Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
Now you see it, now you don't.

Now you don't see it, now you do.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Has the old adage, "Now you don't see fire, now you do see fire!" ever been so alarmingly true?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. You're still making stuff up.

Par for the course with you though.
 
NoahFence said:
Would you just answer the (expletive deleted) question!!??!!

man up for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

I stopped bothering with asking him to answer... if he doesn't want to answer he doesn't need to; in return, those expecting an answer aren't obligated to take any of his issues with Silverstein, or for that matter anything else he takes issue with seriously. His case hasn't been demonstrated as having merit, and he ain't ever going to get it into court let alone judged.
 
NIST acknowledged no fires within WTC-7 prior to 12 noon on September 11, 2001. If the Twin Towers had already collapsed over an hour earlier, how did these numerous fires start? Flaming aluminum debris and steel beams ejected 400 feet inside the WTC-7? Or arson fires set by a secret team?

According to NIST: "From 11:30 am to 2:30 pm: no diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas. No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas. In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20, and signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of Floor 23 were heard--seen---smelled from Floor 22 Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m."

."
Click to expand...

Hilited portions indicate that the opening sentence is incorrect.

So HOW exactly did all those other fires suddenly ignite? If the Twin Towers had already collapsed more than 90 minutes before, how did ejected aluminum debris and steel beams cause several spontaneous fires? And if ejected material did not cause the fires, what did? "There is no visible debris on the roof," NIST stated. So how did so many fires start inside the building---and why didn't an equal number of fires start inside the Verizon or Post Office building?
Click to expand...

Suddenly ignite?
Simply because many of what developed into major fires were small and difficult to detect earlier on? The building was filled with dust had no lighting and the entire island of Manhattan smelled of smoke and dust, and if you read the paragraph for comprehension you will notice that all these observations were done from the exterior or the stairwells or lobby!
What does the fact that there was no 'visible' debris on the roof have to do with this topic at all?
WTC 7 was directly in line with WTC 1 and had larger windows than the other two structures. It thuis stands to reason that it took a greater hit than they did.
Soon the fires inside WTC-7 spread in a most haphazard fashion. Almost as if a pyromaniac, or a team of well-trained arsonists, raced from floor to floor.
Click to expand...
Fires ignited as a result of the crashing debris onto the structure causes a chaotic spread of fires. Imagine that!
Fires were reported on floors 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Floors 19, 21, 22 and 29 also reported fires. Who knew the contents of WTC-7 were so combustable.
Click to expand...
So the middle floors of the structure were the most affected. I ask again then what no visible debris on the roof has to do with this subject?

Curious indeed that the Secret Service occupied floors 9 and 10, while the SEC occupied 11 and 12. Curious indeed.
Click to expand...

Why?
Because destroying data and docuements is most effectively done by burning entire offices then demolishing the building they are in? Frankly would have been more effective to let the entire structure, every single bit of floor space burn........then just for kicks, crumple it up.
OTOH simply removing any docuements you needed to destroy over several weeks, to a secure location then shred them and burn the shredded paper would have been the most effective.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Rense.com, the best place for neoNAZIs and idiots to find lies and false information tailored for their delusions. You made an excellent find of woo, rense.com, a place where people go to find dumb stuff. I hope the lies there have not fooled you. In the age of anyone can publish anything of the neo-Modern Internet, you have to exercise judgement. Nice find, excellent example of crazy claims on 911, but skeptics know rense.com is not a reliable source.

Good post, you found a moron who can't figure out 911, an excellent example of crazy 911 truth conspiracy theories on 911. Good find, you are only 5 years late. Wow, 5 year old nonsense. Good that you did not fall for the failed nonsense. 5 years... wow - you are only 5 years behind. What engineering school did you graduate from?
Click to expand...

The clock is ticking. Get your licks in.
 
tempesta29 said:
Nonsense. The college kids in the streets of the US chanting "USA!" were not expressing pent up pain in any sense. They were celebrating death like people celebrate a victory on a football field. Nothing more. Don't be deluded.

Family members seeking closure comprised a very small percentage of the celebrating crowds.
Click to expand...

And you know this HOW?
 
tempesta29 said:
What percentage of people celebrating worldwide would you estimate actually lost loved ones on 9/11?
Click to expand...

Well considering the average family would be an average of four minus one loved one who died on 9/11 let's take 3 and multiply that by 3000 - What do you get?
 
Childlike Empress said:
SOME of it is coming from WTC7. I don't dispute that. But the "the whole south side was engulfed in flames" line put forward with the deceptive image Dave Thomas posted is BS. The bulk of the smoke comes from WTC3 and the tower ruins.
Click to expand...

BZZZZZ!!! Wrong again my dear! Don Pardo will tell you your consolation prize!
 
twinstead said:
It's not fair in a debate if one side gets to just make stuff up.
Click to expand...
It's also unfair for them to demand answers from their peers and expect not to have to live up to the same standards. This goes to the Larry Silverstein "made out like a bandit" claim that redibis apparently believes is self-evident to the extent that he feels no obligation to provide proof. Libel is a very serious charge, and it can ruin a reputation much the same way as flogging an anti-semite label can in the wrong circumstances. If he and others believing similar cared enough they could have tried taking this thing to court years ago, instead of wasting time in venues they know they're not going to make much headway in. I have little respect for those who slander people they don't even know and show not the slightest interest in taking action. The WTC no-planer cases were completely retarded, but at least they took action, unlike those slandering Larry...
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
It's also unfair for them to demand answers from their peers and expect not to have to live up to the same standards. This goes to the Larry Silverstein "made out like a bandit" claim that redibis apparently believes is self-evident to the extent that he feels no obligation to provide proof. Libel is a very serious charge, and it can ruin a reputation much the same way as flogging an anti-semite label can in the wrong circumstances. If he and others believing similar cared enough they could have tried taking this thing to court years ago, instead of wasting time in venues they know they're not going to make much headway in. I have little respect for those who slander people they don't even know and show not the slightest interest in taking action. The WTC no-planer cases were completely retarded, but at least they took action, unlike those slandering Larry...
Click to expand...

You mean the Lucky Larry who breakfasted every morning at the Windows on the World. But on Sept. 11, Larry had an appointment with his dermatologist and his children Roger and Lisa were running late.
Some coincidence.
 
Clayton Moore said:
You mean the Lucky Larry who breakfasted every morning at the Windows on the World. But on Sept. 11, Larry had an appointment with his dermatologist and his children Roger and Lisa were running late.
Some coincidence.
Click to expand...
Every morning? You got some source for this?

"Truther" site link in 3....2......1......

:rolleyes:
 
Clayton Moore said:
You mean the Lucky Larry who breakfasted every morning at the Windows on the World. But on Sept. 11, Larry had an appointment with his dermatologist and his children Roger and Lisa were running late.
Some coincidence.
Click to expand...
Then by your line of reasoning every passenger who missed a flight that got hijacked is not only lucky but also accomplices in your overblown government cover-up. I hope you have more to offer to a judge in court than smug responses to peers who would rather see proof than your "gut feeling." A court room is far less lenient than a discussion forum; if you don't provide solid proof, your case is DOA.

Of course this is all assuming that the truth movement's participants are as serious as they claim to be.
 
Last edited:
dc1971 said:
Sure is a good laugh! :) :D :p

You do realize you just contradicted yourself, no?

You do know how math works, right?

1.75 + 4 + 5.4 = ???

I will let you answer.
Click to expand...

If he knew how maths worked he wouldn't be a truther.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom