Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[SteveAustin]

Your denial will not be enough for some people to not call you an anti-semite. Just bringing up the facts is enough.

I am not an anti-semite either, but I constantly have to wonder why a holocaust that happened in the first half of the last century is constantly trotted out in our faces while current holocausts are ignored?

Really? So to disagree with current wars I have to buy into your as yet evidence free conspiracies about the Sept 11th attack?

Nobody mentioned that on the last anti war demo I was on, was you there?

Hmmm, WHAT?

Did you accidentally use the wrong quote for your response because what you say has absolutely no relevance to what I said.

 

[beachnut]

Absolutely, we can have a real discussion about this where we can all discuss the OCT in great detail...just come here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=1#comments

It's a nice neutral (well it's the BBC, so the site is more OCT oriented, but ...

You are still with zero evidence and the truthers there support lies and spew woo on 911 as bad as you want to but are hung up on off topic junk.

Where do you truthers keep your evidence?

 

[SteveAustin]

Yet you are not able to apply this same standard to the evidence free theories of the TM, why is that ?

There's that lovely disinfo tactic, constantly repeat that your oponent has no evidence, repeat it all the time and if you repeat it often enough it will be believed.

You are also claiming I do not apply critical thinking because I believe differently than you do. ROFL, that is so transparent, but like the other part if you repeat it often enough some people will believe it.

Why do you not think for yourself when Hiewa claims, without evidence that the entire upper section of each tower was blown up? Why do you not use your critical thinking skills? Why do you not think at all and simply accept it? Why do you not question it and condemn those who do? Why do you not question anybody who tells you bombs were inside each tower, planes did not hit buildings , why do you blindly accept it?

This whole paragraph is simply more disinfo, using multiple tactics.

So I could not have known for myself through my own research that the top of the towers were blown to dust before the bottom section of the building began to fall? I could not have known this before Heiwa mentioned it? Is that your insinuation? I noticed you had to throw in that "without evidence" claim again, repeat it often enough and some people will believe you...

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg

very clear video in which you can see nearly the entire top section turn to dust before the bottom section even begins to fall

Why do you not use your critical thinking skills? Why do you not think at all and simply accept it? Why do you not question it and condemn those who do? Why do you not question anybody who tells you bombs were inside each tower, planes did not hit buildings , why do you blindly accept it?

This is an obvious disinfo tactic. This is someone trying to make everyone else believe that we do not question anything (did you notice the bit about not condemning those who question? That's another form of subtle brainwashing).

By repeating these claims over and over and over again (claims that we in the 9/11 truth movement do not question anything (and by implication do not do any research) the hope is that some people will actually start to believe it.

 

[SteveAustin]

You are still with zero evidence and the truthers there support lies and spew woo on 911 as bad as you want to but are hung up on off topic junk.

Where do you truthers keep your evidence?

The Beachnut Mantra

Keep repeating your Mantra there Beachnut and you might be able to convince some people it's true! Or are you trying to convince yourself?

 

[Shalamar]

Just keep crying out 'DISINFO!', that'll learn 'em.

 

[Shalamar]

So I could not have known for myself through my own research that the top of the towers were blown to dust before the bottom section of the building began to fall? I could not have known this before Heiwa mentioned it? Is that your insinuation? I noticed you had to throw in that "without evidence" claim again, repeat it often enough and some people will believe you...

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg

very clear video in which you can see nearly the entire top section turn to dust before the bottom section even begins to fall

Ok.. How does the top section turn to dust? There are sounds of explosives, so we can discount that. Many people have suggested thermite, but that doesn't disintegrate objects, it just burns through them.

You really just can't point at a youtube video and cry out 'Look! Its so OBVIOUS!' You need to back up your claims with solid evidence. When the upper section started to collapse, it certainly did kick up a lot of dust and debris. Likely from the fires, as well as the accumulation of items stores on the floors. However, it seems that the upper black did not become reduced to dust, especially since we don't see a mechanism that exerts the force necessary to do so.

So, we ask, what evidence do you have that this indeed happened? What can you show as the cause of the upper black being reduced to dust? What mechanism did this?

 

[GlennB]

So I could not have known for myself through my own research that the top of the towers were blown to dust before the bottom section of the building began to fall?

So - if the top section was 'blown to dust' before the bottom section began to fall - what caused the bottom section to fall at all? Beginning (as it did) at the apparent collision point between upper and lower sections, and progressing downwards at what would appear to be the meeting between falling and static sections?

Steve, I'm beginning to get paranoid that you don't like me or something. You never answer my questions Have a crack at this one, eh?

 

[DavidJames]

You really just can't point at a youtube video and cry out 'Look! Its so OBVIOUS!' You need to back up your claims with solid evidence. When the upper section started to collapse, it certainly did kick up a lot of dust and debris. Likely from the fires, as well as the accumulation of items stores on the floors. However, it seems that the upper black did not become reduced to dust, especially since we don't see a mechanism that exerts the force necessary to do so.

So, we ask, what evidence do you have that this indeed happened? What can you show as the cause of the upper black being reduced to dust? What mechanism did this?

My guess it's the same mechanism used by those many years ago which allowed them to conclude the sun revolved around the earth which, by the way, was deemed to be flat.

 

[dtugg]

I'm guessing that it was the gigantic orbiting laser that turned the top section to dust.

 

[GlennB]

I'm guessing that it was the gigantic orbiting laser that turned the top section to dust.

Well, yeah, the gigantic orbiting laser could have turned it to dust. But apart from that, what else might have done it?

 

[beachnut]

The Beachnut Mantra

Keep repeating your Mantra there Beachnut and you might be able to convince some people it's true! Or are you trying to convince yourself?

Where do you keep your evidence? You have all these truther ideas and false flag vandalism but you lack evidence. Where do truthers keep the evidence to support their failed claims?

You posted this site,

Absolutely, we can have a real discussion about this where we can all discuss the OCT in great detail...just come here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...age=1#comments

...created here and see what the real world is like outside?

I went to the BBC forum and found truthers brave enough to post dirt dumb ideas backed up with hearsay, lies and fantasy. But you post here and can't get past saying "The Beachnut Mantra", and saying my name. Where are your claims? Where is your evidence?

The truthers at the BBC forum lack evidence like you. Is that a CT?

Oops.

So I could not have known for myself through my own research that the top of the towers were blown to dust before the bottom section of the building began to fall? I could not have known this before Heiwa mentioned it? Is that your insinuation? I noticed you had to throw in that "without evidence" claim again, repeat it often enough and some people will believe you...

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg

very clear video in which you can see nearly the entire top section turn to dust before the bottom section even begins to fall

The top part did not turn to dust. Wowzer, the top part is 95 percent air not dust. Your failed ideas are coming out; I was wrong you are brave enough to expose your ignorance on physics and engineering in one simple post of failed ideas. Steel does not turn to dust in a gravity collapse.

Steel turned to dust? Beam weapon or hush-a-boom super-nano-thermite made up by Jones? Turned to dust? How?

 

[SteveAustin]

For shame Steve-0. so people who ignore the demise of a steel, glass and concrete edifice known as building seven are moral cowards? Not satisfied that your poisoning of the well had any effect on observers on the sidelines you move to Ad Hominem logical fallacies? Are your more compassionate to building materials than the dead? You want to talk about moral cowards Steve-0? My Irony meter exploded.

I can certainly understand why your irony meter exploded, that whole paragraph you wrote is just so ironic it could not survive it.

For shame Steve-0. so people who ignore the demise of a steel, glass and concrete edifice known as building seven are moral cowards?

That is a combination of ...

1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.

and

2 Use different meanings of your opponent’s words to refute his argument.

and

3 Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.

Not satisfied that your poisoning of the well had any effect on observers on the sidelines you move to Ad Hominem logical fallacies? Are your more compassionate to building materials than the dead? You want to talk about moral cowards Steve-0? My Irony meter exploded.

poisoning the well? LOL that's rich coming from a JREF "debunker", I think your irony meter would have hit the moon from that comment alone. So I am poisoning the well by stating ...

A plausible excuse to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all? This pat little response is a perfect example of what the Mike Rivero quote was talking about, about ...

"...most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

So just throw up any answer at all and most people will use that as an excuse to not think for themselves.

Seems to me my comment was stating that the reply I was talking about was just an excuse thrown up and that any excuse would have done because it does not take much of an excuse to allow moral cowards not to think for themselves. But you knew that

Are your more compassionate to building materials than the dead?

So now you are accusing me of being an inhuman monster with no feelings? No that is not an exageration of what you are saying, if you are trying to imply I care more for buildings than the dead that is exactly what you are saying. Can you say ...

