Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[BStrong]

My same post still applies. What's debunked to you, is far from debunked to me, and I would think most people who really look at the evidence. I mean what did I hear about the 5 dancing Israelis...oh it's nothing...it's some vague story..yeah that's really good debunking right there.

Knock yourself out:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Dancing_Israelis

 

[tmd2_1]

Knock yourself out:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Dancing_Israelis

Way to avoid my previous question...I will await your video.

 

[beachnut]

Again your brilliant rebuttal astounds me. Go watch Jon Cole's video you'll learn all you need to about sulfur as it related to 9/11

As expected you can't explain why there was no "sulfur on the steel". You can't explain any of your lies, you always say go watch Cole's video, not going to comment with your super skills in chemical engineering. You are debunking yourself.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The only general discussion I'd appreciate from the resident truthers here is their thoughts on their movement / belief system's complete absence from the real world. Shouldn't they either be frustrated or working to change things?

I'd like to point out again that the web is a parallel universe that is informed by, and that somewhat informs, the observable material world we work in and drive through. But there's quite a bit of imaginary content (or intellectual discourse, if you're feeling kindly) that ONLY exists in the Parallel Universe and really doesn't leak out to the Real World to any significant degree.

Frankly, I don't admit to many people that I spend some of my recreational time arguing with morons on the internet. It's kinda embarrassing. Like playing Magic The Gathering at my age or something.

 

[Craig4]

I wasn't wearing a watch. Check the police report. Go over to freaking Israel and go on TV and ask them to elaborate on their

"Our purpose was to document the event."

The woman who called the police never said that the Israelis were there before the attack. There's no evidence of foreknowledge.

 

[beachnut]

I'll post the e-mail one more time...you tell me where the name Tully is mentioned. I'm sure 911 myths would have done all they can to discredit it. He says there are...... not Peter Tully said there are. Unbelievable really.

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,

Do you believe melted steel was found? Why do you keep repeating a lie?

 

[BStrong]

Way to avoid my previous question...I will await your video.

Ah, you mistake my position in this - it is you proposing your "alternative theories" (to be honest, you're parroting someone elses nonsense) and therefor it's your responsibility to prove your assertions.

I'm way past the point where I will pretend that any of the truther agenda claptrap is even arguable points - prove your position or go home - it's that simple.

This thread is evidence enough - you continue to reference assertion as "evidence" and you've failed to demonstrate even the most basic understanding of what constitutes evidence in the subject matter.

You've continued to make assertions of fact that are in error, and when same are pointed out with facts in evidence, you employ the time honored truther tactc of making apoligies, changing the suject and moving the goalposts.

 

[beachnut]

http://www2.ae911truth.org/newsletter/2011/07/index.php

Another Expert Blasts Official WTC Conspiracy Theory: Stephan Barasch, High-Rise Architect

http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/541-barasch.html

/store/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=145

Another nut with no evidence. How do you find these dolts on 911 issues?

They are selling DVDs which cost less than a buck for 20 dollars. The conspracy for 911 is 911 truth selling lies to people too challeged to understand 911. 2000 percent profit, Gage's lies make money.

Barasch states that “WTC Building 7 was built to a fairly modern code that required stiff columns, stiff beams and a great amount of fireproofing throughout…” He adds, “the way it collapsed does not compute for an unplanned demolition.”

Now we have the stiff columns, so 911 was an inside job. What is next for Gage?
Barasch, another failed person who can't figure out 911 given the answers. You found another failure on 911.

He has experience in designing both concrete and steel multi-story structures of all types, some of which exceeded 110 feet in height.

Wow, he designs little buildings. Wow.

Why does Gage use quotes from nuts to push his lies?

Love it, he offers opinion!

“the way it collapsed does not compute for an unplanned demolition.”

“Some of the inconsistencies that I found rather curious was that the buildings came down rather fast…in a rather symmetrical pattern...that the temperature – even with jet fuel – could not, in my mind, bring a building down this fast.…”

Poor guy forgets the offices were on fire. There was more heat from the office fires than the jet fuel. What an idiot.
More opinions.

He offers some opinions based on nothing, and Gage will sell his DVD for 20 bucks.

How many years will it take you to figure out 911 truth, Gage is spreading false information and lies? 10 more? 20 years? Forever?

 

[BStrong]

Do you believe melted steel was found? Why do you keep repeating a lie?

It's a thankless task asking the fathful to prove their faith.

 

[tmd2_1]

Ah, you mistake my position in this - it is you proposing your "alternative theories" (to be honest, you're parroting someone elses nonsense) and therefor it's your responsibility to prove your assertions.

I'm way past the point where I will pretend that any of the truther agenda claptrap is even arguable points - prove your position or go home - it's that simple.

This thread is evidence enough - you continue to reference assertion as "evidence" and you've failed to demonstrate even the most basic understanding of what constitutes evidence in the subject matter.

You've continued to make assertions of fact that are in error, and when same are pointed out with facts in evidence, you employ the time honored truther tactc of making apoligies, changing the suject and moving the goalposts.

Funny you accuse me of that. All I've ever done was defend myself. Again I really am looking forward to your video. If he doesn't even have a point, it should be nothing for you to do. Surely even someone as great as yourself could spend the few minutes to do one little experiment right? I mean I know it would be lowering yourself..but maybe you could do it just this once?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Way to avoid my question...

As a reminder, the OP:

All you have to do is PROVE explosives can survive the impact of the aircraft and subsequent fire. Assumptions are not proof. Secret government documents aren't proof. Proof is proof. What was the device used to house these explosives that can survive?

