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

[BigAl]

This is exactly what i was going to say.

Most if not all of the valuable data would have been backed up twice, with one of the backups stored in a 2nd location, incase of such a situation as a fire. This is a standard operating procedure where data is important.

At ReallyBigBank, we had a formal requirement that said that for some types of transactions, the data had to be be stored in two locations before the customer got his confirmation. The locations were three states apart.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Our company backs up everything nightly. They are taken from our server room and each of the two owners brings a copy home.

This is such a stupid argument that it is laughable. Can you ever imagine the government in this day and age only having all their information on paper in a file drawer ? Totally ridiculous.

I've heard that companies in Great Britian have had redundant record-keeping ever since the mass destruction of WWII. If disaster happens to strike the main building, everyone evacuates to their back-up headquarters waiting for them in the country.

 

[tsig]

Neither do large explosions, apparently. Fires seem to do a good enough job on their own.

Guess that's why they have fire codes but no explosive codes.

 

[tsig]

Another Truther trying to tell us what firefighters were thinking, while ignoring what those firefighters actually said?

Yawn.

Ragnarok, if you're so curious about what firefighters were thinking on 9/11, why don't you contact the FDNY and ask them?

Or he could just ask the firefighters right here at JREF who were there. That's probably a little more TRUTH than the wants.

 

[RedIbis]

Was the building built to fall in this way? (oops, yes is the answer I cheated and asked the chief structural engineer; and he says all the insane ideas you can't express properly or with evidence are nonsense)

Let's just deal with this for now. Are you actually saying that you asked the chief structural engineer for the WTC, and he told you that the bldg was designed to "fall in this way?"

Are you actually saying the bldg was built to collapse? Secondly, are you actually claiming that you personally showed him my ideas and that he addressed them specifically?

Do you have support for these outrageous claims or because you hold the prevailing view here you don't expect to be pressed on this idiocy?

 

[Ragnarok]

You're doing a great job of derbunking there guys.

I'll admit, I'm nearly convinced there was no conspiracy to bring the towers down, but there was definitely a conspiracy to prevent accountability to those in charge with dealing with it.

Anyone want to remind me how many people in charge that day were fired from their jobs, or were no punishable mistakes made?

Has anyone but AQ and Muslim communities on the other side of the world took a smackdown for the cock-ups of that day?

What about the intelligence staff who allowed vital information to be kept from relevant departments; are they doing desk jobs in Nowheresville yet?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Ragnarok, if you're so curious about what firefighters were thinking on 9/11, why don't you contact the FDNY and ask them?

Even better, I'd loooove to see one of them go dowm to a firehouse with their video camera and confront them about why they aren't screaming about the explosives, since their "quotes" given that day are "proof" that all 3 buildings were imploded. And that their silence about that, and of course the obviousness that they "pulled" 7 on Silverstein's request, and also remain silent about it, means that in their eyes, they will be the first to hang when da troof comes out.

G-D, could you imagine the beatdown they'd get?

Truly epic.

 

[TexasJack]

Anyone want to remind me how many people in charge that day were fired from their jobs, or were no punishable mistakes made?

What about the intelligence staff who allowed vital information to be kept from relevant departments; are they doing desk jobs in Nowheresville yet?

These are legitimate questions, and there were many that failed in their duties. However, the majority of problems came from systematic breakdowns of out-dated policies and lack of funding. I suggest you read "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright, it goes into painful detail of the problems prior to 9/11, and how close the culprits were to being found out.

 

[A W Smith]

These are legitimate questions, and there were many that failed in their duties. However, the majority of problems came from systematic breakdowns of out-dated policies and lack of funding. I suggest you read "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright, it goes into painful detail of the problems prior to 9/11, and how close the culprits were to being found out.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5010644&postcount=35

 

[johnny karate]

You're doing a great job of derbunking there guys.

I'll admit, I'm nearly convinced there was no conspiracy to bring the towers down, but there was definitely a conspiracy to prevent accountability to those in charge with dealing with it.

Anyone want to remind me how many people in charge that day were fired from their jobs, or were no punishable mistakes made?

Has anyone but AQ and Muslim communities on the other side of the world took a smackdown for the cock-ups of that day?

What about the intelligence staff who allowed vital information to be kept from relevant departments; are they doing desk jobs in Nowheresville yet?

Your post is one big contradiction and goalpost-shift. Either argue 9/11 was an inside job or don't. If you're arguing that it was, then expecting accountabilty from the very people you're implicating is nonsensical.

So pick a position and defend it. This constant changing of the topic without bothering to be internally consistent is a rather tedious Truther tactic most of us are quite tired of by now.

 

[BigAl]

You're doing a great job of derbunking there guys.

I'll admit, I'm nearly convinced there was no conspiracy to bring the towers down, but there was definitely a conspiracy to prevent accountability to those in charge with dealing with it.

Anyone want to remind me how many people in charge that day were fired from their jobs, or were no punishable mistakes made?

First we have to identify the mistakes.

Ragnarok, consider this; Until you came here, you were lied to about everything related to 9/11 and Dog knows what else. You were lied to by people that use the word "Truth", much too much. 9/11 and what lead up to it is an immense topic and we can't do this by playing games like whack-A-loon and 21 unsupported assertions. If you feel strongly about it (as many of us do), you need to do your own reading. I suggest starting by browsing the contents of this link;

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home​

Look at the bibliography there and start reading them. I call Cole's Ghost Wars and Zeigert's Spying Blind and Bamford's Shadow Factory and Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Wright essential reading. Once you read this, you will have a much more humble view of just how wide and thin the blame is spread. Zeigart and Bamford come the closest to pointing to specific blame and even there, it's organizational, not individual. I have my ideas of blame, I'll let you form your own.

