Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I've debated whether to ask this as a separate thread but I suppose here is as good a place as any to ask the question the first time. I'd like to ask those who like to use the first time in history cannard for steel structure fires to indicate whether they've looked at any architectural case studies for the examples they use. I've asked countless times for them to provide details on the construction of the structures they present and the kind of considerations that should be made when making the comparisons, and usually a good case study will cover these bases. I'm curious as to why Ct'rs never make use of such case studies to support their arguments. I know of a number of examples where I've had concrete core structures passed off to me as steel core structures (an issue I resolved by researching the available case studies on them.
 
RedIbis said:
It's not my responsibility to respond to every piece of flawed logic that flies out of your fingertips and onto the forum. There are any number of reasons (nearly all I agree with) why Obama maintains a very conventional perspective on 9/11.

He does however go much farther than nearly any of the dubunkers on this board when he says that gov't officials should be held accountable and should have addressed the intel that was warning of such an attack.



I happen to agree with him on this and hope that he pursues those officials who he believes should be held accountable. I've always been in favor of the Al Capone strategy.
Click to expand...
Pure political claptrap, I see you and Obama have uncovered so many in your witch hunt.

Truth: Obama knows his words taken by you out of context, the made up ideas you have of what Obama meant, were pure political rhetoric. Feel good go get them, but never able to find Them to punish.
 
Last edited:
Hi friends. Just stopping by to see if the tw00f movement has presented any evidence for their claims.
Doesnt appear to be the case. I'll be back again next year ;)

Seriously though, anything new??
 
RedIbis said:
I would say that it is, at this point, more important to get the country moving in the right direction than it is to investigate 9/11.
Click to expand...

Hi Red,

If I were a truther, I'd probably have to agree. But if I may pick your brain for a moment... since the Dems will now have the presidency, the majority in both the house and senate - will it give you a pause if neither the mainstream media nor the new government give the truth movement the time of day? I know you are firm in your beliefs, but surely that would tell you something....wouldn't it?
 
I predict that I will have a flying Camaro fueled by pure zero-point energy before any of our own "officials" are held accountable for 9-11.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Well I've debated whether to ask this as a separate thread but I suppose here is as good a place as any to ask the question the first time. I'd like to ask those who like to use the first time in history cannard for steel structure fires to indicate whether they've looked at any architectural case studies for the examples they use. I've asked countless times for them to provide details on the construction of the structures they present and the kind of considerations that should be made when making the comparisons, and usually a good case study will cover these bases. I'm curious as to why Ct'rs never make use of such case studies to support their arguments. I know of a number of examples where I've had concrete core structures passed off to me as steel core structures (an issue I resolved by researching the available case studies on them.
Click to expand...

Here are the reasons they do not approach it in the meticulous, sane, and logical way you suggest...

1. They do not have the intelligence
2. They do not have the knowledge
3. They do not have the fortitude (most are pretty lazy)
4. They are afraid of what such an approach would reveal.

TAM:)
 
apathoid said:
Hi Red,

If I were a truther, I'd probably have to agree. But if I may pick your brain for a moment... since the Dems will now have the presidency, the majority in both the house and senate - will it give you a pause if neither the mainstream media nor the new government give the truth movement the time of day? I know you are firm in your beliefs, but surely that would tell you something....wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Hello Apathoid,
It really wouldn't give me pause. I don't have any reason to believe that the new administration or the Dem majority in Congress will pursue a new investigation or accountability.

These are politicians, political survivalists and they have nothing to gain by opening up this wound. The closest we'll see is Obama closing Gitmo and making a serious attempt at getting Obama. That's much more politically expedient. I support Obama for what I believe he can do for the country, not because I think he will investigate 9/11.

As I said in another thread, I'm glad Obama isn't a twoofer, that he never expressed any skepticism toward the official account. If he had he wouldn't have been elected.
 
RedIbis said:
Hello Apathoid,
It really wouldn't give me pause. I don't have any reason to believe that the new administration or the Dem majority in Congress will pursue a new investigation or accountability.

These are politicians, political survivalists and they have nothing to gain by opening up this wound. The closest we'll see is Obama closing Gitmo and making a serious attempt at getting Obama. That's much more politically expedient. I support Obama for what I believe he can do for the country, not because I think he will investigate 9/11.

As I said in another thread, I'm glad Obama isn't a twoofer, that he never expressed any skepticism toward the official account. If he had he wouldn't have been elected.
Click to expand...

That should also tell you something.

PS - The small spelling mistake made that part even funnier
 
RedIbis said:
The closest we'll see is Obama closing Gitmo and making a serious attempt at getting Obama. That's much more politically expedient.
Click to expand...

If Osama were, in fact, either entirely innocent of 9/11, or a tool of the conspiracy and prepared to say so publicly, and Obama were aware of this, then it might be slightly less politically expedient. In fact, if 9/11 had been an inside job, the last thing the perpetrators would want would be Obama pursuing Osama more seriously.

Discuss.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
If Osama were, in fact, either entirely innocent of 9/11, or a tool of the conspiracy and prepared to say so publicly, and Obama were aware of this, then it might be slightly less politically expedient. In fact, if 9/11 had been an inside job, the last thing the perpetrators would want would be Obama pursuing Osama more seriously.

Discuss.

Dave
Click to expand...

I'm sure members of the Bush administration aren't too keen on Obama wanting to close Gitmo, nor must they be too happy about the prospect of pursuing the Bush administration for abuse of executive powers.
 
RedIbis said:
I'm sure members of the Bush administration aren't too keen on Obama wanting to close Gitmo, nor must they be too happy about the prospect of pursuing the Bush administration for abuse of executive powers.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in a MIHOP scenario that's small potatoes. All they risk there is investigation, some token of censure, and a comfortable retirement when the fuss has died down. The capture of bin Laden, alive and able to spill the beans, is ropes-from-lampposts time. What wouldn't the conspirators do to discourage Obama from going after him?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes, but in a MIHOP scenario that's small potatoes. All they risk there is investigation, some token of censure, and a comfortable retirement when the fuss has died down. The capture of bin Laden, alive and able to spill the beans, is ropes-from-lampposts time. What wouldn't the conspirators do to discourage Obama from going after him?

Dave
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, but we're making several assumptions. 1) that Obama can capture OBL and 2) that OBL will be captured alive.

The possibility that he would be captured alive and stand trial appears least likely. If he were captured alive, we might wonder what Obama was able to do that Bush was not.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes, but in a MIHOP scenario that's small potatoes. All they risk there is investigation, some token of censure, and a comfortable retirement when the fuss has died down. The capture of bin Laden, alive and able to spill the beans, is ropes-from-lampposts time. What wouldn't the conspirators do to discourage Obama from going after him?

Dave
Click to expand...

That's just one more thing that makes the MIHOP theory so implausible. If he is still alive, he could spill the beans NOW. If he could somehow provide even a modestly credible suggestion that MIHOPers are inching close to the truth of 9/11, he could do far more damage to the US than he could ever have hoped to achieve through the execution of terrorist attacks. (Unless of course he is just a non-existent figment of the CIA's collectiive imagination, in which case, nevermind the above.)
 
I think if there were any significant evidence that the USG under BUSH/CHENEY helped orchestrate, or even intentionally allowed 9/11, Obama would pounce on it. What better way to show he is truly about change, then to have a president and his VP impeached and charged with war crimes.

I am confident (as you likely deep down know yourself Red) that the USG did not intentionally allow 9/11 to happen, nor did they help orchestrate it.

Incompetence, I can see a strong argument for some, negligence, possibly, but a harder argument to make.

LIHOP/MIHOP....nope, not a chance.

TAM:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom