Top OS contradictions that silence it's proponents

a reply to: samkent

That was NOT a transformer, it was a DOOR, and they are a bit loud when they go..

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: samkent

3. Significant eyewitness testimony, including that of multiple explosions was left out of the official report.

Explosions do not equal explosives.
Toss a spray paint can into t campfire and get back to us.
I wonder how a tear gas grenade reacts to fire.

So, are you saying that this is a spray paint can or tear gas grenade exploding? LOL!!!!!

soulwaxer

Sam's a funny man, but you're the funniest pussy I've seen in a long time. Even that video that we've seen time and time again is full of cues..those guys standing there covered in dust from the towers, which has relatively cleared..then a big explosion, and he says, "building seven is exploding" so there is nothing out of place there, time frame, all of it.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Laugh all you want, but, its a fact. They leave behind evidence that they were the ones that carried out an attack.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: soulwaxer

Laugh all you want, but, its a fact. They leave behind evidence that they were the ones that carried out an attack.

Yeah, I will laugh at your incredible gullibility to believe everything in the official story, even though it's authors have stated it was underfunded, politically motivated, that they were lied to and considered pressing charges, and covered up by the cia and whitehouse.

So, your belief that all the evidence the FBI "found" like passports and suitcases with flight manuals is not beyond reproach, is beyond gullible. It's the epitome of ignorance.

I hope you all are aware that Active Thermitic Material was Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe.

The hijackers did not put it there.

This can be found at The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31




Also this is very telling..

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Oh, well then....let me address your post about CNN that day.

Jamie McIntyre is frequently quoted out of context about his statement that there was no evidence to suggest a plane had hit outside the Pentagon. Folks like Jchris use it to back up their claims that there was not a plane at the Pentagon. The only problem is, they are being quite dishonest.

This is the complete transcript to his report that day

transcripts.cnn.com...

This is the quote that is used....

"MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."

One problem, here is the complete paragraph

"MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. "

Okay, well, he is saying that the entire plane crashed into the side of the building.

But, here is the question that he was asked right before the misused quote.

"WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building? "

So, he was asked about earlier reports that one witness had said it appeared that the plane had hit the ground first, then the building and Jamie, was saying that no, there was NO evidence the plane had hit the GROUND, but had flown full on into the Pentagon.

And, earlier in the same segment he had said this...

"A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane. "

So, Jamie McIntyre, CNN's Pentagon reporter that day clearly told the world that a plane had slammed into the Pentagon, yet people like Jchris, try to claim that he did not.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

And your continued misrepresentation of the facts is sad.

a reply to: glast82

Nope. Sh*tty research and science published in a journal in a way that led the editor of said journal to resign in protest to the lies presented by Steven Jones.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5

And your continued misrepresentation of the facts is sad.

No your continued willful ignorance, and knowingly spreading that ignorance on this forum is beyond reprehensible.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

So, answer my post with the "facts" about Jamie McIntyre's report that day.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5

So, answer my post with the "facts" about Jamie McIntyre's report that day.

Sure, just as soon as you provide that Guardian retraction, on the story about several of the hijackers being alive, that you told us was a fact yesterday. It's been 24 hours, and your last excuse was that essentially I wasn't worth the trouble.

Provide that proof of the retraction and I will read your story.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: glast82

Nope. Sh*tty research and science published in a journal in a way that led the editor of said journal to resign in protest to the lies presented by Steven Jones.

The you don't put much credence on the other serious Norwegian study of a natural thermite reaction event in the twin towers, with all the bells and whistles that include fatal damage to the Towers caused by explosion/s?

a reply to: smurfy

No, I don't. It is also based on sh*tty research.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: smurfy

No, I don't. It is also based on sh*tty research.

So, let's all understand Cardinalsfan logic.

The flawed offical story, which its own authors said was a underfunded, politically motivated, a national scandal, only the first draft in history, in which they were lied to by the military, and in which was covered-up by the CIA, and likely the Bush administration, is apparently great research, but anything independent is sh**ty research.

That folks is Cardinalfan logic at its best.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

That is why this matters. Will it ever happen? I don't know, but it certainly won't if we just accept it. That is exactly what they want us to do.

