


That's nice.



You relying on your personal bias is not a valid debate point. I could say that to me 911 makes perfect sense because I have a good understanding of the issues, but that doesn't help anyone and I certainly wouldn't expect you to accept it if you disagree.

Nobody should accept my opinions based on my own experience as some kind of proof.




Wasn't this a lie told to the commission, rather than by the commission? I admit I didn't make the distinction in my post but I thought it was implied.


I don't care.... a lie is a lie as far as I'm concerned,,



That's your evidence of politicising? Do you accept 'well maybe' explanations for everything? Sorry man but I don't find that remotely convincing, NIST is a massive group of engineers. If their report was edited to remove the real conclusion they're not going to remain silent on it.


How many times does somebody need to get caught lying for you to realize that they are liars ?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by maxella1
 


Actually, I know the Commission report was lacking and that they were lied to and not allowed to investigate things fully. That's basically completely proven. What's not proven is what you and others here insinuate that it means. It does not automatically validate any one conspiracy theory about 9/11. All it proves is that someone in the government didn't want to take responsibility for the events, or that perhaps there was something else going on surrounding the events leading up to 9/11 and the way it was handled. The fact is that it is not fully known, so it cannot be applied to a conspiracy theory to give it more credence.

I'm very open about this, and I'm far more receptive to the possibility of a conspiracy than people give me credit for. I just need to see the evidence. All I'm given is backhanded comments about how I'll never listen, and things that are almost always subjective, or demonstrably wrong.


I forgot to ask you if you tell your friends about it or are you only telling them about space lasers, fake planes and controlled demolition theories?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
That's nice.

You asked for an original source, I gave you the original source.


I don't care.... a lie is a lie as far as I'm concerned,,

That's nice but it doesn't change the fact that it was told to the commission, not by them.


How many times does somebody need to get caught lying for you to realize that they are liars ?

You didn't present any evidence of that, and it takes a hell of a lot more than a single lie for me to discount hundreds to thousands of people.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





That didn't actually prove anything. It doesn't show that Donald Evans was filtering what NIST was saying. It just says that he was friends with Bush and that he headed some commerce stuff. Google is only showing me his commerce work.


I shows a conflict of interest. And therefor it discredits it in my book.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


Let me get this straight. A friendship completely obliterates any evidence that NIST, a group of thousands, who contracted in hundreds if not thousands of other engineers, might have produced?

You wish to dismiss every facet of the reports because someone was friends with Bush?

This seems to be what you're suggesting, but I must be mistaken, because this seems so obviously biased as to be laughable. What mistake am I making?






top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join