Let’s Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument’s

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
And on top of that, everyone should enter a debate with an open and flexible mind.
When your opponent brings a strong and convincing argument to the table, don't be afraid to admit it.


The official story is a lie, a fiction, there are no strong convincing arguments. I don't have to be open and flexible to lies and deceit.




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88

Originally posted by LaBTop
And on top of that, everyone should enter a debate with an open and flexible mind.
When your opponent brings a strong and convincing argument to the table, don't be afraid to admit it.


The official story is a lie, a fiction, there are no strong convincing arguments. I don't have to be open and flexible to lies and deceit.


Thank you for summing up the attitude of the 911 conspiracy movement in two sentences. This is an excellent illustration of the exact wrong attitude to take when investigating anything. Once you've made the conclusion ('the official story is a lie') then you become impervious to any evidence and can only see your point of view as being correct.

We should all aspire to avoid this type of thinking and listen to our opponents. Forming strong opinions and then researching based on those opinions is the ultimate problem with most truth movements.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
How do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the more massive steel columns all braced together? Not only that but the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first? How do you explain that?


We've been through this several times ANOK. The Jeopardy answer is: what is tension?

Why pretend like you don't know this? I have explained it to you many times, shown you papers explaining it in peer reviewed journals. You've refused to read these papers or refused to pay any attention to them, you ridicule them because you have a video you think disproves them.

Why act in this manner? Just read the papers, admit they disagree with you and go learn from the industry why you are wrong. It's not too much to ask considering the importance of 911 in your eyes.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


The problem I find with your logic is saying that prior to researching the facts of 9-11 many already had formed a strong opinion that the OS was a lie. For myself, I approached the subject with an open mind, but the evidence is so overwelming that this was an "inside" job, and I honestly have a difficult time comprehending how any reasonable person could see it otherwise...



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


Out of that evidence which you describe as overwhelming is there anything in particular which you regard as firm and indisputable ?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


Out of that evidence which you describe as overwhelming is there anything in particular which you regard as firm and indisputable ?



I think this documentory sums it up better then I could, worth watching if others have not seen it. I guess to answer your question I find the technical explination in the OS of how all 3 buildings could collapse in thier own footprints unbelievable.



I also find it VERY suspicious who profited from this nightmare against humanity.

edit on 2-12-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
opps


edit on 2-12-2012 by MountainLaurel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by MountainLaurel
 


I too was once a Truther, many many moons ago. It all sounded very true and very believable. I thought the truther sites and videos were very convincing. Until I started to do some extra digging and searching and, well, just like picking at a loose strand of thread on a shirt, it all came apart. Once I saw all the deceit, all manipulations, and twists and out of context "evidence" brought forward by them (ie AE9/11T, Loose Change, Sept. Clues, etc) and downright lies, distortions and false presumptions, I was shocked they had tricked me and suckered me into believing such garbage. In fact, I came to my own conclusions before I discovered the debunking sites that pretty much reinforced my observations. So much of what the Truth Movement brought forward was nonsense, that I quickly became disillusioned and became a debunker. Ever since then, not one thing brought forward by the Truth Movement has been able to swing me back. Maybe if they stopped lying, taking quotes out of context, making real dumb mistakes and stopped all of the huge contradictions in the storyline, would they get me to re-examine their stuff. But for now, they've failed. Miserably.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I find it interesting that you use the example of a thread unraveling a shirt.....which meets with resistance, unlike the collapse of 3 buildings that should have behaved differently given the level of damage. Do you believe all these experts are wrong? Why do you believe this? I provided some crediable evidence to support why I don't believe the OS, can you produce evidence that contradicts them?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
well it has been a while since i have posted in a 911 thread...not one thing has convinced me in all these years the 911 was pulled off by 19 box cutter wielding Muslims...and the OP saying to stop the arguing then to go on stating his firm belief in the OS....Which is strange to me....Since that in itself states that a great many peoples beliefs are therefore null and void.

I will not go into the myriad of discrepancies that leave the whole story open to discussion because it is all still open to discussion and these could be fruitful and meaningful but seem to get derailed under beliefs.

anyways...i will leave it as i completely disagree with the OP....it was a setup from the start...and to not look at all possibilities is just being closed minded and only believing a lying government that only wanted wars...and not solutions to the world crisis...typical slanting of opinion by the OP to try and state their view is the only correct view.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by ANOK
How do sagging trusses put a pulling force on the more massive steel columns all braced together? Not only that but the 1" and 5/8" bolts didn't fail first? How do you explain that?


