Question to truthers

bill smith said:
Tut tut Dave. Pots and kettles you know.. Would you like me to post some firefighter statements detailing explosions ? Watch this Readers.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to just how many times you need to be told that reports of explosions at the WTC are most certainly not proof positive of explosions, nor are the even good evidence of explosives at all. Which, of course, is funny considering you seem to grasp things that support your position very well considering there really isn't a whole lot of that.

If only you applied the same dogged scrutiny to things that you think support you that you to to things that do not.
 
AndrewBurley said:
Firstly, I would like to see an original copy of that first video. <snip>
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight, truther...you have never seen the complete video of the WTC7 collapse, and yet you've formed an unwavering opinion that it was a CD?

Yeah, you aren't worth even typing this much...so long, moron...
 
tmd2_1 said:
Oh really?? Take a look at this website. This petition was started with serious intentions. You can see they've amassed the great total of 55. But 46-55 clearly are not serious. The genius creator of the petition didn't put any safeguards in to prevent "Richard Gage" from signing. So that leaves 45. Assuming they are all real (though I know something like this has no real relevance, as anyone can go in and just make up names) I'm surprised at that number. In fact I'd figure the webpage would have run out of bandwidth by now.

http://www.nothermite.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1898
Click to expand...

10 years after the fact, we can safely assume that each and every architect and engineer NOT on the stupid AE911 petition is against it. I'd venture the vast majority of architects and engineers have never heard of Gage's money making scheme, and if they learned about it they'd roll their eyes at the stupidity of it all.

Truth movement is dead. D-E-A-D. You truthers are the most stupid of all stupid conspiriTards. This is the most viewed, most recorded, most well-documented event in human history. Nothing you can say will change that - and nothing you show can contradict what we all saw, in real time.

Give it up.
 
Marokkaan said:

Chandlers 16 seconds to first blatant lie
"nist sole rationale for not investigating explosive use, was the supposed lack of sufficiently loud sounds".
yet 55 seconds in "we did not find any evidence that explosives were used in the collapse of building seven."

So
No barotrauma
No forcibly ejected debris.
No windows blown out for blocks
No "squibs"


Craig Bartner knows what explosions sound like, No mention of "Explosives" "thum thum thum thum" he says. His description is a better fit for pancaking floors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOn32pZ__Mw
Click to expand...
"from the involuntary startle response, we know that explosions are being heard" ?????? really? that's a blatant lie by an inept flunky high school grade teacher. You can see plainly in the video that Ashleigh Banfield can see the collapse initiation within the range of her peripheral vision

banfieldwtc7.jpg



around 4 mins in Chandler claims witnesses respond to the collapse of the building before it collapses. yet in his screen cap the penthouses are missing.

Thats all the lies for now. ill stop at this point in the video as its sufficient to dismiss the entire video as a cacophony of lies, off to breakfast with the wife .
 
NoahFence said:
10 years after the fact, we can safely assume that each and every architect and engineer NOT on the stupid AE911 petition is against it. I'd venture the vast majority of architects and engineers have never heard of Gage's money making scheme, and if they learned about it they'd roll their eyes at the stupidity of it all.

Truth movement is dead. D-E-A-D. You truthers are the most stupid of all stupid conspiriTards. This is the most viewed, most recorded, most well-documented event in human history. Nothing you can say will change that - and nothing you show can contradict what we all saw, in real time.

Give it up.
Click to expand...

You know you and that petition convinced me. I think I may give it up. Please most architects and engineers aren't even aware of AE911 truth, and even more are unaware of all the evidence surrounding the events. A lack of signature does not mean a disagreement.

If I use your logic there are 45 that agree with the official story (that assumes that they are all real) that must mean all rest disagree with it right?
 
I'm sorry, I realize I have made a mistake. See, my OP is incomplete. It should have been:

1) Why is it inconceivable to believe that terrorists committed a terrorist act?
and:
2) Why is it inconceivable to believe that an airplane striking a building, could bring such building down?


Since some people find it inconceivable that an airplane hitting a building the way it did, could bring it down, please provide one single real life example of an airplane colliding with a building on an obvious critical spot (such as it happened on the WTC towers) and not bringing it down.
 
tmd2_1 said:
You know you and that petition convinced me. I think I may give it up. Please most architects and engineers aren't even aware of AE911 truth, and even more are unaware of all the evidence surrounding the events. A lack of signature does not mean a disagreement.

If I use your logic there are 45 that agree with the official story (that assumes that they are all real) that must mean all rest disagree with it right?
Click to expand...

reading comprehension is awesome.
 
tmd2_1 said:
You know you and that petition convinced me. I think I may give it up. Please most architects and engineers aren't even aware of AE911 truth, and even more are unaware of all the evidence surrounding the events. A lack of signature does not mean a disagreement.

If I use your logic there are 45 that agree with the official story (that assumes that they are all real) that must mean all rest disagree with it right?
Click to expand...

For same strange reason, my original post was moved, it was on topic in terms of where the discussion was headed. But anyway here it is again.


Oh really?? Take a look at this website. This petition was started with serious intentions. You can see they've amassed the great total of 55. But 46-55 clearly are not serious. The genius creator of the petition didn't put any safeguards in to prevent "Richard Gage" from signing. So that leaves 45. Assuming they are all real (though I know something like this has no real relevance, as anyone can go in and just make up names) I'm surprised at that number. In fact I'd figure the webpage would have run out of bandwidth by now.

http://www.nothermite.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1898
 
tmd2_1 said:
For same strange reason, my original post was moved, it was on topic in terms of where the discussion was headed. But anyway here it is again.


Oh really?? Take a look at this website. This petition was started with serious intentions. You can see they've amassed the great total of 55. But 46-55 clearly are not serious. The genius creator of the petition didn't put any safeguards in to prevent "Richard Gage" from signing. So that leaves 45. Assuming they are all real (though I know something like this has no real relevance, as anyone can go in and just make up names) I'm surprised at that number. In fact I'd figure the webpage would have run out of bandwidth by now.

http://www.nothermite.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1898
Click to expand...

"55 people signed the petition since June 26, 2011"

This petition is only 3 months old, and no one is offering this petition as proof that the majority of the engineering community accepts the NIST account of what happened on 9-11. That's because petitions aren't evidence of anything. Most experts will likely ignore this petition entirely since they seem to be so fond of evidence instead.

You're basically bragging that your petition is bigger that theirs. Whoop-dee do. The fact that in ten years you could only amass a fraction of a percent of the engineering community shows that the truth movement is not being taken seriously and still puts you in the minority.
 
AndrewBurley said:
Is stabbing oneself in the back a common suicide method?

Ok, I will be more specific. You find a body with 47 stab wounds in the back, you have ruled out suicide (:rolleyes:) and you know it is murder.....but you don't know who did it or why.

My point remains. Why do I need to know a motive to know wtc7 was demolished?
Click to expand...

Still could be self defense......
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
No explosions in WTC7 you silly boy ? And what's that white smoke boiling up from the base of WTC7 after one of the explosions (at 3:35 in the video) ? Ask the news commentator if you have doubts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=BXvsugiyKdY longer version

PS. NIST said that office fires only burn for about 20 minutes at any given location.As the furniture is burned up the fire goes out and moves on. So how come the thick smoke we see pouring from WTC7 went on all day for maybe six straight hours without visibly diminishing ?
Click to expand...

Fire is an organic reaction. It will in fact, move to a different spot, and even grow bigger. Imagine that.
 
Still no one has addressed question N# 2: Give me one single example of a plane collision against a building, just in the way it happened on the WTC, in which the building does not collapse down.
 
triforcharity said:
Fire is an organic reaction. It will in fact, move to a different spot, and even grow bigger. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

What about whwn the fire gets to the third spot. Is the first spot still an inferno or have the available combustables been burned out leaving almost no fire. maybe just a little reidual smouldering ?
 
Last edited:
Eric D said:
"55 people signed the petition since June 26, 2011"

This petition is only 3 months old, and no one is offering this petition as proof that the majority of the engineering community accepts the NIST account of what happened on 9-11. That's because petitions aren't evidence of anything. Most experts will likely ignore this petition entirely since they seem to be so fond of evidence instead.

You're basically bragging that your petition is bigger that theirs. Whoop-dee do. The fact that in ten years you could only amass a fraction of a percent of the engineering community shows that the truth movement is not being taken seriously and still puts you in the minority.
Click to expand...

No 45 did...46-55 are clearly not real. I don't think "Richard Gage" would sign this. I mean I figured with how much evidence is out there and just how clear it is...3 months is more than enough time. That page should have thousands should it not? I mean it's just basic physics right?
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Still no one has addressed question N# 2: Give me one single example of a plane collision against a building, just in the way it happened on the WTC, in which the building does not collapse down.
Click to expand...

Save that defence for court Ron. We'll let the jury decide if your point is a valid one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom