Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[bill smith]

Bill:
As the readers have undoubtedly noticed, you have never been able to explain why these "explosions" were not caught on the numerous taped views of the events. Care to try again (before the "readers" think your a liar)?

So now that you have seen the video above in post #2413 and know that 9/11 was an inside job what are you going to do about it ?

Are you going to say that the firemen's sworn statements taken on and around 9/11 are all lies or mistakes and say that the video of the exploding building is also a fake or forgery ?

Readers- if he does that then you have an excellent example of total denial bordering on mental illness. That or DGM is a professional agent here to blanket-deny anything that indicates an inside job.

 

[TruthersLie]

So by this bizarre logic if it wasn't caught on the audio of a videocamera, it didn't happen.

This assumes that videocameras were close enough, with strong enough mics, to capture what eyewitnesses reported.

No red.

Like normal you dodge and weave.

Ready?

I have worked in demolitions. I have experience in setting charges and having them go off.

Please, pretty please choose ANY amount of High explosives (or regular explosives) necessary to cut the columns. Now go and look up how loud that is.

Even 1,000 lbs of dynamite (which is what the 93 bombing had and didn't cut a single column) can be heard CLEARLY over a mile away from the site of detontion.

Yet we are supposed to believe that dozens of these (at least) were detonated (and they would have to be stronger to actually sever columns unless they were shaped charges (and we can get into that in a minute)) and yet not one single video camera from the distance of right under the towers (the ABC cameraman video, the naudet video, the video of the firefighters who turn to look up, the doctor who hid behind a collapsing car who was RIGHT under the towers, etc...) has a single explosion on them, let alone the minimum dozens of successive concussive blasts.

Was it magical hush a boom?

Any video camera within a half mile of an explosion of over 1,000 lbs of TNT would have heard it.

and High explosives shaped charges which use LESS explosives are JUST as loud if NOT LOUDER.

So again and again, your appeals from ignorance and incredulity are noted.

Now back to the topic at hand. Please provide a single video (that is authentic) that has a series of rapid fire, concussive blasts. It should be easy.

I'll wait for it.

or do you admit you don't have jack?

 

[Toke]

I still don't get why a alternate collapse mechanism is required for a conspiracy theory.

I assume the objective of a ct is to place all blame on nefarious US-government employees, and/or Bush-Cheney. Why not let the theory have them arrange the high-jacking and then let the rest play out as in reality, it is much simpler.

 

[DGM]

So now that you have seen the video above in post #2413 and know that 9/11 was an inside job what are you going to do about it ?

Sorry to hear you are gullible enough to think that video captured an explosive demolition of the towers. I'm positive the readers are not that daft.

Are you going to say that the firemen's sworn statements taken on and around 9/11 are all lies or mistakes and say that the video of the exploding building is also a fake or forgery ?

Video altered. The firefighters were using similes (perhaps you've heard of this).

Readers- if he does that then you have an excellent example of total denial bordering on mental illness. That or DGM is a professional agent here to blanket-deny anything that indicates an inside job.

Seeing that I don't think (and have never said) the witnesses on the scene were liars or mistaken I guess I'm OK.

 

[DGM]

I still don't get why a alternate collapse mechanism is required for a conspiracy theory.

I assume the objective of a ct is to place all blame on nefarious US-government employees, and/or Bush-Cheney. Why not let the theory have them arrange the high-jacking and then let the rest play out as in reality, it is much simpler.

It's boring. CT's are like movies, no one likes a boring movie.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I still don't get why a alternate collapse mechanism is required for a conspiracy theory.

That's because you're looking at it the right way round. A conspiracy theory is required to explain an alternate collapse mechanism, therefore refuting the known collapse mechanism demonstrates the validity of the conspiracy theory [1]. Conspiracy theorists have at least a vague idea of the concept of falsifiability, and so pick on collapse mechanisms because, if they were right, there would be no doubt that the events of 9/11 were more complex than is generally understood. Unfortunately, they don't appreciate that fantasy is not evidence.

Dave

[1] This is not, in fact, true, as others have pointed out, but it's what conspiracy theorists believe, so from their point of view it's irrefutable logic.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

"Strong enough mics"? What the hell does that mean?

"if video cameras were close enough to the collapse."

People took footage from as close as tower 1's lobby as tower 2 collapsed, within less than a block of the base of the towers. I guess wish hush-a-booms wrapped in matresses encased with gypsum one needs a special mic

So by this bizarre logic if it wasn't caught on the audio of a videocamera, it didn't happen.

Well with claims of demolition charges powerful enough to launch large structural members 500 ft at 60 mph floating around the casual observer might be more concerned about the lack of shrapnel injuries, blast trauma injuries, global shattering of windows nearby from the loud sounds, and the like; especially with an unregulated demolition that according to conspiracists such as Tony Szamboti claim sent "banana peel plumes shooting skyward" along with pyroclastic dust clouds.

I suspect people would be skeptical...

 

[Toke]

It's boring. CT's are like movies, no one likes a boring movie.

Interesting point.
I am just looking at it from a credibility perspective, personally I would hate getting slapped around with reality like the truthers here are.

It would be much more believable* to imply some covering up, looking the other way, or facilitating an attack.

*Well ok, and boring.
Having 500 ninjas sneaking through the building above the ceiling tiles to plant explosives is a lot sexier.

 

[bill smith]

Sorry to hear you are gullible enough to think that video captured an explosive demolition of the towers. I'm positive the readers are not that daft.



Video altered. The firefighters were using similes (perhaps you've heard of this).


Seeing that I don't think (and have never said) the witnesses on the scene were liars or mistaken I guess I'm OK.

lol. Well...I'm happy to leave to to the Readers to judge.

This particular argument just gets more and more effective at exposing guys like TAM and you- and I'm sure the Readers can easily pick out a few others in recent posts for whatever it is that you are.

The fog has cleared and the evidence now speaks for itself.

 

[Toke]

That's because you're looking at it the right way round. A conspiracy theory is required to explain an alternate collapse mechanism, therefore refuting the known collapse mechanism demonstrates the validity of the conspiracy theory [1]. Conspiracy theorists have at least a vague idea of the concept of falsifiability, and so pick on collapse mechanisms because, if they were right, there would be no doubt that the events of 9/11 were more complex than is generally understood. Unfortunately, they don't appreciate that fantasy is not evidence.

Dave

[1] This is not, in fact, true, as others have pointed out, but it's what conspiracy theorists believe, so from their point of view it's irrefutable logic.

Perhaps I am getting the objective wrong, having an impressive CT could be more important than who it is blamed on or how believable it is.

 

[DGM]

The fog has cleared and the evidence now speaks for itself.

Yes it does (that's why your "theories" never gain any ground)

 

[Jackanory]

It amazes me that some of these 911 truth seekers post on average 13 posts per day and link to reams and reams of info that one has to think they have also read to become educated.

If they also read the replies they get and read the links they get then all in all that would possibly amount to the ammount of reading required towards gaining a law degree or towards the completion of an apprenticeship. Yet they are still clueless and are still here argueing the toss and waving that finger and warning us that the time will come when the smoking guns will admonish 19 terrorists. Pathetic really. Hard to believe that any of them are adults seeking to expose an inside job.

 

[bill smith]

delete

 

[tsig]

"Strong enough mics"? What the hell does that mean?

They could leap over tall buildings, bend steel and stop speeding locomotives.

 

[tsig]

Red's learning from Jammonius. If he can pretend evidence doesn't exist, then he doesn't need to explain it away.

Dave

It's like a graduate school for troothers here. We ought to charge tuition.

 

[DGM]

More than you think. I hear theories that I have had all over the Internet. But obviously not here at the heart of Shilldom. The jref is widely known to be the home of the Official Government Conspiracy Theory on 9/11. As such it is likely to be crawling with paid agents of the perps. Personally I believe I have identified lots and can often even guess to which payscale they approximately belong.

That's nice.

Why would you think we would get paid to sit here and debunk you? Think about it, you come to us. Why not ignore us and spread your word elsewhere?

 

[Blackwell]

More than you think. I hear theories that I have had all over the Internet. But obviously not here at the heart of Shilldom. The jref is widely known to be the home of the Official Government Conspiracy Theory on 9/11. As such it is likely to be crawling with paid agents of the perps. Personally I believe I have identified lots and can often even guess to which payscale they approximately belong

Hilarity.

 

[bill smith]

That's nice.

Why would you think we would get paid to sit here and debunk you? Think about it, you come to us. Why not ignore us and spread your word elsewhere?

Most do. But I get a perverse satisfaction out of coming into the Lion's den (sic) and bearding you in your own base. I find it more effective to show you up here than to preach to the choir elsewhere. It's just amazing how the half-dozen Truthers here can run the whole 500 or more of you ragged.

You saw how effective the fireman stuff is becoming ? Prepare for more. Fair warning.

 

[tsig]

lol. Well...I'm happy to leave to to the Readers to judge.

This particular argument just gets more and more effective at exposing guys like TAM and you- and I'm sure the Readers can easily pick out a few others in recent posts for whatever it is that you are.

The fog has cleared and the evidence now speaks for itself.

Bill, who are these "Readers" you keep talking to? Do you imagine there are thousands of lurkers reading this thread?

If you addressed the actual posters here instead of these mythical "Readers" you might have better luck.

 

[Jackanory]

Notice how the 911 truth seekers seem to exagerate everything and inflate certain senarios to make themselves appear more important than they really are yet they go on to use phrases like 'widely known' and 'it is likely' and 'i believe' and 'i guess' and 'approximately' an 'obviously'. Talk about being indecisive about knowing the truth.