Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[RedIbis]

What do you plan to do to find an answer to that question?

See my comments above.

 

[RedIbis]

Stay on topic for once.

You do realize this is the general discussion thread, right?

 

[Bell]

All you're doing is making assumptions. You don't know what I've researched or who I've contacted. I wouldn't assume my comments in this forum represent the totality of my involvement with 9/11 research.

As for debate, feel free to present a legitimate debate topic, get it moderated and I'm all in.

 

[tempesta29]

Sounds to me like you're issuing a threat to continue repeating the same old nonsense.

And you're doing it ... in a thread remarking that all you can do is repeat the same old nonsense.

Seriously, have you ever convinced anyone? Learned anything? Made any progress of any kind?

Doesn't this concern you at least a little bit?

Yet it's debunkers who post most of the threads in the section. Go figure.

And yes, I have convinced people, or at least, I showed them the evidence and they convinced themselves. You are far more stubborn, however. You're in too deep methinks. Even if you realized you were wrong, you'd never admit it.

 

[NoahFence]

You do realize this is the general discussion thread, right?

General 9/11 discussion. Not a bible discussion.

 

[beachnut]

Looks like it's still standing.

How did the bent steel get on the wooden beam? The "beam" could have been 3' long and the "steel" could have been bent by Charles Atlas.

In a fire, steel fails faster than structural wood. Steel is strong, but fails quickly in fire. The photo is from propaganda on the wood products, based on facts. Why are you unable to figure out 911? You are leaving a lot of clues.

 

[beachnut]

Yet it's debunkers who post most of the threads in the section. Go figure.

And yes, I have convinced people, or at least, I showed them the evidence and they convinced themselves. You are far more stubborn, however. You're in too deep methinks. Even if you realized you were wrong, you'd never admit it.

You can't figure out 911, and you mislead others. Is that double failure? Triple, you do it without evidence.

 

[Christopher7]

Well Chris, I checked with you and apparently I DID understand your views on NIST being fraudulent because they didn't include thermal contraction

No. It's because they said the fire on floor 12 started the collapse by thermally expanding the beams under floor 13 even though that was impossible because the fire had gone out over a hour earlier and they knew that.

You now realize that thermal expansion did not cause the collapse and offer an alternate theory but that does not change the FACT that the NIST theory does not explain the collapse.

and because we can consider ONLY what they said about expansion.

Incorrect. You can consider anything you want but that does not change the FACT that the final word from NIST was wrong.

I say science moves forward with other scientists correcting and tweaking original theories.

Speculation is not science, it's just the first step. You must test your theory as NIST did and show your results. Those tests must be repeated by other scientists and give the same results for a theory to become science. No one can repeat NIST's results because they won't release the input data so their report is not yet science fact. "Trust me" is not science.

Specifically with NIST, the only reason they called it a final report is because it's a government agency.

Hogwash!

That was their final word on the matter. They stated that office fires brought down WTC 7 due to thermal expansion that PUSHED a girder off its seat. You know that is not true. You know that the fire had burned out and could not cause the beams to thermally expand.

Any theory you may propose does NOT change the FACT that the NIST FINAL REPORT is fraudulent. Their conclusion is based on a lie about the fire on floor 12.

They completed their mandate

No, they did not. Their final conclusion is incorrect because they lied about the fire on floor 12. They said it was still burning at 5:20 p.m. despite the FACT that they knew it had burned out at least one half hour earlier.

I can't change the core assumptions you operate under. They seem incredibly rigid to me

I have respect for the facts and you do not.

like making a big deal out of the term Final Report for NIST.

What part of "final" don't you understand? Their final conclusion is fraudulent.

Neither of us is a scientist, but I've never heard a real scientist who agrees with your fundamental approach to the scientific process.

All scientists adhere to the requirement of theories being tested by others and getting the same results. The NIST theory cannot be tested by others so it is not science.

EVERYTHING is subject to change, refinement, even to being discarded... including the NIST Report if CD could be proven.

It has been proven false. A fire that has burned out cannot cause thermal expansion.

Fer instance... I'm in communication with a top AE911 Truth guy who will look into the possibility of turning over a dust sample to someone like RJ Lee! If that happens and they identify thermites or explosives of any kind in the dust, then guess what... the whole core NIST theory gets called into question by mainstream scientists.

The RJ Lee Group HAS samples with an iron clad chain of custody. Unfortunately, because of the government and media campaign to trash and discredit anyone who questions the OCT, no one who does business with the government will. Hopefully, as the truth about 9/11 spreads, this will change.

The denior chior will run with this last point and ignore the FACT that NIST lied about the fire on floor 12 causing the beams under floor 13 to thermally expand over an hour after it had gone out.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

All you're doing is making assumptions. You don't know what I've researched or who I've contacted. I wouldn't assume my comments in this forum represent the totality of my involvement with 9/11 research.

It seems like a very reasonable assumption to me. If you had done the reasearch and contacted the people involved, you wouldn't need to ask the question here.

As for debate, feel free to present a legitimate debate topic, get it moderated and I'm all in.

There are plenty of legitimate debate topics in this sub-forum.

Years ago, I admired you for your ability to remain calm in a debate and be gentlemanly with others. However, your continued practice of dodging serious questions make me wonder why anyone would want to set up a moderated thread to "debate" you in. There are at least two sides to a debate, and I've never seen you really participate in one recently. Seems you now just want to pick at minor inconsistancies in things without really taking on the meat of the argument.

Just my humble opinion, but I don't expect anyone to take up your offer. I think it would be a waste of everyones time.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You can't figure out 911, and you mislead others. Is that double failure? Triple, you do it without evidence.

ahhahahhaha

If 9/11 weren't an inside job you'd be frying your fish elsewhere. Why else would so many people who consider themselves oh so intelligent be so pent up about truthers who they say are numbingly dumb?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Yet it's debunkers who post most of the threads in the section. Go figure.

And yes, I have convinced people, or at least, I showed them the evidence and they convinced themselves. You are far more stubborn, however. You're in too deep methinks. Even if you realized you were wrong, you'd never admit it.

I've never heard of anyone being UNconvinced that the 9/11 collapses were not some kind of controlled demolitions.

 

[Clayton Moore]

In a fire, steel fails faster than structural wood. Steel is strong, but fails quickly in fire. The photo is from propaganda on the wood products, based on facts. Why are you unable to figure out 911? You are leaving a lot of clues.

That is ridiculous. I'm sure your mates will agree.

 

[Justin39640]

Yet it's debunkers who post most of the threads in the section. Go figure.

It's funny. you post like most of us just decided to pick up debunking last week. I've been going at it with truthers since about '06. A lot of people here have been going much longer. Nothing you can make up will convince any of us that 9/11 was in any way, shape, or form an inside job.

The reason most of the posts are from debunkers is cause you're the last of a dying breed. Your numbers have dwindled. A lot of the debunkers here are former truthers that looked at facts at some point and realized they were fooled at best, and swindled out of time and money at worst.

And yes, I have convinced people, or at least, I showed them the evidence and they convinced themselves. You are far more stubborn, however. You're in too deep methinks. Even if you realized you were wrong, you'd never admit it.

You show people lies and misleading, out of context quotes. Those people would be hella pissed if they actually got a hold of some facts.

I bet you $100 that I could reverse the damage you did to those poor people's brains with a 95% success rate. And I'm a crappy debunker at best.

 

[Travis]

That is ridiculous. I'm sure your mates will agree.

Only because we like to agree with "reality."

Wood is flammable but the outer charred layers will actually insulate the inside of a wooden beam during a fire allowing it to retain much of it's structural strength until almost all the wood has been eaten by the fire. Steel, on the other hand, will simply turn plastic.

 

[tsig]

ahhahahhaha

If 9/11 weren't an inside job you'd be frying your fish elsewhere. Why else would so many people who consider themselves oh so intelligent be so pent up about truthers who they say are numbingly dumb?

So your evidence for an inside job is this thread itself?

 

[Justin39640]

That is ridiculous. I'm sure your mates will agree.

I bend steel quite easily with my torch. Bending a wood beam an inch thick with a perfect 90° bend without breaking it... not so much. Just sayin.

 

[tsig]

I'm just shocked at the extreme level of proof we are required to present when it comes to the commonly-held narrative, yet many truthers can just pull just about anything they want out of their nether regions and call it truth, when it pleases them to give any evidence at all or even define what their theory is.

I have a healthy definition of beyond a reasonable doubt; I'm fairly tired of UN-reasonable doubt being shoved down my throat.

Can you prove that?

 

[twinstead]

Can you prove that?

I'm going to go truther for a moment and just claim it's true because I said it

 

[twinstead]

That is ridiculous. I'm sure your mates will agree.

Why do you insist on debating from a position of ignorance? It doesn't help your cause.

 

[RedIbis]

It seems like a very reasonable assumption to me. If you had done the reasearch and contacted the people involved, you wouldn't need to ask the question here.

To what question are you referring? If you remember my heated debates with Gravy, you'd know we went as far as research would allow in trying to determine where the pieces in the dumpster went, where they came from and if they were identified as being from Flight 93. Let's call it a stalemate at best.

There are plenty of legitimate debate topics in this sub-forum.

What, specifically, is a legitimate debate topic, in your opinion, which has been posited here recently?

Years ago, I admired you for your ability to remain calm in a debate and be gentlemanly with others. However, your continued practice of dodging serious questions make me wonder why anyone would want to set up a moderated thread to "debate" you in. There are at least two sides to a debate, and I've never seen you really participate in one recently. Seems you now just want to pick at minor inconsistancies in things without really taking on the meat of the argument.

Just my humble opinion, but I don't expect anyone to take up your offer. I think it would be a waste of everyones time.

Why would it be a waste of time? If the debate topic is legitimate, the moderation fair, then this is an opportunity to humiliate the "dirty, lying bird." Imagine an ibis having to eat crow.