If no "truther" can prove that explosives can survive the impact and fires, then how do you propose they were used at all? And if you can't prove they were used, then wouldn't this whole "CD" nonsense be for naught? How many people were involved? Who was in charge of what building? WTC 1? WTC 2? The Pentagon?

We have a few threads we can your different topics to. Find one of them and continue there. I have no problem with it, but I have a problem continually ruining someone else's thread.

I await your video.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6744794&postcount=3

Cole's material has been covered before. Simply Put Cole's experiments do not adequately replicate the conditions of the debris pile, and his results reflect that accordingly. In fact if you want to continue with Cole's work I suggest bumping that thread.

 

[tmd2_1]

As a reminder, the OP:


We have a few threads we can your different topics to. Find one of them and continue there. I have no problem with it, but I have a problem continually ruining someone else's thread.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6744794&postcount=3

Cole's material has been covered before. Simply Put Cole's experiments do not adequately replicate the conditions of the debris pile, and his results reflect that accordingly. In fact if you want to continue with Cole's work I suggest bumping that thread.

Simply put...do an experiment and prove him wrong.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Another Expert Blasts Official WTC Conspiracy Theory: Stephan Barasch, High-Rise Architect

Two criteria are required for an appeal to authority to be valid. The first two are interchangeable, the third is mandatory:

1- They can be a professional
2- They can be a laymen

3- They must be knowledgeable in one or more of the relevant topics.

The third criteria is absolutely mandatory; the person must demonstrate knowledge in the topic at hand for the authority appeal to hold weight. If this criteria isn't met, then being laymen or professional is completely irrelevant.

All you've got is "rage against the machine" which meets none of the three. Just a few high school dropouts that think the world works on a different clock.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Simply put...

Simply he did an experiment where he had absolutely no idea what he was doing; end of story. I cannot disprove an experiment that already fails on its own premise. Let me emphasize again that this is old news

All you have to do is PROVE explosives can survive the impact of the aircraft and subsequent fire. Assumptions are not proof. Secret government documents aren't proof. Proof is proof. What was the device used to house these explosives that can survive?

The assertion of the TM is that either the locations of the explosives are coordinated with the target floors the planes hit, or the explosives were planted on every floor. Watch any David Chandler video and he will cite every ejecta wave as a row of detonating explosives propagating the collapse. Other explanations they offer are that the explosives were planted inside the columns, protecting them somewhat from the heat until they were timing to go off. How exactly any of these scenarios are supposed to have been pulled off I have no idea. There was no physical evidence of this found, not even of damage to columns consistent with blast trauma, or for that matter - as truthers like to include - damage consistent with the melting of end connections in any of the buildings.

If no "truther" can prove that explosives can survive the impact and fires, then how do you propose they were used at all? And if you can't prove they were used, then wouldn't this whole "CD" nonsense be for naught?

Absolutely not. Since the event has no precedent with an equivalent scale the results seen in this one are suspicious on the premise that a disaster of this scale happened for the first time in history. As long as it lacks a precisely equal precedent, it'll always be enough for truther's to try and wiggle the CD scenario in, no matter how proposterous their theories, or their claimed experiments have to be.

 

[BStrong]

Grizzly:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...94&postcount=3

I think that must have left a mark.

 

[Clayton Moore]

The woman who called the police never said that the Israelis were there before the attack. There's no evidence of foreknowledge.

"Our purpose was to document the event."
"Our purpose was to document the event."

It was said on Israeli TV. That's not evidence? Stating they were there to document the Towers getting hit by jets is not evidence?

 

[Craig4]

"Our purpose was to document the event."
"Our purpose was to document the event."

It was said on Israeli TV. That's not evidence? Stating they were there to document the Towers getting hit by jets is not evidence?

Prove foreknowledge. Did the van arrive before or after the attack?

 

[MikeW]

"Our purpose was to document the event."
"Our purpose was to document the event."

It was said on Israeli TV. That's not evidence? Stating they were there to document the Towers getting hit by jets is not evidence?

They did not say they were there to document the towers getting hit by jets; documenting the event could simply mean filming the burning towers.

 

[Craig4]

At what point do they say they were in the United States to document the attack on the WTC? It's pretty clear from the interview that they were on the roof of the building to document the event. They do not say that they had traveled to the United States to document the attack. Prove that they had foreknowledge.

 

[tmd2_1]

Simply he did an experiment where he had absolutely no idea what he was doing; end of story. I cannot disprove an experiment that already fails on its own premise. Let me emphasize again that this is old news



The assertion of the TM is that either the locations of the explosives are coordinated with the target floors the planes hit, or the explosives were planted on every floor. Watch any David Chandler video and he will cite every ejecta wave as a row of detonating explosives propagating the collapse. Other explanations they offer are that the explosives were planted inside the columns, protecting them somewhat from the heat until they were timing to go off. How exactly any of these scenarios are supposed to have been pulled off I have no idea. There was no physical evidence of this found, not even of damage to columns consistent with blast trauma, or for that matter - as truthers like to include - damage consistent with the melting of end connections in any of the buildings.


Absolutely not. Since the event has no precedent with an equivalent scale the results seen in this one are suspicious on the premise that a disaster of this scale happened for the first time in history. As long as it lacks a precisely equal precedent, it'll always be enough for truther's to try and wiggle the CD scenario in, no matter how proposterous their theories, or their claimed experiments have to be.

Unbelievable....forget about all he did for a second...all you have to do is do is exactly what Ryan Mackey and Fred Greening suggested NIST should do. Run experiments, to come up with an explanation for the "perplexing" findings. I mean you can pretend what he did never happened...just go out and prove it by experiment.

But I do agree with you, that this post has clearly drifted from what the OP intent was. I apologize for any role I had in that.