38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand

But that one never seems to get old for JREF "debunkers"

Tell my how hard are you working to get out troops home alive and in one piece?

So there is still no one brave enough to leave the safety of the JREF forums and take a trip over to the BBC blog I posted and debate the evidence there? Really does not surprise me one bit

 

[beachnut]

... So there is still no one brave enough to leave the safety of the JREF forums and take a trip over to the BBC blog I posted and debate the evidence there? Really does not surprise me one bit

The truthers there are the same as you. They use hearsay, lies, and fantasy to form their delusions.

An example of the stupidity displayed at BBC where nuts case ideas are nut case ideas without evidence.

And there is nothing neat about the events of 9/11, or attempts to understand the sanitized, and very "neat" official conspiracy that 19 rank amateurs flew the some of the most sophisticated aviation technology in existence with the precision of highly trained professionals.

Hani Hanjour was said to have dropped from 7000 ft in a tight 270 degree spiral at speeds around 400 to 500 mph, pulling 4, 5, 6 G's in doing so, and yet his flight instructor refused to fly in a single engine Cessna because he was so bad a pilot. And the Kean Report, the 9/11 Commission report, said he was "one of the best pilots they had." What is "neat" about that?

You can't support this failed post. Got some evidence? Take any part.

Show me the 4, 5, 6 G's in the turn. Get the FDR and show me. Did you say you got research skills? Show me how you turn steel to dust?

 

[SteveAustin]

Steve, I'm beginning to get paranoid that you don't like me or something. You never answer my questions Have a crack at this one, eh?

LOL sure thing buddy

So - if the top section was 'blown to dust' before the bottom section began to fall - what caused the bottom section to fall at all? Beginning (as it did) at the apparent collision point between upper and lower sections, and progressing downwards at what would appear to be the meeting between falling and static sections?

Now you are starting to get it. Now you are starting to ask the right questions. But why ask me? Seriously, why ask me? Oh wait I almost forgot.

Turn the tables and ask questions they cannot answer or that can be easily argued. I mean after all you are asking me to speculate on what I believe happened.

Why do you insist on doing that? If I managed to show that the top portion of that building was nearly completely pulverized to dust before the bottom section even began to fall...as the video clearly shows... then it does not matter what I think caused the bottom section to fall at all because I have proven something no "debunker" wants to admit!

This is a favorite of the debunker though, instead of admitting the veracity of something, ignore it and ask an irrelevant question that can't really be answered.

 

[dtugg]

Why do you insist on doing that? If I managed to show that the top portion of that building was nearly completely pulverized to dust before the bottom section even began to fall...as the video clearly shows... then it does not matter what I think caused the bottom section to fall at all because I have proven something no "debunker" wants to admit!

This is a favorite of the debunker though, instead of admitting the veracity of something, ignore it and ask an irrelevant question that can't really be answered.

You can't show that the "top portion of that building was nearly completely pulverized to dust before the bottom section even began to fall" because that didn't happen. And only in the minds of extremely deluded twoofers do any videos show this.

And by the way, by what mechanism was the top section turned to dust in your fantasy world? I am predicting that you will not answer this question.

 

[SteveAustin]

You really just can't point at a youtube video and cry out 'Look! Its so OBVIOUS!'

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.

You need to back up your claims with solid evidence. When the upper section started to collapse, it certainly did kick up a lot of dust and debris. Likely from the fires, as well as the accumulation of items stores on the floors. However, it seems that the upper black did not become reduced to dust, especially since we don't see a mechanism that exerts the force necessary to do so.

Hmmm...

You need to back up your claims with solid evidence.

it certainly did kick up a lot of dust and debris. Likely from the fires, as well as the accumulation of items stores on the floors.

did you back up your counter claim?

However, it seems that the upper black did not become reduced to dust

Why? (to which you answer below)

especially since we don't see a mechanism that exerts the force necessary to do so.

So you will ignore the video that shows very very clearly that the top section turns nearly completely to dust before the bottom section even begins to fall because YOU "don't see a mechanism that exerts the force necessary to do so"

But it happened, and it's right in front of your eyes on video, so it happened but you ignore that because you do not want to believe it is possible. There was a force there that accomplished it, but you do not want to admit it's possible so you ignore the video proof of it and ask I provide a mechanism or else the video proof is garbage!!

So, we ask, what evidence do you have that this indeed happened? What can you show as the cause of the upper black being reduced to dust? What mechanism did this?

LOL as I said in my previous response, when a "debunkers" back is to the wall turn the tables and ask a question that is easily argued because the answer has to be specualtion.

If you want more evidence then come over to the BBC blog I've mentioned 4 or 5 times now. Surely no one here can be so afraid of leaving the safe confines of JREF?

 

[beachnut]

... If I managed to show that the top portion of that building was nearly completely pulverized to dust before the bottom section even began to fall...as the video clearly shows... then it does not matter what I think caused the bottom section to fall at all because I have proven something no "debunker" wants to admit!

This is a favorite of the debunker though, instead of admitting the veracity of something, ignore it and ask an irrelevant question that can't really be answered.

You showed the top part destroying the bottom part. Steel does not turn to dust but in your mind where engineering, physics, science and reality is not known. The video shows the top failing into the bottom and you make up the turn to dust with no explanation or expertise in engineering. Heiwa should know better he claims to be an engineer but you have no idea. At least 0.0087 percent of all world engineers support part of your conclusion what ever that is.

No wonder you like the BBC forum where you have people who agree with you and are also void of engineering and evidence. Did you find the 4, 5, 6 Gs of flight 77 yet?

...And by the way, by what mechanism was the top section turned to dust in your fantasy world? I am predicting that you will not answer this question.

You forgot to answer this. As predicted

 

[dtugg]

If you want more evidence then come over to the BBC blog I've mentioned 4 or 5 times now. Surely no one here can be so afraid of leaving the safe confines of JREF?

You, like every twoofer before you has no evidence whatsoever. Nobody here is afraid to go to the stupid comment section of a blog post. It's just that nobody feels the need to just become some twoofer says so. It's not as if you'll have any new lies anyway. You'd just be repeating the same lies many twoofers have already told here.

And remember, you are the one that registered here, genius.

 

[SteveAustin]

Where do you keep your evidence? You have all these truther ideas and false flag vandalism but you lack evidence. Where do truthers keep the evidence to support their failed claims?

You posted this site,
I went to the BBC forum and found truthers brave enough to post dirt dumb ideas backed up with hearsay, lies and fantasy. But you post here and can't get past saying "The Beachnut Mantra", and saying my name. Where are your claims? Where is your evidence?

The truthers at the BBC forum lack evidence like you. Is that a CT??

Then you should have no problem 'pwning' us "truthers" over there at the BBC blog right? So should I expect you to be the first brave "debunker" to leave the safety of JREF and come over and discuss the evidence over there?

You will be able to pwn me there every bit as easy as here right?

The top part did not turn to dust. Wowzer, the top part is 95 percent air not dust. Your failed ideas are coming out;?

Does that response sound good and logical to you? Does it sound like it is a really good reply to my post?

Well let's see... "The top part did not turn to dust. Wowzer, the top part is 95 percent air not dust"

Yes the top part is most certainly 95 percent air and not dust, but that really has nothing to do with it. I never claimed the air inside the top section turned to dust. It was the building that turned to dust.

That however is a good straw man from Beachnut...build up the argument that I claimed the air turned to dust and then shoot it down laughing that I have failed ideas

I was wrong you are brave enough to expose your ignorance on physics and engineering in one simple post of failed ideas.

Except this was your straw man argument which has been exposed.

Steel does not turn to dust in a gravity collapse..

Exactly, it does not. Which just proves the NIST report on what happened is wrong. Thank you for agreeing.

Steel turned to dust? Beam weapon or hush-a-boom super-nano-thermite made up by Jones? Turned to dust? How?

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.

 

[beachnut]

...
But it happened, and it's right in front of your eyes on video, so it happened but you ignore that because you do not want to believe it is possible. There was a force there that accomplished it, but you do not want to admit it's possible so you ignore the video proof of it and ask I provide a mechanism or else the video proof is garbage!! ...

The force was gravity. Gravity is the force that accomplished it and your lack of knowledge in gravity, physics, engineering and other subjects make you believe in lies.

The video show a gravity collapse and a building falling; you say it show the building turning to dust but darn all the steel is there. You failed and you see what you want to see and make up a poorly defined delusion to explain it.

I admit is was a force, gravity did it. There I admitted it and I am right. That was easy. Are you an engineer?