• 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.
*sigh*
I'm amazed..truly amazed, by some of this.
So if I understand things correctly, I copy a guy's name that was mis-spelled on 911 myths..the first time it appears. But I say what he said he saw accurately, as he said he saw it on video and photographs. Some guy comes here essentially calls me an idiot, for mis-spelling his name, and then proceeds to tell me I was wrong about what he said. I take evidence from that same site, and show he did say it, and you can clearly see the mis-spelling at the top...but I'm still an idiot...because I didn't read all the way to the bottom (which of course I really did) when 911 myths gives there synopsis of there being molten steel or not. Nothing to do with the individual I was talking about and had absolutely nothing to do with my post.

Let me tell you what I think happened, this person took the mis-spelled word, searched for it and that site was the first to come up, because of the mis-spelling. That person got excited and thought wow I can really catch this guy (meaning me). He may not have seen the e-mail Mr. Loizeaux wrote where he states he did see molten steel, because before that the site says, Mr. Loizeaux did not personally see the molten steel.

He doesn't bother to read on, just post what he posts about me being an idiot. I come back and say there is an e-mail attributed to him, saying he did in fact see molten steel just in pictures and video. This person...now really trying to save face..reads on and sees what it says at the bottom of the page and posts it, and then I don't know why maybe he thinks I couldn't figure out it was the site's synopsis, or he was confused as to what the site was saying. But I'm still the idiot? I don't mean to sound harsh, but I mean I was called an idiot(in round about terms) so I think I should defend myself.

To continue, I give evidence that John Gross was flat out lying, it's hard to imagine it was negligence, but either way..it's bad. But me being just a Joe Schmo..I'm the idiot, and nothing I say could really have any value, because I copy a name wrong...from a site that supports the official story no less. Gross, the lead NIST investigator flat out lies...and it's no big deal...everything in that NIST report has to be true.

Let me make one more point. You can see in this thread, a person who believes flight 175 was the one that went down near Pittsburgh. A different person(the same one who likes to point out spelling errors) who says collapses due to fire are common in steel frame buildings. But I am the one who is not knowledgeable about the subject?

Amazed is really the only word I can use to describe my feelings about all of this.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
*sigh*
I'm amazed..truly amazed, by some of this.
So if I understand things correctly, I copy a guy's name that was mis-spelled on 911 myths..the first time it appears. But I say what he said he saw accurately, as he said he saw it on video and photographs. Some guy comes here essentially calls me an idiot, for mis-spelling his name, and then proceeds to tell me I was wrong about what he said. I take evidence from that same site, and show he did say it, and you can clearly see the mis-spelling at the top...but I'm still an idiot...because I didn't read all the way to the bottom (which of course I really did) when 911 myths gives there synopsis of there being molten steel or not. Nothing to do with the individual I was talking about and had absolutely nothing to do with my post.

Let me tell you what I think happened, this person took the mis-spelled word, searched for it and that site was the first to come up, because of the mis-spelling. That person got excited and thought wow I can really catch this guy (meaning me). He may not have seen the e-mail Mr. Loizeaux wrote where he states he did see molten steel, because before that the site says, Mr. Loizeaux did not personally see the molten steel.

He doesn't bother to read on, just post what he posts about me being an idiot. I come back and say there is an e-mail attributed to him, saying he did in fact see molten steel just in pictures and video. This person...now really trying to save face..reads on and sees what it says at the bottom of the page and posts it, and then I don't know why maybe he thinks I couldn't figure out it was the site's synopsis, or he was confused as to what the site was saying. But I'm still the idiot? I don't mean to sound harsh, but I mean I was called an idiot(in round about terms) so I think I should defend myself.

To continue, I give evidence that John Gross was flat out lying, it's hard to imagine it was negligence, but either way..it's bad. But me being just a Joe Schmo..I'm the idiot, and nothing I say could really have any value, because I copy a name wrong...from a site that supports the official story no less. Gross, the lead NIST investigator flat out lies...and it's no big deal...everything in that NIST report has to be true.

Let me make one more point. You can see in this thread, a person who believes flight 175 was the one that went down near Pittsburgh. A different person(the same one who likes to point out spelling errors) who says collapses due to fire are common in steel frame buildings. But I am the one who is not knowledgeable about the subject?

Amazed is really the only word I can use to describe my feelings about all of this.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed too, amazed that people continually play this game just because they foolishly believe some conspiracy websites, always acting as if they were the first one to come here and recite the crap from those websites... I'm also amazed at how 911 cults and their followers think they are fooling people by accusing everyone else of being "liars" when it's not hard to see that they are the ones doing the lying.
 
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
bill smith said:
I would say that Gross was in intimate contact with Leslie Robertson who was in charge of the building of the Towers wouldn't you ? Leslie said he saw molten steel in the basement
Click to expand...

"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."

- Leslie Robertson.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Amazed is really the only word I can use to describe my feelings about all of this.
Click to expand...

Sadly, none of us are amazed in the slightest at another truther coming here and regurgitating the same tired old pieces of carefully mined quotes to support a hypothesis that makes no sense whatsoever on any level. That's just what truthers do. We've never figured out why.

Dave
 
Basically the debunker assertion that any devices and materials to intentionally destroy the towers cannot (as in 0.0000000% chance) survive plane impacts and fires boils down to be an argument from incredulity. It is not proof.

Remember how the great Lord Kelvin declared authoritatively in 1896 that he had "not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of", and again 1902 declared , that "No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful."? We know how that argument from incredulity went.

Or remember how we debunkers would assert again and again that it is not possible to cut steel columns of serious thickness horizontally? And then came this AE911T guy (is that the Cole I see mentioned in other posts here, which I frankly didn't care to read?) and shows practically how it can be done.


All this declaring that there cannot exist an engineering solution to a difficult truther problem is a recipe for embarrassment.
It's a fundamentally impotent approach.
It is not for us to prove that things are impossible, or for them to prove that they are possible. It is for them to make a claim about how it actually happened, and prove that it did in fact happen that way.
 
Another nail to the coffin of this thread:


It is not even necessary to assume that charges have to survive the impacts and fires! Human ingenuity knows hardly any bounds; such device could work even while they perish!


Here is the how - Oystein's First Thruth Theory of WTC Demolition:

Perpetrators did not think that plane and fire alone would make towers collapse. So they had to help it along.

The solution is a combination of explosives and incendiaries, placed throughout the upper half or so of the towers, at and near the cores.

The problem to be solved, again, is that impacts and fires alone don't damage the structure enough to initiate collapse; you want to increase the damage to a point that collapse initiation becomes inevitable.

So what happens is this:
  • As the plane crashes into the building, a number of the explosive devices detonate, triggered by the impact itself, ensuring that whatever structural elements they are attached to take deadly damage.
  • As the fires spread, the incendiaries start burning one after the other. Office fires may be not hot enough to weaken the steel lethally, but these incendiaries are. So under the cover of already raging fires, we have some well placed super-hot fires that do the dastardly deed.

Now, if you are the kind of truther who accepts that the towers will go all the way to the ground once the first floor fails, that is all we need.

If you are of the persuasion that demands for explosions all the way down, the obvious solution would be that the staff of NWO simply watch the towers burn from WTC7, and hit the button to trigger the cascading explosions from just beneath the fire floors down just as the collapse starts.



Do I say this happened? Of course not.
Could have happened? Not in the colloquial sense of "is a possibility to be considered". No, it could not have happened, as this is a fantasy scenaria I just invented. But it "could" have happened in the sense as there is neither a compelling logic argument preventing this, nor a fundamental physical principle. It's just hard to do, ridiculously redundant. And of course there is not the slightest bit of evidence for Oystein's First Thruth Theory of WTC Demolition. And that is why no one has to disprove my theory. And I don't have to prove it is at all possible to pull such a stunt. I rather would have to prove that this actually happened.
 
Oystein said:
Basically the debunker assertion that any devices and materials to intentionally destroy the towers cannot (as in 0.0000000% chance) survive plane impacts and fires boils down to be an argument from incredulity. It is not proof.

Remember how the great Lord Kelvin declared authoritatively in 1896 that he had "not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of", and again 1902 declared , that "No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful."? We know how that argument from incredulity went.

Or remember how we debunkers would assert again and again that it is not possible to cut steel columns of serious thickness horizontally? And then came this AE911T guy (is that the Cole I see mentioned in other posts here, which I frankly didn't care to read?) and shows practically how it can be done.


All this declaring that there cannot exist an engineering solution to a difficult truther problem is a recipe for embarrassment.
It's a fundamentally impotent approach.
It is not for us to prove that things are impossible, or for them to prove that they are possible. It is for them to make a claim about how it actually happened, and prove that it did in fact happen that way.
Click to expand...

You are starting to sound like somebody who would not oppose a new and independent investigation of 9/11 Oystein.
 
Dave Rogers said:
"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."

- Leslie Robertson.
Click to expand...

He did say it Dave. ' I saw a little river of molten steel ' I've seen the video in the last couple of weeks. Unfortunately it may have been purged from the net in the meantime.
 
bill smith said:
He did say it Dave. ' I saw a little river of molten steel ' I've seen the video in the last couple of weeks. Unfortunately it may have been purged from the net in the meantime.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Classical case of "my dog ate the homework".
I saw the video, too. He talked about others allegedly deeing molten steel.
 
Oystein said:
Nonsense. Classical case of "my dog ate the homework".
I saw the video, too. He talked about others allegedly deeing molten steel.
Click to expand...

The Truth Movement record everything these days Oystein, We have learned to.and so I will make you eat your words when the video shows up again, as it will.
 
Oystein said:
Basically the debunker assertion that any devices and materials to intentionally destroy the towers cannot (as in 0.0000000% chance) survive plane impacts and fires boils down to be an argument from incredulity. It is not proof.

Remember how the great Lord Kelvin declared authoritatively in 1896 that he had "not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of", and again 1902 declared , that "No balloon and no aeroplane will ever be practically successful."? We know how that argument from incredulity went.

Or remember how we debunkers would assert again and again that it is not possible to cut steel columns of serious thickness horizontally? And then came this AE911T guy (is that the Cole I see mentioned in other posts here, which I frankly didn't care to read?) and shows practically how it can be done.


All this declaring that there cannot exist an engineering solution to a difficult truther problem is a recipe for embarrassment.
It's a fundamentally impotent approach.
It is not for us to prove that things are impossible, or for them to prove that they are possible. It is for them to make a claim about how it actually happened, and prove that it did in fact happen that way.
Click to expand...

You are so right!

However, its shortcomings untold, isn't this what the OP is about?

ETA: I do think, OTOH, that saying that it is virtually impossible that a conspiracy would base itself on such doubtful and untried methods, is a valid debunking argument.

Hans
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
You are so right!

However, its shortcomings untold, isn't this what the OP is about?

ETA: I do think, OTOH, that saying that it is virtually impossible that a conspiracy would base itself on such doubtful and untried methods, is a valid debunking argument.

Hans
Click to expand...

No. he is wrong. We were of course entirely excluded from the events themselves and so cannot actually PROVE anything. What we CAN prove is that the government is lying and that their story cannot be true. We can also find plenty of circumstantial evidence...buckets of it in fact. But proof positive is down to an independent investigation into the events of 9/11 with full powers of subpoena.
 
beachnut said:
<SNIP> Is he a neoNAZI, or just plain dirt dumb stupid? <SNIP> I can't imagine how you will find someone dumber on 911 issue than Dr. Sobrosky. <SNIP> Dr. Sobrosky, did not get his PhD on 911 issues.
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed personal comments
Click to expand...

He brought up Sabrosky? The guy who claimed that the Jews committed 9/11? And who overinflated his role at the Army War College in order to make it appear as though he was privy to more information than he truly was?

Already dealt with back in 2010. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171524

ETA: Aw heck, preemptively dealth with in 2008, almost 2 years before he made his claims.
Dr Adequate said:
Well, I can only speak to your conspiracy theory so far, since it seems to be in a somewhat flexible state.

Nonetheless, let's see if we can compare the two. I shall deal here only with the hijacking/remote takeover of the planes, since this seems to be the crucial element.

Let's put the two hypotheses side by side and see how they stack up.



The Accused

The hijackers were:

19 people willing to attack their sworn enemy and gain instant access to the most exclusive district of Paradise.

Each of them has been named and identified:

hijackers.jpg


The Mossad conspirators were:

An estimated 40-60 people willing to attack their sworn ally and keep quiet about it for ever. How the 40-60 estimate was arrived at I have no idea, nor whether it includes people who were subverted but not "in the loop".

Few names have been named. Occasionally a Truther will try to make out a case against Larry Silverstein on the basis that he once said "pull".



The Motive

The hijackers' target:

Al Qaeda's sworn enemy.

Mossad's target:

Israel's sworn ally.

Consequences for the hijackers if they're detected before the execution of their plot:

Al Qaeda loses nineteen operatives, causes some terror, is already at war with the US so has nothing to lose on that score, possibly attracts more donations.

Consequences for Mossad if they're detected before the execution of their plot:

Israel loses its best ally, probably all its other Western allies, and most likely its chances of survival.

Consequences for the hijackers if their identity is discovered after the crime:

None whatsoever.

Consequences for Mossad if their identity is discovered after the crime:

See above; only worse, because an actual atrocity is more shocking than a thwarted one.

The hijackers stand to gain:

Al Qaeda's greatest victory ever against the infidel, plus 72 virgins apiece.

Mossad stand to gain:

The support of the US for Israel ... which they already have ... and would lose instantly if they were found out.



Previous Record

Previous Muslim terrorist attacks or attempted attacks on American soil:

  • The Millenium LAX bomb plot.
  • The 1993 WTC attack.
  • The blind sheihk plan to bomb the NYC tunnels.
  • The plot to blow up a NYC subway in Brooklyn.
  • The murder of tourists on the top of the Empire State Building.
This list is not necessarily exhaustive, nor of course does it include attacks on Americans abroad, such as the attack on the USS Cole.

Previous Mossad attacks or attempted attacks on American soil:

  • I got nothing.

The Means

The hijackers needed:

  • Four trained pilots, which they had.
  • Knives, which they bought.
  • Airplane tickets, which they bought.
Mossad needed:

  • Nonexistent real-time voice morphing software which could imitate the voices of people who Mossad couldn't have predicted would be on the planes with such perfection as to fool their own families.
  • A nonexistent device which allows them to fly a jumbo jet by remote control.
  • Some way of smuggling nerve gas onto airplanes without getting on board themselves.
  • To fake all the actions, not to mention the appearance, of the nineteen "hijackers" for a couple of years, undetected by their family and friends, including one final tour de force where they manage to pretend to board airplanes while in reality "slipping out the side".

The Opportunity

The hijackers needed:

To get on the planes, which they did.

Mossad needed:

Sheesh, where do you start? Just how many people do they need to subvert to have any opportunity?