We've been through this several times ANOK. The Jeopardy answer is: what is tension?

Why pretend like you don't know this? I have explained it to you many times, shown you papers explaining it in peer reviewed journals. You've refused to read these papers or refused to pay any attention to them, you ridicule them because you have a video you think disproves them.

Why act in this manner? Just read the papers, admit they disagree with you and go learn from the industry why you are wrong. It's not too much to ask considering the importance of 911 in your eyes.


Tension? Really? You have explained nothing to me mate.

Tension has nothing to do with sagging trusses pulling in columns.

Please answer these questions...

How does a sagging truss put any tension on anything?

IF what you say is true then why didn't the 1" and 5/8" bolts fail first, or even the truss itself? Do you think the bolts, and truss, could take more tension than the columns?


(every question leads to many more questions but I'll just leave it at that for now)

If you truly understand the physics involved in building collapses, you should understand the relevance of this vid, and why it demonstrates the impossibility of sagging trusses pulling in columns by catenary action, or tension.


Two of the side columns are subsequently taken out using gas gun. The test demonstrated the transition of the resisting mechanism from beam column action to catenary action.




edit on 12/2/2012 by ANOK because: forgot vid



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
has anyone seen the "fake witness" video.

Watch the very moment the "official" cover-up story was first seeded into the media



This witness is absolutely certain about the causes of the towers collapsing literately moments after they fell. No one knew or could have known the exact reason, not even the "offical story" had been announced yet. This guy seems to be the feeder to me, someone who kicked off the original story and planted this information.

It all looks false and rehearsed. Why did fox news decide to pick this guy? the only witness in the entire city who knew.


watch the black guy in the black suit make sure nothing is said on camera that isint supposed to be said and the reporter asks one of the guy in a black suit what his role is and he says i cant say. his job was to intimidate reporters and witnesses


* an interesting comment from someone there, it does look as though that guy in the background is there to make sure he says what hes told to say sort of thing.
edit on 2-12-2012 by SkuzzleButt because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
all 3 buildings could collapse in thier own footprints unbelievable.


Well, they never collapsed into their own footprints!

WTC7, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires. The Deutsche Bank Building, the Verizon Building, and World Financial Center 3 suffered impact damage from the towers' collapse, as did 90 West Street. One Liberty Plaza survived structurally intact but sustained surface damage including shattered windows. 30 West Broadway was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building, which was covered in a large black "shroud" after September 11 to cover the building's damage

Were all damaged by the collapse of the WTC buildings - so why do you claim they fell into their own footprint?

Just where did you expect them to fall?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


You only have to look at pics of WTC7 post collapse to see the majority of the building stayed in the footprint...















Not bad for the tallest building ever imploded.

edit on 12/2/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Collateral damage to other buildings does not change the fact that many experts believe these buildings collapsed the way they did because of controlled demolition, no other explination makes sense. Did you watch the documentary I provided ?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce
Just where did you expect them to fall?


Why do people ask that stupid question?

Buildings cannot collapse vertically into their own footprints from asymmetrical damage and single column loss.

To get a building as tall as WTC 7 to do that would have taken timed explosives.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


BTW you should be aware that there are members here who argue that the floors of WTC 1&2 did in fact stay in the footprint through the whole collapse. In fact that is the argument most OS supporters put forward, based on the work of Bazant and others. The floors apparently all collapsed and crushed into the basement.

So do you disagree with them?

If so you would be correct. WTC 1&2 did not collapse into their own footprints. The rubble was spread in a 360d arc around the towers as noted by FEMA. They did collapse vertically. They were just too tall and thin for traditional implosion demolition, as used on WTC7.

Sooo how did the collapse mechanism, claimed by the majority of OS supporters, work if they did not collapse into their own footprints? Where did the energy come from to collapse lower floors if all the upper floors were being ejected outside of the footprint?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Buildings cannot collapse vertically into their own footprints from asymmetrical damage


Well, as it never collapsed into its own footprint what are you on about?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
flashes from the explosives planted in the towers can be seen, on some clips you can see the flashes traveling around the building itself. the explosives went around the entire building weaking all the structures inside, that is what caused it to collapse so quickly






Somewhere around the middle, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... With each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see."- NYFD Captain Karin Deshore




edit on 3-12-2012 by SkuzzleButt because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join