• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uh-oh... looks like bill is in on the conspiracy. Clearly there's something about those statements he's afraid to reveal. :tinfoil
 
I have sighted Chipmunk Stew on the forums again! :)

Not sure if he'll post in 9/11 CT again though.
 
bill smith said:
I am posting this so that those who support the government lies on 9/11 can run back over the facts.

'' The following is a 40 minute edit of recently released videos from the AE911Truth San Fransisco press conference, the recent Fire Fighters for 911 Truth presentation with Mr. Lawyer and Mr. Gage, and the lecture recently given by David Ray Griffin at a Harvard church.''


http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-14/recent-video-compilation-controlled-demolition-evidence
Click to expand...

Not this Eric Lawyer guy is it?

FFS, I tore him to shreds somewhere......where did it go........Damn, it was on debatebothsides.com and the boards are off......
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay, I don't think I've mentioned this previously but I meant to. Your new avatar ROCKS! :D
 
Hey Bill?!?!?!?!? You ever going to address why you C&P'd a HUGE post DIRECTLY, WORD FOR WORD, from HISTORY COMMONS and TRIED to pass it off as your own?

Bill, please try to tell me why H.C. left off entire sentences that were inconvenient??
 
triforcharity said:
Hey Bill?!?!?!?!? You ever going to address why you C&P'd a HUGE post DIRECTLY, WORD FOR WORD, from HISTORY COMMONS and TRIED to pass it off as your own?

Bill, please try to tell me why H.C. left off entire sentences that were inconvenient??
Click to expand...

But I didn't try to pass it off as my own. Each and every quotation in hyperlink 1 as posted is fully attributed and dated as Readers can check at a glance.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6119185&postcount=2670 hyperlink 1

You are free to show any continuances to the statements in possible mitigation of them. I have not yet seen any that make a blind bit of difference to the raw power of the Firemen's own sworn statements describing in their own chilling words the explosive demolition of the WTC Towers on 9/11 . I hope and expect that the Readers can see that plainly for themselves.

In hyprerlink 2 there is a scientific analysis of the 12,000 pages of Firefighter statements that were released in august 2005 by a FOIA act request that was brought by the New York Times.All quotes are extracted from those 12,000 pages.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6109698&postcount=2634 hyperlink 2
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Plagiarism!? bill smith!? No way!!! :rolleyes:
'bill would never do a thing like that! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



Say Grizzley this is a little question I put to one 'Oystein' the other day. Do you agree with his answer and are you aware of the ramifications ?

bill smith wrote
[Sigh]..Just answer the dang question if you dare...

' Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ? '

Oystein answered.
Ok - assembly dropping on assembly.

What's your point?

The assembly of 13 single floors falls (picks up velocity, momentum) as a block.
I guess the assembly consideration is not unimportant. However as long as the assembly is intact, it can push its momentum down on the next stuctural elements it hits. If the assembly comes apart, momentum is not acted against an parts keep falling.
Crush-up occurs.

You can't get away from the fact that once the top floors fall, the structure below must eat away all the momentum and kinetic energy, and will fail doing so.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I am posting this so that those who support the government lies on 9/11 can run back over the facts.
...
Click to expand...
911 truth movement spews delusions so stupid only fringe paranoid conspiracy theorists believe the moronic poppycock.

Is the plot of 19 terrorists too complex. Too many steps?

1. Kill pilots
2. Crash planes into buildings

Wow, it is too complex. No wonder you prefer moronic delusions.

The terrorists need no help with your attempt at idiotic apologies for what they did. Why does 911 truth make up moronic lies and the terrorists take credit for 911; you tell lies, the terrorists tell the truth. Ironic or something.

bill smith said:
I am posting this so that those who support the government lies on 9/11 can run back over the facts.
...
Click to expand...
Prove the government lies! 8 years of failure and you perfected delusional 911 truth movement posting idiotic lies and unsupported claims.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
But I didn't try to pass it off as my own. Each and every quotation in hyperlink 1 as posted is fully attributed and dated as Readers can check at a glance.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6119185&postcount=2670 hyperlink 1

You are free to show any continuances to the statements in possible mitigation of them. I have not yet seen any that make a blind bit of difference to the raw power of the Firemen's own sworn statements describing in their own chilling words the explosive demolition of the WTC Towers on 9/11 . I hope and expect that the Readers can see that plainly for themselves.

