Proof that 9/11 Truthers Are Dangerous and are a Threat against george bush

carlitos said:
Saying that the purpose of the Commission is silly is just fine. Criticize it all you want.

But, once the purpose was explained to you and quoted here "to study the terrorist attacks..." THEN you can't go and say "why didn't they give detailed explanations about "WTC7" (The Solomon Brothers Building). Because that building wasn't attacked by terrorists, it was outside the scope of the 9/11 Commission.
Click to expand...


This is one of the points I disagree, they WERE attacked by terrorists in a sense. It was destroyed followed by the collapse of the towers (says the official story). The building was important and many valuable things were lost due to it's complete and unpeculiar collapse. To me, and to many others, your truthers included, they should have saved part of their laughable and extensive narrative about the obvious, in order to dedicate some time at what was ommited. You can label it ignorance and incredulity, and I label back this attack "gullibility/credulity".

carlitos said:
Do you understand now? You can criticize the Commission report all you want, even if you haven't read it all the way. Just don't ask "why didn't they explain WTC7" because that question shows you to be ignorant of the purpose of the Commission.
Click to expand...

I understand but disagree. It only shows I do not buy or support their alleged objective, with the whole silly political and heart touching agenda of the report. To even consider someone who has an IQ greater than 70 could have been touched by that story is sickening.
 
fallout, try this:

9/11 Commission = political report. Narrative to explain events of 9/11.
FEMA report = initial scientific / engineering report of building collapses.
NIST report = detailed engineering explanation for various building failures.

No one has to be "touched" by the 9/11 Commission report. It damns the government more than any truther nonsense, anyway.
 
carlitos said:
fallout, try this:

9/11 Commission = political report. Narrative to explain events of 9/11.
FEMA report = initial scientific / engineering report of building collapses.
NIST report = detailed engineering explanation for various building failures.

No one has to be "touched" by the 9/11 Commission report. It damns the government more than any truther nonsense, anyway.
Click to expand...


Now I agree that that's the reality, that's the way they chose to do it. But I still think the commission report is a mean pile of poo. Would you understand that, even if disagreeing? What's the real number of people who would really care about a silly narrative political report? Go figure the number of critics about it, why I pointed the amazon reviews as an example of what I'm saying here. In my opinion it's pure sensationalism.

Now if you or someone else jumps in calling me truther and names for thinking the report is nothing but sensationalist crap, would beg for addressing all the criticism raised against it.
 
What's the real number of people who would really care about a silly narrative political report?
Click to expand...
It made it to the top of several bestseller lists after its release. Your opinion is ... your opinion. In my opinion, it told the story pretty well in a lot of ways. Not everyone is willing to slag through all of the source material. The form of the report was actually pretty readable.
 
Some posts moved to AAH.

Keep it civil please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
ElMondoHummus said:
He explains why the 9/11 Commision Report didn't discuss buildings beyond the main tower and you try to write that off as "useless"? No. He explained why it happened; you don't get to turn around and simply write it off as "useless" without reason. The burden is on you to explain why you think "(t)hey should have save some pages of the cool story to narrate those buildings falling as well". Especially in the light of the fact that NIST was the one charged with providng that explanation, and not the 9/11 Commision. Why would the Commision be obligated to include that info? Especially considering the fact that the NIST investigation was still not complete at the time of the hearings, and especially considering the fact that detailing the engineering details of the buildings failures were never part of their responsibilities to begin with.
Click to expand...

2 years for a political story to touch people in the heart, and 4 years for a scientific report? That's ace stuff imo.

I guess they had at least a moral obligation of explaining (even in a cute narrative and poetic way) the current scientific understanding behind the collapses of the other buildings because a gargantuan ammount of people was clearly upset about how building 7 looked like a controlled demolition. And everyone knew it, they knew it, and you know it. You seem not to want to cast a critical eye upon the report silly "purpose" and execution. Everyone had to wait 4 years for the initial briefing of the scientific study behind the collapses.
 
Could the MODs please explain why this post was removed?

"Then may i suggest that you take your opinions away from JREF and dont come back. I see no point in you argueing over a report that even if 99% wrong wouldnt change the fact that 19 terrorists did it. It has been proved that they did it. They have admitted it. The report is just one of many. Take all the videos away. Take all the eye witnesses away. Take Jref and all the other sites away. It doesnt change the fact that 19 terrorists hyjacked 4 commercial aircraft and killed thousands.

The one issue that escapes your attention and often escapes all truthers attention is that UBL, KSM, Atta etc never expected the towers to collapse. They never expected the towers to collapse and damage other buildings. I very much doubt that they truly expected those hyjackers to succeed at all. Your laboured points on WTC7 etc are therefore irrelevent. They where not the target. WTC 1,2 the Pentagon and ? where the target. You have no comprehension of what it is you discuss because you have been listening to lies and dillusions for too long. "

The above post was a valid response.
 
carlitos said:
It made it to the top of several bestseller lists after its release. Your opinion is ... your opinion. In my opinion, it told the story pretty well in a lot of ways. Not everyone is willing to slag through all of the source material. The form of the report was actually pretty readable.
Click to expand...

It's pretty readable, yes, and it could be still pretty readable even if they had avoided the novel style. At some point it borders the mental "masturbation" about the obvious, and should be covering way more things. Especially what some credible people like former cia/fbi/military have promptly criticized and offered help. And what about the lots of testimonials documented by mainstream TV media about huge and powerful explosions that thrown some people away, lobby of the building completely destroyed and etc. Just gas tanks exploding inside the building way below the fire? And all that before the truth movement even start. In fact many of the explosion reports were given even before the buildings collapsed, talk about valid testimonial! Even if the comissioneers knew all of these people were talking crap, or were fraud and liars, they would do way better by including the odd claims there and then debunking them one by one, even if done in a drama style, because the claims were being made in a direct way , probably honestly by people who were by the crime scene. They had two years for that. That's the omissive part which many people got upset at. One should only hope you would at least respect their concerns, if you don't agree.

All in all , it's obvious that what they wrote, they probably got right. How couldn't they? They focused only in the hypothesis that it was simply a huge intelligence failure,in the most advanced intelligence system in the world, as to allow 19 hijackers to do that even if the growing number of terrorist alerts at that time is a fact. They simply did refuse though , to look at or include what many obviously credible people had to say and could possibly reveal other things. We can debate over they being credible or not, but it wouldn't go anywhere. We'd better have the actual people debating between themselves in an extensive report as why this laughable security failure occurred and how the mysterious and numerous explosions claims had to be all wrong. It's not surprising that most of those people I mentioned became truthers after being thoroughly ignored.

The above is my opinion, and I'm glad you finally understood what I was talking about, i.e. not trying to prove that the report didn't fulfill their own promise, but rather stating that imo it was a silly promise, to be kind.
 
Last edited:
Response in bold.

fallout said:
2 years for a political story to touch people in the heart, and 4 years for a scientific report? That's ace stuff imo.

I guess they had at least a moral obligation of explaining (even in a cute narrative and poetic way) the current scientific understanding behind the collapses of the other buildings because a gargantuan ammount of people was clearly upset about how building 7 looked like a controlled demolition.



Wrong. Nobody that was there nor any other New Yorkers expressed anything like that opinion on and after 9/11. WTC7 was even called the "good news" of the day by some people because nobody died in the collapse. It wasn't until people that weren't there, weren't even New Yorkers, and had no engineering expertise started what we now know as the "Truth Movement" and even then, they focused on WTC1 and 2. As I understand it, WTC7 wasn't called the smoking gun until k00k claims for WTC1 and 2 got no traction in the real world.

I'm a New Yorker and an eyewitness to some of what happened at WTC.


And everyone knew it, they knew it, and you know it. You seem not to want to cast a critical eye upon the report silly "purpose" and execution. Everyone had to wait 4 years for the initial briefing of the scientific study behind the collapses.
Click to expand...



When did NIST get funding for the WTC7 study? Nothing happens until an agency gets funding.
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
Response in bold.
Click to expand...

But the whole area was isolated wasn't it? Of course no one died, look at the ammount of time they had to evacuate. It became even difficult, (as many official story supporters says) for cameras to reach and document the damaged area of the building. And on top of that, no closer footage of the collapse taking place from the damage part was ever registered. Then all we have is the typical footage from far away which can be compared to a controlled demolition at first sight.

Out of curiosity, how did they address the fact that one firefighter said: "stay away, they're bringing down the building". I think that's what he said. I'll try to find it again.

BigAl said:

It didn't take 4 years for NIST to produce the WTC7 study. They didn't start until they got funding and that didn't happen until well after the WTC1/2 report was produced.
Click to expand...

And that is precisely one of the really sad parts of it all.
 
Bold response

But the whole area was isolated wasn't it?

It by "isolated", you mean it was within sight and hearing of a few thousand people.

Of course no one died, look at the ammount of time they had to evacuate. It became even difficult, (as many official story supporters says) for cameras to reach and document the damaged area of the building.

The damaged side was a burning, smoking hell that became known as the pile.

Few people carried digital cameras, especially at work in 2001. I bet not one fireman carried a camera on 9/11.

And on top of that, no closer footage of the collapse taking place from the damage part was ever registered.

What is "Registered"?

See the thread on the new images coming out from the FDNY photographer who was in a helicopter.


Then all we have is the typical footage from far away which can be compared to a controlled demolition at first sight.

Out of curiosity, how did they address the fact that one firefighter said: "stay away, they're bringing down the building". I think that's what he said. I'll try to find it again.

Ever play the children's game of telephone?

So what? Lots of people said things on 9/11.


And that is precisely one of the really sad parts of it all.
 
Last edited:
eek bigAL that's hard to quote back. Lots of cut and paste needed. :)


eta: I'll do that a lil later, I already wasted precious work time. :)
 
Last edited:
fallout said:
Now I agree that that's the reality, that's the way they chose to do it. But I still think the commission report is a mean pile of poo
Click to expand...
.


You said yourself that you had not read it. Now you can choose not to read it based on others opinions but you cannot with any validity at all criticize it yourself without having read it!
Click to expand...
 
fallout said:
Now I agree that that's the reality, that's the way they chose to do it. But I still think the commission report is a mean pile of poo.
Click to expand...


Can you point to s specific part of the Commission Report where a flaw affected the conclusions?

I don't mean pointing to where someone allegedly lied to them. Yes, there was at least one liar but the commission investigators seem to have worked around less-then-cooperative people.
 
fallout said:
It's an ad hom in the form of calling a logical fallacy over me.
Click to expand...

epic-failure.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom