Serious problems with the 9-11 Debunking waste of time

[LastChild]

I've put together some facts here; let's hear about some other red flags that should pop up to anyone claiming to be a critical thinker while suspending all disbelief to buy into the government fairytale.

Some that I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Blaming UBL for the attacks even after the FBI states there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11.

2. Crying jet fuel, jet fuel, jet fuel, for years before the NIST report only to find that NIST blames the building content fire but never really backs it up.

3. Saying no explosive experts support CD but then pointing to Jowenko who still claims WTC7 was a CD.

4. Championing the PM hit piece as debunking all 9/11conspiracy theories when in reality they only cherry pick certain parts of one movie out of the entire 9/11 movement. Then finding out the piece was written by Benjamin Chertoff nephew of Michael Chertoff and Jim Meigs a former magazine editor of Premiere Magazine and Entertainment weekly.

5. The book by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton chairs of the 9/11 committee where they reveal NORAD and the FAA lied and how they felt they were setup to fail by the administration and were under funded. The same administration that never wanted an investigation in the first place.

6: After claiming the NIST investigation and their theory of collapse initiation is the be all end all evidence to put all CT theories to rest even though NIST never touches on the collapse itself a former NIST insider comes out with a list of problems he has found with the way NIST had conducted their investigation into the WTC tower collapses and also notes the report on building seven is still not released.

7. To this day not one person or agency has been held accountable for the failure to protect the US from the attacks of 9/11.

 

[JimBenArm]

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Oh, well, in that case, show me all your evidence that proves I wasted my time then. If 7 points is all you have, you're in trouble

 

[Architect]

Now, before everyone clamours to respond, can I suggest that we slowly address (aka demolish) each of these assertions sequentially, and in great detail?

 

[technoextreme]

Crying jet fuel, jet fuel, jet fuel, for years before the NIST report only to find that NIST blames the building content fire but never really backs it up.

Why would they need to back it up. Any sane and rational engineer would have known this long before 9/11. I found papers citing office fires reaching 1000C that were written in 1999.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

3. Saying no explosive experts support CD but then pointing to Jowenko who still claims WTC7 was a CD.

ive never seen a debunker bring up jowenko, just truthers bring him and a debunker reminds them of his stance on WTC 1+2, we have enough experts that agree with us on all 3 buildings so we dont need jowenko (obviously the truth movement does however)

4. Championing the PM hit piece as debunking all 9/11conspiracy theories when in reality they only cherry pick certain parts of one movie out of the entire 9/11 movement. Then finding out the piece was written by Benjamin Chertoff nephew of Michael Chertoff and Jim Meigs a former magazine editor of Premiere Magazine and Entertainment weekly.

i honestly thought people were done spreading this lie

7. To this day not one person or agency has been held accountable for the failure to protect the US from the attacks of 9/11.

becuase it was not a failure of an individual or agency, it was a failure of an entire system, and if you look closely youll see that system has been changed at almost every level

 

[Good Lt]

Lastchild's right.

We just haven't watched enough YouTube videos and ignored enough factual evidence to see TEH TROOF. We're being unfair by looking elsewhere from their puerile online enclaves for unbiased and verified analysis and factual information.

From now on, debunker friends, refrain from visiting any of these sites - EVER AGAIN:

http://www.911myths.com
http://www.debunking911.com
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com

There. Isn't teh troof easier to accept now without all those pesky facts blinding you?

let's hear about some other red flags that should pop up to anyone claiming to be a critical thinker while suspending all disbelief to buy into the government fairytale.

 

[JamesB]

4. Championing the PM hit piece as debunking all 9/11conspiracy theories when in reality they only cherry pick certain parts of one movie out of the entire 9/11 movement. Then finding out the piece was written by Benjamin Chertoff nephew of Michael Chertoff and Jim Meigs a former magazine editor of Premiere Magazine and Entertainment weekly.

Now he is his nephew? I thought they were cousins? Could you guys at least agree on a fictitious albeit irrelevent relationship between the two?

 

[Minadin]

Now, before everyone clamours to respond, can I suggest that we slowly address (aka demolish) each of these assertions sequentially, and in great detail?

Alright, let's start with #1:

1. Blaming UBL for the attacks even after the FBI states there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11.

My take on this is that people who make the above assertion don't really have a good idea what the various types of evidences are, in a criminal investigation or trial. Also, I very much doubt that they have any idea about the evidence gathering procedures (chain of custody, etc) or rules about what is admissible and what is not.

So, let's start out by creating some solid definitions we can all agree upon, before proceeding. What exactly is "hard evidence"? How does it differ, legally or otherwise, from other types of evidence?

Also, was that term used in the manner described above, or has it been transposed by the Conspiracy Theorists from some other term which may have been used, such as "physical evidence"?

 

[dudalb]

In the Name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster,can't these people ever come up with anything new??????

 

[BenBurch]

Why would they need to back it up. Any sane and rational engineer would have known this long before 9/11. I found papers citing office fires reaching 1000C that were written in 1999.

You don't grill your steak with starter fluid (which is basically kerosene,) you wait for the coals to catch and develop a nice Class-A fire. But the kerosene sure helps the process along!

 

[DGM]

6: After claiming the NIST investigation and their theory of collapse initiation is the be all end all evidence to put all CT theories to rest even though NIST never touches on the collapse itself a former NIST insider comes out with a list of problems he has found with the way NIST had conducted their investigation into the WTC tower collapses and also notes the report on building seven is still not released.

Have you ever heard of punctuation? I needed oxygen after this sentence.

 

[SDC]

4. Championing the PM hit piece as debunking all 9/11conspiracy theories when in reality they only cherry pick certain parts of one movie out of the entire 9/11 movement. Then finding out the piece was written by Benjamin Chertoff nephew of Michael Chertoff and Jim Meigs a former magazine editor of Premiere Magazine and Entertainment weekly.

Actually, Ben and Mikey Chertoff are ONE and the SAME! This is proved by the fact that no one has ever seen the two of them together.

I will not mention the fact that "Chert-" in Russian refers to the devil (though pronounced "chort," in Russian, it is still spelled "chert" -- anyone want a lecture?). The rest of the name, "-off," is a variant spelling of the patronymic "-ov," hence... Devil's Son! No, I won't mention that.

 

[ref]

3. Saying no explosive experts support CD but then pointing to Jowenko who still claims WTC7 was a CD.

Thinks WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Also thinks WTC1 & 2 were not.

Has stated “I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.”

Seems to ignore all the damage caused to WTC 7 by the falling twin tower debris. He lives in the Netherlands and has only seen the same collapse videos as others. Is the only demolition expert in the world, who suspects WTC 7 was a demolition.

Numerous firefighter testimonies confirm, how damaged WTC 7 was before collapsing and how serious the fires were. The collapse videos do not show the south side damage properly. The videos only show a fairly rapid collapse. One can not evaluate the collapse of WTC 7 from these videos, showing the building from the north for only a few seconds. It may look somewhat like a demolition, but all the evidence points towards it not being a demolition. No seismic spikes were measured, there were no audible explosions, professionals on the scene have not suspected anything and firefighters confirm the danger of collapse even before it happened. The FDNY evacuated the area surrounding WTC 7 before the collapse, because the building was so unstable, had damage low in the structure and had numerous fires on many floors. And finally, no evidence of explosive devices or wiring, that are usually found after demolitions, have been found in the rubble and remains of WTC 7.

You should also read the statement given by Chief Daniel Nigro.

For a complete critique of the controlled demolition hypothesis, please visit
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://www.911myths.com
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

 

[Brainster]

1. Blaming UBL for the attacks even after the FBI states there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11.

Please explain to us what you think this means. It's easy to say, "Ooooh, isn't this suspicious!", but I have yet to see a "Truther" who can provide a rational explanation that fits the conspiracy theory. It seems to me that there are only a few possibilities:

1. Valiant souls at the FBI refuse to revise Osama's Wanted Poster in a sort of silent protest. However, they are not valiant enough to announce this and leave it for the Troofers to discover. Even after it is discovered, they resist tremendous pressure from the coverup team to fix the Wanted Poster. Or maybe the coverup team just hasn't noticed this obvious clue? Or maybe they like this clue being out there because it's a sign to the New World Order that they're committed to the cause?

2. Osama is already under indictment for other terrorist incidents and the FBI sees no need to pile on additional charges until such time as he is in custody.

3. The Muckraker Report lied.

4. Reported FBI spokesman Rex Tomb was mistaken or lied.

 

[apathoid]

I've put together some facts strawmen here; let's hear about some other red flags that should pop up to anyone claiming to be a critical thinker while suspending all disbelief to buy into the government fairytale.

Some that I can think of off the top of my head:

1. Blaming UBL for the attacks even after the FBI states there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11.

Stop right there. Look at the word you typed just before evidence. "There is no hard evidence". I agree. While I personally blame the 19 hijackers as well as KSM et al...other than Osama being the frontman of the organization which carried out the attacks and susequently taking credit - there is really not much direct evidence of his involvement.

2. Crying jet fuel, jet fuel, jet fuel, for years before the NIST report only to find that NIST blames the building content fire but never really backs it up.

Strawman . Can you clarify this statement with sources. Thanks.

3. Saying no explosive experts support CD but then pointing to Jowenko who still claims WTC7 was a CD.

Ah, so you trust his analysis on the WTC Towers then? It really baffles me when you guys get so desperate that you trot out someone who actually destroys 2/3 of your CD idiocy. Technically, he's on our side. He also didn't claim it was taken down as part of an impossibly vast conspiracy. IIRC, he claims it was demoed "because of the sensitive nature of the documents it housed"....or something

4. Championing the PM hit piece as debunking all 9/11conspiracy theories when in reality they only cherry pick certain parts of one movie out of the entire 9/11 movement. Then finding out the piece was written by Benjamin Chertoff nephew of Michael Chertoff and Jim Meigs a former magazine editor of Premiere Magazine and Entertainment weekly.

Who here has championed PM as "debunking all 9/11conspiracy theories" ?

BTW, show me your evidence that Ben Chertoff is related to Micheal Chertoff. Oh and Meigs assembled a team of experts in relevant fields for the piece, something you guys wouldn't dream of doing. He didn't just start making stuff up like most twoofers do. 'Squibs' being a prime example. That term was completely made up by the truth movement. Betcha didn't know that.

5. The book by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton chairs of the 9/11 committee where they reveal NORAD and the FAA lied and how they felt they were setup to fail by the administration and were under funded. The same administration that never wanted an investigation in the first place.

Even if true, it's evidence of CYA, not a conspiracy. Try harder.

6: After claiming the NIST investigation and their theory of collapse initiation is the be all end all evidence to put all CT theories to rest even though NIST never touches on the collapse itself a former NIST insider comes out with a list of problems he has found with the way NIST had conducted their investigation into the WTC tower collapses and also notes the report on building seven is still not released.

Another strawmen. You're not doing well. Many people here, like RMackey have problems with the report. It isn't perfect, noone here claims it is. Now can you tell me in your own words what problems this former NIST insider had with the report?

7. To this day not one person or agency has been held accountable for the failure to protect the US from the attacks of 9/11.

I agree, but I think the breakdown was much bigger than a few individuals not reading email. What do you propose? Fire everyone at NORAD, the FAA, the CIA and FBI? I wouldn't have minded seeing a few heads roll, but they would've been scapegoats anyways. The system failed us and witchhunts are sooooo 17th century.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Benjamin Chertoff nephew of Michael Chertoff

i honestly thought people were done spreading this lie

No no. This is a new lie. It used to be just that they were cousins, perhaps some distance removed. Now, it's good ol' Uncle Mike.

 

[beachnut]

I've put together some facts here; let's hear about some other red flags that should pop up to anyone claiming to be a critical thinker while suspending all disbelief to buy into the government fairytale.

Funny stuff. I have yet to see the 9/11 truth official story; have you? You are supporting a group of liars. No idea what happen.

Some that I can think of off the top of my head:

Ok

1. Blaming UBL for the attacks even after the FBI states there is no hard evidence connecting him to 9/11.

He said he helped. Are you unable to listen?

2. Crying jet fuel, jet fuel, jet fuel, for years before the NIST report only to find that NIST blames the building content fire but never really backs it up.

What started the fires on multiple floors? Did you miss something?

3. Saying no explosive experts support CD but then pointing to Jowenko who still claims WTC7 was a CD.

Funny, he said WTC did not have CD. Darn, he is kind of funny, since he did not study it more than a video hiding the bottom floors collapsing. I wonder if he say the penthouse fall into the building many seconds before the collapse started; I bet his low resolutions screen did not let him see that. Can you ask him if he knew about that? Without that your information is BS. So you agree with this guy that the WTC towers were gravity only events.

4. Championing the PM hit piece as debunking all 9/11conspiracy theories when in reality they only cherry pick certain parts of one movie out of the entire 9/11 movement. Then finding out the piece was written by Benjamin Chertoff nephew of Michael Chertoff and Jim Meigs a former magazine editor of Premiere Magazine and Entertainment weekly.

OMG< you are spewing truther lies and you attack the people instead of a factual rebuttal. Just like you guys to make up junk. Your woo is showing.

5. The book by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton chairs of the 9/11 committee where they reveal NORAD and the FAA lied and how they felt they were setup to fail by the administration and were under funded. The same administration that never wanted an investigation in the first place.

A book. Sounds as good as Griffins BS about 9/11. Sorry, this book does not mean anything about 9/11; Please explain this more.

6: After claiming the NIST investigation and their theory of collapse initiation is the be all end all evidence to put all CT theories to rest even though NIST never touches on the collapse itself a former NIST insider comes out with a list of problems he has found with the way NIST had conducted their investigation into the WTC tower collapses and also notes the report on building seven is still not released.

But the this guy thinks your stuff is BS. He does not believe in CD. Sorry, if you support this guy you do not support CD in WTC7. Which is it, WTC7 CD, or this guy? Failure again. How does if feel to present someone who is against your movemetn of fools and lies?

7. To this day not one person or agency has been held accountable for the failure to protect the US from the attacks of 9/11.

That due to the fact this was a terrorist attack and we actually defeated them when we knew the rules. Or did you miss the fact flight 93 fought back.
Too bad you and the truth movement were not in charge to save us all.

 

[LastChild]

Have you ever heard of punctuation? I needed oxygen after this sentence.

Can't read and breathe at the same time huh? Whatever you do don't put a stick of gum in your mouth and try to read it. Your head may explode.

Keep it civil. Address the arguments, not the person making them. This goes for both of you (and everyone else for that matter).

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[defaultdotxbe]

No no. This is a new lie. It used to be just that they were cousins, perhaps some distance removed. Now, it's good ol' Uncle Mike.

nah, i heard nephew at the same time as cousin (in fact the article that said nephew linked to boylen's article saying cousin as a source, lol)

ah truther-quality research, cant be beaten