In hyprerlink 2 there is a scientific analysis of the 12,000 pages of Firefighter statements that were released in august 2005 by a FOIA act request that was brought by the New York Times.All quotes are extracted from those 12,000 pages.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6109698&postcount=2634 hyperlink 2
Click to expand...

That is not a ******* scientific analysis! Someone took all the PDFs, opened them, and did a Ctrl+F and searched for explosion and simmilar words.
So, each and every one of them are taken out of context. That is not the scientific way to analize something.

Now, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SIMPLY POST TE LINK TO H.C??? Goddamn, it's like talking to a roasted duck.....

And FFS, stop trying to be a martyr. You posted a "plagerized" bunch of **** from an even ******** website. Now that I have torn it to shreds, posting EXACTLY what the firefighters said, PROVING that it was quote mined and taken out of context, you want to try to change your BS story?

Grow the **** up dude Seriously.

It's ok to admit you were wrong and learn from it.
 
I strongly advise people to carefully read the data and watch the video in the post triforcharity is answering. It absolutely proves that that WTC Towers were deliberately demolished using explosives and incendiaries on 9/11.

People like tri think that we need 100% empirical roof to demonstrate that 9/11 was an inside job. But read my sig. That is the reality and we have more than enough circumstantial evidence to make that stick worldwide. This is even without our scientific bodies like ae911truth.org who will nail the scientific proof to the wall just for good measure.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I strongly advise people to carefully read the data and watch the video in the post triforcharity is answering. It absolutely proves that that WTC Towers were deliberately demolished using explosives and incendiaries on 9/11.

People like tri think that we need 100% empirical roof to demonstrate that 9/11 was an inside job. But read my sig. That is the reality and we have more than enough circumstantial evidence to make that stick worldwide. This is even without our scientific bodies like ae911truth.org who will nail the scientific proof to the wall just for good measure.
Click to expand...

You must be ******* drunk.

There is no physical evidence whatsoever of a CD.
BTW, if there is enough "circumstantial" evidence to "make that stick" why has the TM not taken their "evidence" to any court anywhere?

Now, stop changing the subject.

Lets address just ONE of these cherry picked quotes.


bill smith said:
Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio: “It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion.” [City of New York, 10/12/2001
Click to expand...

Triforcharity said:
"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.From here, Page 5
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110064.PDF
Click to expand...


Now, Why would they leave out the END OF THE SENTENCE?!?!?!?
 
triforcharity said:
You must be ******* drunk.

There is no physical evidence whatsoever of a CD.
BTW, if there is enough "circumstantial" evidence to "make that stick" why has the TM not taken their "evidence" to any court anywhere?

Now, stop changing the subject.

Lets address just ONE of these cherry picked quotes.







Now, Why would they leave out the END OF THE SENTENCE?!?!?!?
Click to expand...

Well they may have dropped it because NIST themselves had aleady said that there had been NO pancaking of floors. ZERO pancaking according to NIST therefore he had to have heard the true demolition explosions he and his 118 colleages so clearly describe in post #2694 just above.( In the hyperlinks).
 
Last edited:
It's near impossible to get the message to people who are incapable of:

  • Doing background research to ensure the quotes are completely in context
  • Who cannot discern between theories dealing with collapse initiation, and collapse progression

It's a lack of skepticism, ironically that the truth movement suffers from. While they spend their time doubting what they refer to as the "official narrative" they have absolutely zero skepticism of the material they source because the government lies no matter what the accuracy of the claim itself is.

Also, I've come under the impression that posting their own famed quotes in context makes them think that the complete excerpts themselves are somehow quote mines or fakery because it doesn't agree with their preconcieved conclusions
 
bill smith said:
Well they may have dropped it because NIST themselves had aleady said that there had been NO pancaking of floors. ZERO pancaking according to NIST therefore he had to have heard the true demolition explosions he and his 118 colleages so clearly describe in post #2694 just above.( In the hyperlinks).
Click to expand...

Where did NIST say there was No pancaking of floors?

My understanding was they concluded that PANCAKING was not a cause of collapse INITIATION. I hadn't thought they had said anything more on pancaking beyond that.

Anyone? Reference/source?

TAM:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom