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

[ULTIMA1]

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

Why should i post my source if you will not post yours? Pretty childish if you ask me.

 

[Reality Believer]

Why should i post my source if you will not post yours? Pretty childish if you ask me.

Wow. You really are everything your predecessors have alluded to. I was trying to give the benefit of a doubt, but nothing has changed.

 

[Mince]

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.

I've never made an affirmative claim regarding 9/11. Why are you being so presumptious?

I await your citation.

 

[ULTIMA1]

I've never made an affirmative claim regarding 9/11. Why are you being so presumptious? .

People like you do not claim anything that way you can flip sides as you want.

But lets look at some evidence i have and see if you can come up with any source to debate it. Just a few to get you started.

1. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/newsfromnist_DNAinterview.htm
Due to the nature of the World Trade Center disaster, it quickly became evident that traditional methods for performing DNA typing were not likely to be fully successful in identifying all of the recovered remains. Traditional DNA ID methods depend on the presence of long, intact segments of DNA in order to accurately type the sample. The DNA in many of the samples recovered in this situation were so fragmented that these standard methods were ineffective.

In early November 2001, Dr. Robert Shaler, the director of the WTC DNA identification effort, contacted me and asked if I would be willing to develop some new DNA tests to help in the identification effort. I agreed to fast track our research efforts over the next several months and produce some test materials for his laboratory to try by January 2002.

2. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

4) Only 12 total core columns were recovered from WTC-1 & WTC-2 combined.

5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

3. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.

4. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
In response to requests from the EPA through the USGS, NASA flew AVIRIS on a De Havilland Twin Otter over lower Manhattan at mid-day on September 16 and 23, 2001. For these deployments, the Twin Otter was flown at altitudes of 6,500 and 12,500 feet. The spectral data for the maps shown here were measured at 6,500 feet and have a spatial resolution (pixel spacing) of approximately 6 feet (2 meters).

AVIRIS records the near-infrared signature of heat remotely. The accompanying maps are false color images that show the core affected area around the World Trade Center. Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier.

 

[Mince]

People like you do not claim anything that way you can flip sides as you want.

Acutally, I don't make claims that are not founded by facts and evidence. That's all.

Now what about your claim that most family members, experts and first resonders want a new investigation? Certainly you have proof that allowed you to make that claim. I awaiting the site. Take your time, Google can be tricky sometimes.

 

[Zipster]

Like your stance on what hit the Pentagon, right ULTIMA? You don't claim it was the AA flight, you don't claim it was a missile, you don't claim it was a UAV...

Wait, wait, don't have to respond. "We don't know what hit the Pentaogn becuase no all the evidence and reprots have been released yet". I even made your usual spelling errors for you. No need to thank me!

 

[ULTIMA1]

Acutally, I don't make claims that are not founded by facts and evidence. That's all. .

So why wont you post these facts and evidence when asked?

 

[Mince]

So why wont you post these facts and evidence when asked?

These facts and evidence? What facts and evidence have I posted? Please show me. It'll take you a very long while...take your time, no pressure.

I don't make affirmative claims regarding 9/11 because I'm not an expert in any of its domains. I know how ridiculous it is to think I can "know" everything by watching YouTube videos and doing Google searches.

Now, however, you did post an affirmative statement, to wit, most family members, experts and first responders want a new investigation. You've yet to provide evidence for this "fact."

 

[Totovader]

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?

You need to answer the question. Contradicting yourself isn't a good idea at this juncture.

AGAIN- you ignored my post:

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.

 

[ULTIMA1]

These facts and evidence? ."

Its a simple question. Again,

So why wont you post these facts and evidence when asked?

 

[Mince]

Its a simple question. Again,

So why wont you post these facts and evidence when asked?

What facts and evidence?

Another simple question:

What gave you the authority to claim most family members, experts and first responders want a new investigation?

 

[ULTIMA1]

AGAIN- you ignored my post

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

Again i will answer it.

NO, it was not an oversight.

NO, it was not a cover-up.

 

[ULTIMA1]

What facts and evidence?

The ones you claim to have to support any claims you will make.

 

[Totovader]

Again i will answer it.

NO, it was not an oversight.

NO, it was not a cover-up.

Let's try this again, since you continue to strip the questions out of my post in order to avoid them.

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.

 

[Mince]

The ones you claim to have to support any claims you will make.

Please show me where I made any claims.

Oh, and you cut the second part of that post. Any particular reason for this?

 

[Mince]

Let's try this again, since you continue to strip the questions out of my post in order to avoid them.

Dude, this is like debating a 6-year-old. No offense ULTIMA1, but it's little wonder the "truth" movement has utterly failed after seven years. He's probably doing this intentionally. It's a subtle form of trollery.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Please show me where I made any claims.
?

Why are you so afraid to post the evidence you state you have?

I think its a pretty simple and ony fair that if you ask me for evidence you show evidence too when asked.

 

[Mince]

Why are you so afraid to post the evidence you state you have?

I think its a pretty simple and ony fair that if you ask me for evidence you show evidence too when asked.

Dude, I don't have any evidence. And I have not stated I have any evidence. If you want evidence, ask the people who've actually investigated the events of 9/11. You know, the ones who didn't use YouTube or Google to do their investigations.

I merely asked you to provide your evidence that most family members, experts and first respnders want a new investigation.

Can you do this?

 

[ULTIMA1]

Dude, I don't have any evidence.

Well then you should not ask me to post evidence if you do not have any to discuss or debate me with.

 

[Mince]

Well then you should not ask me to post evidence if you do not have any to discuss or debate me with.

I'm not discussing or debating anything. I'm merely wondering how you determined that most family members, experts and first responders want a new investigation. You provide it, I think "wow, he was right." You don't provide it, i think "wow, just another truther conjuring facts to win an argument.

No discussion.

No debate.


Thank you for acknowledging that I've made no affirmative claims regarding 9/11. Because, like yourself, I don't know what happened and, unlike you, I'm not convinced by YouTube videos, Alex Jones radio shows and personal opinion on websites.