Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[applecorped]

1. Well if the reports are well investigated reports or articles with sound evidence to support it.

2. Well yes it does, if the time is very unusual for a large and very important crime scene. Or if its shown a lot more time was spent on other crime scenes.

3. Well if the reason they refuse to release the information is not really a proper reason for the type of infomration, and the time they kept the information is beyond normal time constraints.

You have a Hurcelean task in front of you. Try and be open to the possibility that the events of 9/11 are as described. I realize at this moment that you are not convinced and perhaps you never will be.
I remember being convinced about Area 51 and space aliens and government cover-ups. It could still be true but I highly doubt it and in fact I really don't care anymore. There are more important things in my life. Perhaps you might reach that same conclusion regarding 9/11.

Good luck.

 

[Totovader]

Just because they have not released the infomration is not automatically a cover up, there may be an another reason for not releasing it.

You do know there are several reasons why an angency may not release information for a FOIA request correct? (as long as it ia a legitamte reason)

You're trying to tell me that withholding information for 7 years regarding the shoot down of Flight 93 is somehow just an oversight? And when government agents in a position to know this information say it is categorically false that this happened- and yet they know of this information that is being withheld... you don't call that a cover-up?

Like I said, what would be a cover-up then? You ignored my question.

And I will say this again, because you chopped it out of the quote: I can understand why you would want to avoid saying the word "cover-up" because it puts you in a position where you would actually have to provide evidence- but you're contradicting yourself already when you state that you would hold up your story in a court of law and the "official story" would be laughed out of court, and at the same time you "know" that Flight 93 was shot down, yet the government refuses to release documents stating that...

What else do you call that?

If this was just some big intelligence mistake- if you're unwilling to call it a cover-up- then why should anyone even listen to you?

And as for what refusing to release documents via an FOIA request means: YOU are the one who said it was evidence for your theory, remember? You said "3. Fact that the agencies involved are refusing to release information through FOIA requests." was the evidence you would use in court to prove the "official story" wrong.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well where to start.

1. Several reports and articles that disagree with the NIST report on the cause of the collapse to the towers.

These fall into two categories:
(a) Disagreeing on the detailed mechanism of how impact and fire damage caused collapse, but agreeing on the fact that some combination of these was the cause, and
(b) idiotic.

These are not therefore evidence of an inside job, a cover-up, or indeed of anything other than that knowledge is limited.

2. Fact that the FBI only spent 5 days working the Pentagon crime scene after stating it would take a month.

The word is "estimating". This is proof of what, that the FBI are more efficient than they think they are? To the best of my knowledge, doing your job quickly isn't a crime.

3. Fact that the agencies involved are refusing to release information through FOIA requests.

If their stated reasons for doing so are within the law, then a court will uphold them. If they aren't, then all they prove is that agencies aren't complying with the FIOA.

What are your next three pieces of evidence that you believe will stand up in a court of law?

Dave

 

[ULTIMA1]

You're trying to tell me that withholding information for 7 years regarding the shoot down of Flight 93 is somehow just an oversight? .

Let me ask you a question. Do you know all the reasons why FOIA request can be refused?

If not i can show them to to you.

 

[ULTIMA1]

These fall into two categories:
(a) Disagreeing on the detailed mechanism of how impact and fire damage caused collapse, but agreeing on the fact that some combination of these was the cause, and
(b) idiotic.

But these reports and articles do agree with the fact that it was not a combination of impact and fire.

These are not therefore evidence of an inside job, a cover-up, or indeed of anything other than that knowledge is limited.

I never stated it was an inside job. Please grow up and stop living in a fantasy world.

The word is "estimating". This is proof of what, that the FBI are more efficient than they think they are? To the best of my knowledge, doing your job quickly isn't a crime.

No the word is they stated it take a month and they only spent 5 days. Very unsual for a big and historic crime scene, i mean it was suppoed to be a terrorist attack right?

How long did the FBI work the First WTC crime scene bombing?

 

[Totovader]

Let me ask you a question. Do you know all the reasons why FOIA request can be refused?

If not i can show them to to you.

That's not even close to an answer to my question. And now you're trying your hand at a strawman- pretending like I'm the one who was referencing the FOIA request denial- when it was you who said that it was evidence to be used in your court case.

Again, my last post addressed that and the other claims you have made. You completely ignored my last post. Here it is again:

You're trying to tell me that withholding information for 7 years regarding the shoot down of Flight 93 is somehow just an oversight? And when government agents in a position to know this information say it is categorically false that this happened- and yet they know of this information that is being withheld... you don't call that a cover-up?

Like I said, what would be a cover-up then? You ignored my question.

And I will say this again, because you chopped it out of the quote: I can understand why you would want to avoid saying the word "cover-up" because it puts you in a position where you would actually have to provide evidence- but you're contradicting yourself already when you state that you would hold up your story in a court of law and the "official story" would be laughed out of court, and at the same time you "know" that Flight 93 was shot down, yet the government refuses to release documents stating that...

What else do you call that?

If this was just some big intelligence mistake- if you're unwilling to call it a cover-up- then why should anyone even listen to you?

And as for what refusing to release documents via an FOIA request means: YOU are the one who said it was evidence for your theory, remember? You said "3. Fact that the agencies involved are refusing to release information through FOIA requests." was the evidence you would use in court to prove the "official story" wrong.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But these reports and articles do agree with the fact that it was not a combination of impact and fire.

Only the idiotic ones.

I never stated it was an inside job. Please grow up and stop living in a fantasy world.

It's easy to give the wrong impression here, so why not correct it? What do you think is undetermined about 9/11, and who do you think was responsible for the attacks?

Dave

 

[HyJinX]

Only the idiotic ones.



It's easy to give the wrong impression here, so why not correct it? What do you think is undetermined about 9/11, and who do you think was responsible for the attacks?

Dave

I don't know, that's why we need a new investigation®

 

[ULTIMA1]

You're trying to tell me that withholding information for 7 years regarding the shoot down of Flight 93 is somehow just an oversight? :

Let me answewr as simple as i can since you seem to have a hard time with this.

NO, it was not an oversight.

NO, it was not a cover-up.

Do i need to make it any simpler for you?

 

[ULTIMA1]

Only the idiotic ones.

So your calling professional engineers idiotic just because they do not agree with what you have been told?

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse

What do you think is undetermined about 9/11.

Well a lot of it is still undetermined since the FBI and NISt ahve not released most of the evidence or thier crims scene reports.

 

[ULTIMA1]

I don't know, that's why we need a new investigation®

Most of the family members, most of the experts and first responders want a new inestigation.

 

[Reality Believer]

Most of the family members, most of the experts and first responders want a new inestigation.

Over 50% of the family members, and first responders want a new investigation? Prove it.

And what do you consider "experts"?

Facts man, you blow a lot of smoke.

 

[Smackety]

Most of the family members, most of the experts and first responders want a new inestigation.

Stop making things up. "Most" means at least >50%, not <1%

 

[Mince]

Most of the family members, most of the experts and first responders want a new inestigation.

Cite please. Not only do you have to provide a cite that say X number of family members, experts and first responders want a new investigation, you must also provide a cite that indicates they are the majority of family members, experts and first responders. Otherwise I'm going to assume this is just another bit of hyperbole by a truther.

Google awaits. Get to it.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Facts man, you blow a lot of smoke.

But not near as much smoke as others on here that do not post any facts when asked.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Cite please. Not only do you have to provide a cite that say X number of family members, experts and first responders want a new investigation,

I will make you as deal i will post sites, but then you have to provide sites where you get your information from or we will know you are only posting what you have been told to believe.

 

[Reality Believer]

But not near as much smoke as others on here that do not post any facts when asked.

Non-answer. Prove your statement about percentage of family members and first responders that want a new investigation.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Non-answer. Prove your statement about percentage of family members and first responders that want a new investigation.

Only if you will post sites that provide your infomration or we will know you only post what you have been told and no not have any actual information.

 

[Smackety]

I will make you as deal i will post sites, but then you have to provide sites where you get your information from or we will know you are only posting what you have been told to believe.

You claim to have already provided evidence. Give us a link to it. It only takes a second to post a link to one of your own posts. If you are serious you can spare a second to do so.

 

[Reality Believer]

Only if you will post sites that provide your infomration or we will know you only post what you have been told and no not have any actual information.

I haven't said jack about what I believe. I am questioning your sources. Period. A simple request. Please back up your statements.