See you on the next endless war thread…

originally posted by: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Jchristopher5

No, it's not ridiculous. Terrorists love to claim credit for things. Multiple groups have tried to claim credit for the same event (not 9/11 specifically). A video isn't always a smoking gun, no matter how much you'd like it to be. Your own example, a drug deal, isn't even in the same league as 9/11 so if my example is ridiculous, yours is just as much as mine.

I can't keep up with all your edits anymore. The list of all the edits made to your OP, and other comments, is now as long as the OP itself. You've proved my point already: selective editing and then ignoring that to roll right into another point. A truther doing the very thing he accuses OSers of doing.

There's zero point in discussing anything with somebody who's going to go back and change what they said that was responded to.

Let me answer to the charge you, and another poster made about changing my post.

I type my responses on an iPad, and autocorrect is killing me. I made one significant change, and that was removing the bullet on the Pemtagon, it's not because I didn't believe it, it's because I wanted to focus on the other points, and felt the thread would get wrapped around the other points.

Everthing else I changed we misspelled words and bad grammar. That's it. But, if you and th're other guy want to wrap your argument around that point, then fine. But, it show you are not after the truth. All you want to do is confuse people. People like you are what's wrong with this country.

Funny. I post from an iPhone and don't have to edit nearly as much as you apparently do.

No, that's not what I'm wrapping my "argument" around. You're the one ignoring what I said relating to the OP directly and focusing on that.

So no, champ, I'm not what's wrong with this country. No need to go nuclear with the personal attacks.

I'm more than interested in the truth getting out. Though I have strong doubts it'll happen anytime soon. In the meantime, I won't be seizing on every idiotic, half baked, selectively edited idea purporting itself to somehow be revelatory and "truthy" in my hopes of finding truth.

Continuously shifting the goalposts, like you have, are what's wrong with this discussion. Not the country, just this discussion.

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: Elementalist
I am so sick of 9/11 talk and conspiracies.

It's over America, you MISSED YOUR CHANCE, to come together and expose the orchastrators. You have an entire different government is the works, altering laws/rights, starting wars (again), and trying to alter your constitution.

You think talking about the same damn thing every month, every year will reverse what happened?

I apologize I come off harsh to yhe sensitive of this topic - your fault you spend more time whining on Internet then using WILL power and collective movement to change those who allowed such to happen.

It's over. You have a new enemy in yhe Whitehouse, and over seas. There is no time to keep looking back at the devastation to prove or disprove who was to blame.

You can't change 9/11, you can change WW3 .

Exposing 9/11 for what it is has the potential to change WW3.

soulwaxer

No it doesn't. You cannot expose it before WW3, it's to late you missed your chance.

WW3 could be tomorrow. Then we are too late AGAIN and the globalist will be near complete world domination. America won't be the same country after either.

It's too late. . Move FORWARD for change, not backwards. WW3 is almost here, 9/11 is more then yesterday.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: smurfy

No, I don't. It is also based on sh*tty research.

Then you don't believe this ever happened,

"In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos (44 pounds) of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust.
"The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres (100 feet) in diameter"

All the ingredients were there in the towers, water below, contained molten Aluminium above, and plenty of rust most likely, and God knows what other metals in the mix. The Irony is, had this idea been put about much nearer 2001 by an independent, the 9/11 commission could only have one course but to grasp it on the run to save the day, but it didn't..and eventually all the dribbly bits of discontent came out with what they were and were not being told, and being lied to.
Thing is, It doesn't matter if the theory is a true analysis or not now.

a reply to: glast82

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science." He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research.

flurry of low quality and questionable research.
]
That is from wiki.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Sure, just as soon as you provide that Guardian retraction, on the story about several of the hijackers being alive

And then ask yourself how such a flimsy theory could be accepted by such a large group of people. Google "confirmation bias" for one possible explanation, but in the meantime the reality is the "still alive" stories have very little support, certainly not enough to be reported as definitive fact. In our view a "mistaken identity" explanation makes far more sense for most of these cases, once you look at all evidence involved.

From Here