This is how normal people discuss 9/11

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by whatsecret

 

Why do you defend A&E for 9/11 truth so much, you have already admitted that they essentially lied about how long it took WTC-7 to fall and that some of their experts are experts in fields that have nothing to do whit 9/11.

I dont get why you, a seemingly inteligent person who knows that flaws of Gage et al would defend them so much

You're confused... I couldn't care less about AE911Truth.

I'm just trying to understand why you believe that if AE911Truth are wrong, NIST doesn't have to back up their conclusion with facts? Can you explain this to me?

reply to post by whatsecret

I'm just trying to understand why you believe that if AE911Truth are wrong, NIST doesn't have to back up their conclusion with facts? Can you explain this to me?

NIST did back it all up with facts, can you tell me what fact NIST have got wrong

I mean we can say that Gage et al were wrong about how long it took WTC=7 to fall, they were wrong about thermate as there is no Barium nitrate, some of there members are listed as interns and having degrees in marine engineering.

why are you defending them your whole argument in this thread has been "NIST are wrong" and "A&E for 9/11 truth might have a few things wrong but they are still right".

i dont get it, why are you defending A&E for 9/11 truth

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

NIST did back it all up with facts, can you tell me what fact NIST have got wrong

I didn't say they got it wrong, I said they did not provide it.
Are you able to reproduce the computer model that they said explained the free fall stage of the collapse?

I mean we can say that Gage et al were wrong about how long it took WTC=7 to fall, they were wrong about thermate as there is no Barium nitrate, some of there members are listed as interns and having degrees in marine engineering.

I don't know how this has anything to do with what I'm saying.

why are you defending them your whole argument in this thread has been "NIST are wrong" and "A&E for 9/11 truth might have a few things wrong but they are still right".

That is not true. I said no such thing.

i dont get it, why are you defending A&E for 9/11 truth

You're still confused.

reply to post by whatsecret


So now you are saying that its not that NIST got anything wrong its just that they didn't provide you with the details of the computer model that they used.

so you accept then that A&E for 9/11 truth cannot be trusted so we can now take them out of our debate because we both agree on that.

And you dont think NIST are wrong you just want a little bit more information....

you sound like you believe the official story but your arguing against it at the same time.

I'm just trying to understand why you believe that if AE911Truth are wrong

because they are WRONG!!!!

on several very simple points.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

So now you are saying that its not that NIST got anything wrong its just that they didn't provide you with the details of the computer model that they used.

I have been saying it since the beginning of this thread. How come you didn't notice it?

so you accept then that A&E for 9/11 truth cannot be trusted so we can now take them out of our debate because we both agree on that.

Why are you asking the same questions over and over again? I already explained it on the previous page..

And you dont think NIST are wrong you just want a little bit more information....

I want people to be able to check how they came up with their conclusion. This I also said multiple time before in this thread.

you sound like you believe the official story but your arguing against it at the same time.

I don't mean to be rude, but you are beginning to annoy me. If you are not reading what I write, why should I respond to you?

because they are WRONG!!!! on several very simple points.

And that makes NIST right? How?

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by -PLB-

 

I have stated here on numerous occasions the OS has too many holes. Too much conjecture in the NIST reports. Basically, one demanding empirical science is left to look and still wonder. I am happy you are satisfied. Not enough satisfied people around if you ask me. Me, I am still in amazement. And I am sure I will go to my grave in amazement. No skin off your nose.

Its understandable that you completely ignore my question and change the subject as the answer is that there is none.

So, can you provide the name of an expert with a link to his publication that proves that NIST's conclusions must have been wrong?

reply to post by -PLB-


I would love to get your take on these U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans challenging the official story.

Any chance you can find time to make a comment?

reply to post by whatsecret


Don't get caught up in his tit for tat...NIST...what a joke...

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by -PLB-


I did not ignore your question. You and I both know there is no published, definitive, empirical study demonstrating the NIST reports are false. There will never be one because many of the methods used by the NIST to come to their conclusions have not been shared by the NIST in order to be subject to falsification.

Any other report ever submitted in the history of humankind's scientific endeavors would be SUMMARILY DISMISSED AND REJECTED as incomplete; therefore, UNPROVABLE! And as useful as a blank roll of toilet paper...

Actually, toilet paper is more useful...

reply to post by totallackey


Complete nonsense. NIST does expain their methods. Of all scientific papers I have read (quite a lot during my study) only a few mention the used simulation software and none realeased their model. That in no way means its not reproducable. A capable group of experts can easily reproduce NIST work, to verify their conclusions.

The reason its not going to happen is because all capable experts already support the conclusions.

reply to post by whatsecret

I only read the first 2 testimonials and assumed the rest is similar. If not point to a specific one. My reaction to this document:

A bunch of non experts questioning how buildings should or should not collapse does not carry any weight.

As for the war on terror and invasion of Afghanistan, I agree the evidence and justification is flimsy at best. Just more reason to reject this cover up theory. You don't go through all the trouble to plan these terrorist attacks and then forget to fabricate convincing evidence to link it to an invasion of Afghanistan. For instance, they would make up a story with afghan hijackers. They would fabricate testimonies etc.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by whatsecret

 

As for the war on terror and invasion of Afghanistan, I agree the evidence and justification is flimsy at best. Just more reason to reject this cover up theory. You don't go through all the trouble to plan these terrorist attacks and then forget to fabricate convincing evidence to link it to an invasion of Afghanistan. For instance, they would make up a story with afghan hijackers. They would fabricate testimonies etc.

Oh man, really?

I really, really hate talking about this topic for obvious reasons. I never should have even started.

The government learned from previous wars how to get the people on their side. Hence the comment in the "Plan for the New American Century" (PNAC) and to preface, the document for those that don't know is a conservative think tank discussing how to ensure Americas dominance through the 21st century. To do that we needed to secure the energy resources in the middle east. To do that we need war to control those "rogue" nations, now I am paraphrasing here, "the American people wouldn't stomach such a war just for oil. No, to get the people on our side, we need nothing short of a New Pearl Harbor".

New Pearl Harbor. A New Pearl Harbor.......get it. Shock and Awe.

When 911 happened I know where I was. I remember it vividly as I was stacking boxes working in a factory. Not to get into all the specifics but later that same day and for weeks after, all i heard at work and on breaks is: "YEEE HAW, we gonna get us some Taliban Sand Niggers for this".

*Mods please moderate appropriately, I was quoting what was said for reference.

That's it that all anyone talked about. Your typical ignorant American is lucky to even know Afghanastan is a country let alone who runs it or where them evil Al Queda are from.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by whatsecret

 

so you accept then that A&E for 9/11 truth cannot be trusted so we can now take them out of our debate because we both agree on that.

edit on 18-8-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

You got that right. Sometimes words have more truth then the author intends. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such.

Thanks for playing.

reply to post by whatsecret


And usually, the 'experts' cited, all work for the people who created the event.
Why does anyone think they use anyone but paid shills to further their agenda... .

reply to post by Rosinitiate


I was there too, and not once did a hear anyone say yee haw taliban anything.
No one even claimed responsibility initially, if memory serves....
The first reports on the news said they weren't sure if it was a terrorist attack, until the other planes outside NYC were reported. What news station did you watch?

Originally posted by PtolemyII
reply to post by whatsecret

 

And usually, the 'experts' cited, all work for the people who created the event.
Why does anyone think they use anyone but paid shills to further their agenda... .

So does that mean that you think that any expert who agrees with the official story is some kind of paid Shill?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


The official experts, pretty much all concur with the government's version of events.
Or so it seems. Do any of the expertswho wrote all the official governmental reports say otherwise?
If so, I am unaware. Any other expert reports are unofficial, and therefore, moot.

reply to post by PtolemyII


So you say official experts, would that include then the American Society of Civil Engineers who assisted FEMA and NIST in completing their reports?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Is it considered an official governmental report?
Does the government consider it valid, and if so, why isn't it common knowledge and in all the newspapers informing the American public that 911was done by the US government . I don't read reports, and get on line discussing who said what, given I was actually there....
I was in the Bronx at work, and watched the it all as it occurred, and then Iwwent and worked the site that weekend.

Saw it smelled it did it. So, generally speaking, no report is going to sway me one way or the other.
It's why I won't usually get into the conversations. But especially after sandy hook, I find anything 'official', is usually the biggest pile of steaming dog turd, that it stuns me anyone buys it.
911was different in that, no one had ever seen or experienced anything like it before
.
Smelling the burnt body smell, for weeks later, and all the body parts I carried, not attached to a body, will haunt me the rest of my life.