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

[carlitos]

kudos

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.

Your literary criticism is just that.

You reiterate a lot of long-debunked claims in your post. I don't have time to address them here. You could use the search feature at jref and find many answers. With apologies, that's my total response, at least for the next day or so.

 

[kookbreaker]

[derail]
How in frakking hell do you flip an Abrams?
[/derail]

I don't think that is an Abrams. It doesn't look wide enough at all.

 

[Brainache]

[derail]
How in frakking hell do you flip an Abrams?
[/derail]

Ask Unsecured Coins. I think he, or one of his tank driving buddies managed it.

 

[TruthersLie]

Since da twoof can't handle da twoof and has me on ignore, this is an exercise for me.

This is one of the points I disagree, they WERE attacked by terrorists in a sense.

"in a sense?" Again you don't understand the scope and premise of the 9/11 commission report. WTC7 and the other buildings which were destroyed due to the collapse of wtc1 and 2 were not targets, nor were they the intended consequence of the attacks.

They were gravy. They were extra. As such, they were not targeted, and not part of the report.

Personal ignorance and incredulity rocks.

It was destroyed followed by the collapse of the towers (says the official story).

So were 10 other buildings in the collapse zone. Should ALL of them have a narrative in the 9/11 cR? Of course not. If you want to know what happened to them go to the FEMA and NIST reports.

The building was important and many valuable things were lost due to it's complete and unpeculiar collapse.

WTC7 was a rather unknown building in NYC. There was very little "lost" do to the collapse. Yes files were lost, but most of them were backed up.

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".

What was the purpose of the 9/11 CR? To explain in detail exactly what happened to each and every building collapsed, or to look into the systematic failures which allowed the attacks to occur? Dur...

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.

If you understood, then you wouldn't keep beating this dead horse. You wouldn't keep repeating your mantra of personal ignorance and incredulity.

To even consider someone who has an IQ greater than 70 could have been touched by that story is sickening.

You again misunderstand what the report was about. It wasn't to "touch" anyone, but to provide a narrative of the systematic failures which allowed this to happen.

How is that so hard to understand?

 

[TruthersLie]

I guess

edited to the key point.

Now instead of guessing, actually educate yourself. What was the purpose of the 9/11 cr?

Please actually try to read it before you start running it down.

 

[walkyrie]

Remember the World Trade Center did not collapse. It was pulverized. The buildings did not pancake and there are no pancaked floors as a result. The tops of the buildings did not remain intact to crush the intact lower 80 percent of the building . These buildings exploded out laterally . Can you tell the difference between a gravity collapse and jumping explosive demolition? Here is the North Tower Exploding. Narrated by physicist David Chandler, who FORCED NIST to correct their data and admit to free-fall for WTC 7. (Which by itself proves explosives were used). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
Hat Tips! Thanks!

 

[Arus808]

Remember the World Trade Center did not collapse. It was pulverized. The buildings did not pancake and there are no pancaked floors as a result. The tops of the buildings did not remain intact to crush the intact lower 80 percent of the building . These buildings exploded out laterally . Can you tell the difference between a gravity collapse and jumping explosive demolition? Here is the North Tower Exploding. Narrated by physicist David Chandler, who forced NIST to correct their data and admit to free-fall for WTC 7. (Which by itself proves explosives were used). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
Hat Tips! Thanks!

everything in this post is wrong and/or a lie.

 

[walkyrie]

everything in this post is wrong and/or a lie.

And therefore you are a DISINFORMATION agent

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm also a disinformation agent, on the payroll of the NSA's elite Third Echelon Directive. Your IP address has been noted, logged, and your personal electronic communication devices scheduled for liquefication.

You can't prove otherwise.

 

[332nd]

Remember the World Trade Center did not collapse. It was pulverized. The buildings did not pancake and there are no pancaked floors as a result. The tops of the buildings did not remain intact to crush the intact lower 80 percent of the building . These buildings exploded out laterally . Can you tell the difference between a gravity collapse and jumping explosive demolition? Here is the North Tower Exploding. Narrated by physicist David Chandler, who FORCED NIST to correct their data and admit to free-fall for WTC 7. (Which by itself proves explosives were used). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
Hat Tips! Thanks!

No... This, all of this, is just wrong.

 

[Brainache]

Remember the World Trade Center did not collapse. It was pulverized. The buildings did not pancake and there are no pancaked floors as a result. The tops of the buildings did not remain intact to crush the intact lower 80 percent of the building . These buildings exploded out laterally . Can you tell the difference between a gravity collapse and jumping explosive demolition? Here is the North Tower Exploding. Narrated by physicist David Chandler, who FORCED NIST to correct their data and admit to free-fall for WTC 7. (Which by itself proves explosives were used). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
Hat Tips! Thanks!

Where do you hear this rubbish and why on earth would you believe it?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Now, now Joey... Liquefaction is a bit harsh. I think that a little extra mercury slipped into walkyrie's next vaccination and a touch of extra fluoridation of walkyrie's water supply will do. An extra pass or two of project CHEMTRAIL over walkyrie's current residence to top it off should do the trick...

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Remember the World Trade Center did not collapse.

Yes it did.

It was pulverized.

No it wasn't.

The buildings did not pancake and there are no pancaked floors as a result.

Following collapse initiation, it did.

The tops of the buildings did not remain intact to crush the intact lower 80 percent of the building .

The tops of the buildings didn't need to stay intact. If someone dropped a two ton brick wall on your house, or if they just dropped two tons of loose bricks... which do you think would cause more damage? Would you even be able to tell?

These buildings exploded out laterally . Can you tell the difference between a gravity collapse and jumping explosive demolition?

Seismographs at LDEO can. No seismic signatures = no explosives.

Here is the North Tower Exploding. Narrated by physicist David Chandler,

High school teacher David Chandler. Not a physicist.

who FORCED NIST to correct their data and admit to free-fall for WTC 7. (Which by itself proves explosives were used).

WTC7 took more than sixteen seconds to collapse. That's nowhere close to freefall. Sorry.

 

[Dave Rogers]

2 years for a political story to touch people in the heart, and 4 years for a scientific report?

2 years for a thorough investigation into the organisational failings that rendered the defences unable to prevent the attack, because the government wanted to cover their arses and thought the results would make them look bad, is a significant failing in an urgent task. Four years for a thorough investigation of how building practices can be improved to mitigate the effects of a once-in-a-century event, given the relative lack of urgency, seems perfectly reasonable. I can easily see how delay in the 9/11 Commission Report could have resulted in more terrorist successes (although, fortunately, it seems not to have). I find it a little more difficult to see why the quality of the NIST report on WTC7 should have been compromised by rushing the work.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

everything in this post is wrong and/or a lie.

That's a little harsh. It is, indeed, David Chandler narrating. Everything else is a lie.

Dave

 

[Sabrina]

And therefore you are a DISINFORMATION agent

Argumentum ad hominem noted.

 

[TruthersLie]

Someone should point this out to FALLOUT. You know, what this post 216 is and how ad hominem is actually done.

Not pointing out arguments from personal ignorance and incredulity.

Tsk tsk tsk.

N

 

[kookbreaker]

And therefore you are a DISINFORMATION agent

Well, that stunning argument proves your claims completely. I cannot imagine how we could take the opposing position when it could be seen from a mile away that such stunning logical arguments were there for you to employ. With but a single sentence you have manage to not only prove us utterly wrong, but have overturned decades and in some cases centuries of known physics and engineering. The world is now a completely different place!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Now, now Joey... Liquefaction is a bit harsh. I think that a little extra mercury slipped into walkyrie's next vaccination and a touch of extra fluoridation of walkyrie's water supply will do. An extra pass or two of project CHEMTRAIL over walkyrie's current residence to top it off should do the trick...

How's the lithium levels in his town's water supply? I've been meaning to check that.

Folks there have been getting mighty uppity lately.

 

[Longfellow]

And therefore you are a DISINFORMATION agent

I hate to break this to you, walkyrie, but there is no such thing as a "DISINFORMATION agent". What you have encountered is someone capable of rational thought. Nothing more, nothing less.

Although I can see where you might be confused.

On the other hand, it just occurred to me that you, walkyrie, might actually be a true "DISINFORMATION agent". You post lies and distortions in an effort to deflect the blame away from those responsible. In my book, that makes you a traitor.

On the gripping hand, however, the '911 truth movement' is pretty much nonexistent outside of cyberspace so there's really not much point in worrying about the likes of you, is there?

Ooo- something shiny!