9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So please tell your theory why the towers fell?

Self destructing buildings? Thermite? Nukes? Holograms and lasers or missiles? Dustification?

Can you cite how the ruling of Aegis vs WTC 7 owners was the wrong conclusions?

Cite who filed the freedom of information requests that forced the release of flight 77 footage?

All the money collected by Wood, Gage, Jones, and what legal action has been taken to fight for the truth of 9/11?

originally posted by: D8Tee

And it's an insult to the men and women who died that day.

No, it isn't. Your emotional manipulation is pure crap.

There are plenty of family members of those who died on 9/11 that question the official narrative.

a reply to: neutronflux

I am not married to any alternative theory. I have reasonable doubts about the official conspiracy theory.

I don't have investigative and subpoena powers. There is no physical evidence that any independent investigator can examine. Much of it was removed and disposed of before any independent investigation could be proposed and take place. Spoliation/Destruction of evidence is evidence, by itself.

The fact is, I do not believe the U.S. government has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt (and they've had 16 years)...and I make no claims beyond that.

ETA: And if you and I were on the same jury hearing the evidence the federal government has put forth...my reasonable doubts would supersede your absolute confidence.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Wow, you have a fan club.

That thread and this thread occured on the same day for me by the way. So your yesterday argument is bs.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ok, you still need a theory on what brought down the towers. Which one do you think is the most credible?

a reply to: Chadwickus

And your argument is BS because one thread definitely happened before the other. The one you dredged up was posted before this one, I don't care where you live.

Your semantic argument is ridiculous. My point had nothing to do with the photoshopped missile thread happening long before this one. That's just a point you are clinging to.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If you don't have a theory, then you don't have point.

So which conspiracists do you think has the most scientific evidence for their theories?

You are so legal based, must make you sad conspiracists wage no legal war against the government. Because the conspiracists use pseudoscience?

Sad you completely ignore the physics and science of 9/11.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

How is it bs?

I said truthers keep posting it.

That is a fact.

The rest is on you.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So the initiation of the WTC 7 collapse in relative silence compared to a CD implosion is not proof of anything?

You have no opinions on the Aegis WTC 7 court case? Thought that would be up your alley?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If you don't have a theory, then you don't have point.

So which conspiracists do you think has the most scientific evidence for their theories?

You are so legal based, must make you sad conspiracists wage no legal war against the government. Because the conspiracists use pseudoscience?

Sad you completely ignore the physics and science of 9/11.

Oh, I have a point. One that makes you completely irrational.

I find reasonable doubt in the federal government's case.

It's not my job to prove what really happened, it's the federal government's job to prove its case to the public. They failed.

Also, reasonable doubt does not equate to doubting all the physics and science put forth to explain the events of 9/11. I just have reasonable doubts about some relevant and material parts of it.

I know it makes you so upset that you can't debunk a person's reasonable doubts. You need to live with that. The fact that you seem to squirm at that thought makes me wonder why the heII you care what I think so much....or what any truther thinks. It almost seems like it's your job to care about what we think.

a reply to: Chadwickus

No, you were *cough* suggesting that because you live in a certain time zone, all events that happen on the same day in your time zone happen simultaneously. That's the logic you attempted to use to declare my point 'bs.'

Also, I have stated my position clearly, here. I have participated in enough futile exercises with OSers to know...I don't need to stick around for more of their asinine debates.

S&F for the OP though!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's like you cannot come to terms with the science of 9/11.

Again, your irrational view totally blinds you to the fact Aegis took the owners of WTC 7 to court.

Then provide your case on lack of evidence. What is lacking.

A little thought for you again from Scientists for 9/11 Truth.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016

Conclusion
Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Uhh well you were trying to claim that because of your time zone that it happened yesterday.

As if yesterday is dredging things up anyway, the subject is 16 years old, the thread happened 1 day ago.

You sound ridiculous.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So which theory on what brought down the towers has the most scientific evidence?

Simple science based question.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The NIST reports and floor connection inspections scientifically showed the Tower's floor connections to be mechanical overloaded, and stretched to the breaking point. (Over simplified.) Not cut by thermite. Not burnt and fragmented by a cutting charge.

The sample size, why items of interest were targeted, and samples documented.

What would you cross exam? How would questioning change the sample results. Especially if the samples were obtained and tested using established methods and engineering best practices?

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: eXia7

When people discuss 9/11, I always ask what happened to WTC building 7, and why was it pre-reported on BBC before it happened? Also why does it look like a controlled demo.

One of the reasons we debunk is crap like this ...

BBC "pre reporting" - you are aware that the BBC was quoting a Reuters report, Reuters in turn was quoting from a local
source

Ever play TELEPHONE where as information gets passed up the chain it becomes increasingly garbled

FDNY was aware that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse from mid afternoon - they witnessed a growing 3 story bulge on SW
corner of building. That the fires inside were spreading . This lead FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro to declare a collapse
zone around WTC 7 at 3PM (2 1/2 hours before it collapsed) and cleared the area.

As for "looks like controlled demolition" - what is expertise (watching YOU TUBE video does not count) ? Are you
demolition expert, explosives expert...?

Ever seen a building on fire collapse ...?

I've seen high rise fires that never even put the building at risk of collapse. Paper fires man? come on lets be real here.

Oh yeah, and don't forget the magical passports made from the strongest material in the universe that magically appears out of thin air. Oh yeah, and the NORAD stand down command...

a reply to: eXia7

Oh yeah, and the NORAD stand down command...

What stand down command is that?

a reply to: eXia7

Saying the WTC was just a paper fire is like saying the Hindenburg disaster was just a cloth fire.

Anyway, it was the contracting of cooling and dropping floor trusses that lead to inward bowing and collapse initiation.

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Post was made stating that office fires don't burn hot enough to collapse a steel reinforced building

I showed the fallacy of that argument .....

In an aside the idiots at AE FOR TRUTH immediately declared it a "controlled demolition"

So you're saying: that the 2800+ Architects and Engineers, at A&E for 9/11 truth, are idiots?
How did you come to know this?