The 9/11 Commission report should be at hand even if you don't read it cover-to-cover (Cole covers some of the same ground.)

Then there is eyewitness reports of what happened on and after 9/11: Report from Ground Zero: The Story of the Rescue Efforts at the World Trade Center by Dennis Smith and Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 - 150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses are exciting books.

There doesn't appear to be a similar "I was there" book about NORAD and the FAA. I recall a BBC program on YouTube but the title escapes me.

 

[Ragnarok]

Your post is one big contradiction and goalpost-shift. Either argue 9/11 was an inside job or don't. If you're arguing that it was, then expecting accountabilty from the very people you're implicating is nonsensical.

So pick a position and defend it. This constant changing of the topic without bothering to be internally consistent is a rather tedious Truther tactic most of us are quite tired of by now.

Sometimes, the problem with the scientific mind is that it concentrates on the minutiae and misses the bigger picture. Just saying, like.

 

[johnny karate]

Sometimes, the problem with the scientific mind is that it concentrates on the minutiae and misses the bigger picture. Just saying, like.

Sometimes the problem with raising pygmy horses is the tiny little hoofprints tracked all over your kitchen floor.

 

[Scott Sommers]

You mean like whether it really is possible to melt a steel beam with thermite. What a retard. Read a book every day before you go to bed.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Sometimes, the problem with the scientific mind is that it concentrates on the minutiae and misses the bigger picture. Just saying, like.

How ironic. I have yet to meet a truther who is even able to envision a big picture. Instead, he will pontificate endlessly on whether or not a building can fall "that way" without considering the insanity of the alternate explanations implied by his arguments.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Let's just deal with this for now. Are you actually saying that you asked the chief structural engineer for the WTC, and he told you that the bldg was designed to "fall in this way?"

Are you actually saying the bldg was built to collapse?

Buildings tend to fall straight down when they collapse, unless they are specifically designed to do otherwise. Why anyone would design it to collapse otherwise is anybody's guess.

 

[RedIbis]

Buildings tend to fall straight down when they collapse, unless they are specifically designed to do otherwise. Why anyone would design it to collapse otherwise is anybody's guess.

I thought bldgs were desgined to stay upright.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I thought bldgs were desgined to stay upright.

Usually buildings aren't allowed to burn for a few hours either... it's a problem when they have those pesky fires and not a drop of water to help contain it.

 

[Justin39640]

You're doing a great job of derbunking there guys.

I'll admit, I'm nearly convinced there was no conspiracy to bring the towers down, but there was definitely a conspiracy to prevent accountability to those in charge with dealing with it.

Anyone want to remind me how many people in charge that day were fired from their jobs, or were no punishable mistakes made?

Has anyone but AQ and Muslim communities on the other side of the world took a smackdown for the cock-ups of that day?

What about the intelligence staff who allowed vital information to be kept from relevant departments; are they doing desk jobs in Nowheresville yet?

so first you say "the gobermint did it with nanolasers"
then you say "AQ did it who do we punish?"

which is it? you cant have it both ways


red,
les robertson and crew did calculations on collapse mechanisms
as he said "when you design something you should understand how it can fail"
he also said they collapsed as predicted
(cant find the video anyone have it handy?)

 

[beachnut]

...
Anyone want to remind me how many people in charge that day were fired from their jobs, or were no punishable mistakes made?

...

You act as if you could have stopped it. So you are fired. Take your "know it all" opinion, based on hearsay, lies and moronic opinions and try to earn the Pulitzer Prize for whatever you are trying to sell so poorly.


Your best piece of evidence is? You got nothing but smart talk short on knowledge long on failed opinion. Your vast pile of evidence enumerated below.

1.




You have some company...

Are you kidding me debunker? ...

Is this your only evidence, some trash talk? You have the standard no evidence statement, "Got something else?". Is this a filler statement to cover for your lack of evidence? Why not post your best piece of evidence?

Here is the best from DC.

silly me, should have learned by now to not post in the "twoofer bashing" topics.

my fault, sorry.

Was this a punt on first down due to lack of evidence? Or standard truth cult A-game?

Red posts his best truther stuff; plagiarized NIST.

WTC 7 Column 79

Self-debunking

Then bwinwright presents talk no evidence.

Practically the entire "Official" 9/11 report was false. It has been thoroughly disproved.

Also, anyone who watches WTC Building Number 7 fall to the ground at free fall speed and NOT think it was intentionally demolished is absolutely delusional. Wow!

Man, you guys who believe these towers simply fell as the result of planes and fire are completely off the hook insane. You probably believe Osama bin Laden orchestrated it too.

Mistaking moronic conclusions for evidence.

And then we have super-nano-opinion with no evidence.

I think this place and the fact that nothing is ever debunked here is pretty good evidence.

Where is the evidence? Bet it is in the same place you keep your evidence; nowhere. Any bets?

Then we have a delusional post.

The list of WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville eyewitnesses who contradict the official story.

Again, I believe American citizens over the Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and has a WMD aresenal and mushroom cloud mushroom cloud mushroom cloud we're not torturing anybody because there are no secret cia european prisons and pat rambo tillman and jessica lynch and oh al qaeda al qaeda al qaeda oooga booga WMD crew.

No evidence just a crazy rant. The same big pile of evidence you used.

... void of evidence.

Thanks for agreeing with me that Chief Hayden was worried about collapse and casuing further damage and spreading fires.

... constantly debunking themselves.

Are all truther statements self-debunking? Do you think the so-called “truth” movement can find a piece of evidence before 2101 to support their crazy ideas? When will you post your best evidence to support your top delusion about 911?