Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[RedIbis]

Maybe it's time to just shut down the 9/11 forum. Obviously, there's nothing new to be learned and you guys have clearly won the debate.

There's nothing left to discuss and those who oppose the official theories are only here to troll and bait you guys into getting yourselves banned.

For such a complex historical event, it only took 7.5 years to learn the entire truth. I guess I'll just use jref to post bird photos or post to the occassional music or lit thread.

 

[johnny karate]

No need to be so partisan. You were correct in your assessment of Turner's services, I was merely pointing that out to Johnny.

Your lack of facts or evidence to substantiate your argument is not the least bit surprising.

As you have demonstrated yourself incapable of honest discourse, I'll just put the following out there with no real expectation you would ever answer:

You made the implication there was something suspicious about Turner Construction's renovations at WTC prior to 9/11.

It has been demostrated that Turner Construction is not in the controlled demolition industry, nor do they have any expertise or knowledge in performing controlled demolitions.

So exactly what is suspicious about a company not in the controlled demolition industry, and lacking the expertise or knowledge to perform a controlled demolition, renovating WTC prior to 9/11?

 

[johnny karate]

Maybe it's time to just shut down the 9/11 forum. Obviously, there's nothing new to be learned and you guys have clearly won the debate.

Not a difficult feat when Truthers like yourself refuse to engage in it.

I just asked you a very straightforward question in my previous post. Why don't you surprise us all and attempt to answer it honestly?

 

[T.A.M.]

Maybe it's time to just shut down the 9/11 forum. Obviously, there's nothing new to be learned and you guys have clearly won the debate.

There's nothing left to discuss and those who oppose the official theories are only here to troll and bait you guys into getting yourselves banned.

For such a complex historical event, it only took 7.5 years to learn the entire truth. I guess I'll just use jref to post bird photos or post to the occassional music or lit thread.

I would disagree. However, I would say that unless something new (such as the WTC7 report, or Jones Paper) comes out, why bother addressing the same old topics over and over, name calling, getting tempers up...for what? Point your newcomers to the threads that address the topic of concern, and leave it at that.

TAM

 

[bill smith]

In this clip of 'September Clues' somebody Called Theresa Renaud is describing live to an anchor what she has just seen from Chelsea New York. She describes a large explosion in WTC1 that she heard wih flames coming out Neither she nor the anchor mention any plane.

Then aat 2:40 into the video the second plane strikes and Theresa says 'My God...another plane just hit ' All of this live.

Does anybody find that suspicious ? Does anybody think that maybe she hadn't actually seen any plane at all ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqEpuTGc98s

 

[BigAl]

In this clip of 'September Clues' somebody Called Theresa Renaud is describing live to an anchor what she has just seen from Chelsea New York. She describes a large explosion in WTC1 that she heard wih flames coming out Neither she nor the anchor mention any plane.

You've been lied to by people that use the word, "truth" much too much. Renaud's statement has been cut to fit the claims of the Half Truth Movement.

The deception exposed at 4:50 with regard to Theresa Renaud's discussion with Bryant Gumbel is quite telling. Shack has carefully snipped out Renaud's mention that her building is the tallest in the area and has a good view south to the World Trade Center. This is so that his argument from incredulity that she could not have heard the impact or seen the second plane crash into the South Tower may seem a little more credible. But of course this is simply intellectual dishonesty and is a very strong warning that the film is fraudulent.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/06/screw-september-clues-part-i.html

 

[bill smith]

You've been lied to by people that use the word, "truth" much too much. Renaud's statement has been cut to fit the claims of the Half Truth Movement.

But more importantly Al the cutting of the clip does not effect the claim I made. So what do you think ?

 

[beachnut]

I posted a topic in the Puzzles subforum based on this photo we've often seen:

Where the question is if the column actually angle-cut or simply leaning over toward the camera at an odd angle for perspective. So far, no one has even cared to make a guess, but then, I thought, how often to 9-11 CT sub-forum users frequent the Puzzles section? Perhaps some of you would like to hazard a try.

Thanks.

It is cut at an angle. There are pictures of more cuts made after 911.

This was Jones' lie. He said thermite did it. A clean up cut after 911 was his proof of thermite. Now some dust is his new, "loaded gun" as he calls it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

But more importantly Al the cutting of the clip does not effect the claim I made. So what do you think ?

You do seem to be basing your claim on the statement that was clipped out however... very telling if that's indeed the case then (very telling of the intellectual dishonesty at any rate...)

 

[1337m4n]

Maybe it's time to just shut down the 9/11 forum. Obviously, there's nothing new to be learned and you guys have clearly won the debate.

There's nothing left to discuss and those who oppose the official theories are only here to troll and bait you guys into getting yourselves banned.

For such a complex historical event, it only took 7.5 years to learn the entire truth. I guess I'll just use jref to post bird photos or post to the occassional music or lit thread.

Looke around. There's plently of lively debate and learning going on.

It just doesn't involve you. Take a wild guess as to why.

Hint: it has to do with your attitude.

 

[bill smith]

You do seem to be basing your claim on the statement that was clipped out however... very telling if that's indeed the case then (very telling of the intellectual dishonesty at any rate...)

Can yu back up what you say with video, audio or a transcript. ?

 

[Minadin]

It is cut at an angle. There are pictures of more cuts made after 911.

This was Jones' lie. He said thermite did it. A clean up cut after 911 was his proof of thermite. Now some dust is his new, "loaded gun" as he calls it.

Well, my question was whether it was cut at an angle or merely leaning over like the column to the right of it, or - rather - if it's possible to even tell from this one photograph. I made a couple of images from a very simple 3D model for people to guess from, but, so far, no-one seems to want to guess either way.

I don't care so much if it is or isn't cut at an angle versus leaning toward the camera, I'm more interested in what people think is the case, and why, based solely on the photo. (or rather, my model of the 2 columns)

I don't think it matters as far as 'inside-job' versus 'clean-up-work' because if it's leaning, they might have cut it straight across, if it's straight up, they would want to cut it at an angle, and in either case, it certainly wasn't cut with (super-, nano-)therm*te.

Anyone is welcome to hazard a guess, and any explanation behind the guess is as valid as another, because I'm merely curious.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Does anybody find that suspicious ? Does anybody think that maybe she hadn't actually seen any plane at all ?

Yes, I find it extremely suspicious. Obviously there were no planes at all, and the whole thing was a hoax involving holograms and invisible cloaking devices. The alternative is that somebody under extreme stress may have said WTC1 when she meant WTC2, and that sort of simple slip of the tongue is just too implausible to be worth considering.

Dave

ETA: Hang on, I seem to have misunderstood your vague insinuation. You're suggesting that, when she said "'My God...another plane just hit", she was reading from a script that said "At this point, mention that another plane has hit so that people will thing there were planes involved", but that when she mentioned the explosion in WTC1 she was telling the truth because she'd temporarily forgotten that she was supposed to be reading from a script, right? Because that sort of behaviour makes perfect sense, particularly when people are covering up monstrous crimes even as they're happening. You just can't get good minions these days.

 

[bill smith]

Yes, I find it extremely suspicious. Obviously there were no planes at all, and the whole thing was a hoax involving holograms and invisible cloaking devices. The alternative is that somebody under extreme stress may have said WTC1 when she meant WTC2, and that sort of simple slip of the tongue is just too implausible to be worth considering.

Dave

ETA: Hang on, I seem to have misunderstood your vague insinuation. You're suggesting that, when she said "'My God...another plane just hit", she was reading from a script that said "At this point, mention that another plane has hit so that people will thing there were planes involved", but that when she mentioned the explosion in WTC1 she was telling the truth because she'd temporarily forgotten that she was supposed to be reading from a script, right? Because that sort of behaviour makes perfect sense, particularly when people are covering up monstrous crimes even as they're happening. You just can't get good minions these days.

If anybody thinks that this contribution from Dave is an intelligent post I suggest you read it a second time.

 

[bill smith]

clocks

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home War Clock
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ National Debt Clock.

 

[beachnut]

Well, my question was whether it was cut at an angle or merely leaning over like the column to the right of it, or - rather - if it's possible to even tell from this one photograph. I made a couple of images from a very simple 3D model for people to guess from, but, so far, no-one seems to want to guess either way.

I don't care so much if it is or isn't cut at an angle versus leaning toward the camera, I'm more interested in what people think is the case, and why, based solely on the photo. (or rather, my model of the 2 columns)

I don't think it matters as far as 'inside-job' versus 'clean-up-work' because if it's leaning, they might have cut it straight across, if it's straight up, they would want to cut it at an angle, and in either case, it certainly wasn't cut with (super-, nano-)therm*te.

Anyone is welcome to hazard a guess, and any explanation behind the guess is as valid as another, because I'm merely curious.

It does look like it is leaning.
I think they may of cut at an angle to drop the mass above it in a certain direction; who is a clean up expert?

There could have been a large section on top.

 

[332nd]

In this clip of 'September Clues' somebody Called Theresa Renaud is describing live to an anchor what she has just seen from Chelsea New York. She describes a large explosion in WTC1 that she heard wih flames coming out Neither she nor the anchor mention any plane.

Then aat 2:40 into the video the second plane strikes and Theresa says 'My God...another plane just hit ' All of this live.

Does anybody find that suspicious ? Does anybody think that maybe she hadn't actually seen any plane at all ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqEpuTGc98s

No.

 

[Minadin]

If I were a truther troll, I would be famous for being the most patient one ever.

But, that goes against the general M.O.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If anybody thinks that this contribution from Dave is an intelligent post I suggest you read it a second time.

Sorry, I was just trying to reply in the same spirit of your post.

Let's try again. You're saying that she didn't mention the first plane when she was talking about the explosion, but referred to the second one as "another plane". How do you interpret this to imply that she didn't see any planes? It's a serious question; how on Earth do you construct a line of reasoning from one to the other?

Dave

 

[240-185]

Hi,

I'm facing with some other fellow debunkers an idiot who thinks there were explosives somewhere in the planes on 9/11 but weren't used, and who thinks that NIST should have driven some investigations about these alleged explosives. Although we show him that nobody at Ground Zero found any explosive device, and that looking for explosives if they were unuseful is irrelevant, all he says is "he doesn't believe all we say, he declares there were unused explosives".

Is there a way to convice him that there were ABSOLUTELY NOT explosives used on that day?