The Evidence

The evidence for the hijackers taking over the planes by force includes:

  • Their martyrdom tapes.
  • Further claims of responsibility by Al Qaeda top brass.
  • Their acquisition of piloting skills (with no subsequent attempts to become commerical pilots).
  • Their purchase of the requisite weapons, plane tickets, etc.
  • Evidence and witnesses showing that they checked in and boarded.
  • DNA evidence matching bodies from ground zero to vehicles and hotel rooms used by the hijackers.
  • The fact that five (or in one case four) of this group now known to be associated with one another and with al Qaeda were on each of the hijacked planes.
  • Cockpit recordings of men speaking in Arabic.
  • Eyewitness accounts from the planes.
The evidence for Mossad taking over the planes by remote control includes:

  • Zilch.
The evidence against the hijackers taking over the planes by force includes:

  • Nada
The evidence against Mossad taking over the planes by remote control includes:

  • It's technically impossible.
  • There's no evidence for it.
  • All the evidence that proves that the planes were actually hijacked, including tricky stuff like eyewitness acounts and DNA evidence and al Qaeda claiming responsibility.

The Plea

Al Qaeda:

Proudly claim responsibility.

Mossad:

Say that al Qaeda did it.



The Verdict

Well, 9/11-researcher?

Against whom is there the stronger case?

As has been pointed out to you, you are accusing people of mass murder, this is not a game.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bill smith said:
.....Words.....proof positive is down to an independent investigation into the events of 9/11 with full powers of subpoena.
Click to expand...

So who exactly would be your choice to participate in an "independent investigation"? I assume it will be highly qualified experts in their relevent fields (architecture, structural engineering, remote guidance, ballistic missile technology, explosive demolition, space based weaponry, etc). Please feel free to name names. Maybe you could compile a list of truly independent experts.

Thanks in advance. :)
 
bill smith said:
No. he is wrong. We were of course entirely excluded from the events themselves and so cannot actually PROVE anything.
Click to expand...

The OP is not optimally worded, but yes you could prove various stuff. For instance, someone could try to produce a working cutter charge that did not give itself away by noise and/or profuse smoke and sparks.

What we CAN prove is that the government is lying and that their story cannot be true.
Click to expand...
In case you haven't noticed, you proof of that has been rather thoroughly rebuked.

We can also find plenty of circumstantial evidence...buckets of it in fact.
Click to expand...
I have noticed the buckets, but I have a different opinion about what's in them.

But proof positive is down to an independent investigation into the events of 9/11 with full powers of subpoena.
Click to expand...
Which a Democratic administration who have everything to win by thoroughly tainting the Republicans have not been tempted to consider.

Circumstantial evidence, indeed. :rolleyes:

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
You are so right!

However, its shortcomings untold, isn't this what the OP is about?
Click to expand...

He offered hard cash. He shouldn't be vaguely "about" something, he should say it outright.

The OP is "about" an offer to pay real US$, and is very clear on what conditions must be met to satisfy the offer, because he said ALL one has to show is exactly two things, and none more: 1. how explosives CAN survice the plane impacts and 2. how they CAN survive the fires. I showed exactly and uncontrovertibly how explosives CAN be placed in the twin towers on the impact and fire floors, and survive BOTH the impacts and the fires.

MRC_Hans said:
ETA: I do think, OTOH, that saying that it is virtually impossible that a conspiracy would base itself on such doubtful and untried methods, is a valid debunking argument.

Hans
Click to expand...

Absolutely, that is a valid debunking argument: It says that truthers make a wholly unsubstantiated and vague claim, and must first define the claim more rigidly (at the minimum such that it can make actionable, falsifiable predictions) and secondly provide evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
But NF failed to specify which well-defined theory his OP is about. That's why it is garbage.
 
Harpo said:
So who exactly would be your choice to participate in an "independent investigation"? I assume it will be highly qualified experts in their relevent fields (architecture, structural engineering, remote guidance, ballistic missile technology, explosive demolition, space based weaponry, etc). Please feel free to name names. Maybe you could compile a list of truly independent experts.

Thanks in advance. :)
Click to expand...

Why don't yiou set up a new thread called ' The composition and powers of a new 9/11 investigation'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom