• 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.

Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

PixyMisa said:
No.
Click to expand...

oh thats right, it was the massive girth of the building that shattered the rest of the building so quickly as to be near free fall speeds.

so how did that sulphur get there is my question...

and why was there a temperature based reaction that exceeded the heat producible by any of these events?
 
Has anyone reviewed the 2nd video of the 1st impact? The one that captures the impact and a second explosion 9 seconds later that visibly shakes the camera?

Did you think anything of it...or should I assume no...?
 
thesyntaxera said:
to add to this..there is also the fact that in order for the building to fall as fast as it did it would have to be progressively weakened in advance of the falling debris to remove any resistance by the building itself...like a demolition
Click to expand...

I thought we had already been over this. And over, and over...

You have absolutely no basis for claiming that the buildings should have fallen faster than they did. No evidence, no source with relevant expertise, nothing.
 
richardm said:
Which is amazing, because four weeks ago you said



But you're not playing devil's advocate at all, are you? You really believe this stuff. So not only are you a creduloid idiot, you're a liar as well. Oh dear!
Click to expand...


Richard the only thing you have illuminated here is your lack of critical thinking...your apparent wish to be percieved as an A-hole, and a total lack of interpersonal ettiquette.......you all freak out, and then wonder why I am rude in return, and then claim I am exactly like everyone else who makes these claims just because I argue the other point of view... when I have been saying all along that I don't buy the David Icke illuminati driven world government that you all seem to think is the heart of every conspiracy theory to emanate from this event...It is reasonable to think a cover up took place because there is every indication that one has, and it is reasonable to think that the investigation sucked...because it did, and it is reasonable to think that the towers came down in a manner not described by the official report because the three explanations are mutually contradictory...

You have taken my comments out of context to call me a liar...like the tactless, witless, master of the innane that you are...

what I said was:
I am electing to play devils advocate, due in part to the fact that no one has done any real debunking in this thread...so I thought I would supply some info to be debunked...sound fun? ok...
Click to expand...

I am adamant yes, but only because there are so many glaring holes that you seem to think are invalid if you can write them off with right brain logic
Click to expand...

You all talk as if your narrow minded ramblings represent fact and truth, when you fail to realize that your narrowminded ramblings are no better at proving anything than a CT argument is. You all talk as if each of the CT claims has been refuted...using such language as "flogged to death"....

Flogged to death by what? Your immaculate words? Your arguments...? You have resisted any requests for physical evidence that proves the official story as is...you have failed to show anything other than planes hitting buildings...multiple holes and inconsistancies have been noted in hundred of news print media outlets...these have been written off under the auspices of unreliable news media, unreliable analysis, invalid analysis..etc Multiple eyewitness and first hand accounts from official sources are written off because YOU can't verifiy them personally, excluding the possibility that they may be true in favor of the radical skepticism that keeps your arguments afloat...in this case you are paranoid of anything that hasn't come from an official mouthpiece, and failed to note how many people changed thier perception of the events after they were placed on an official payroll, such as the Van Romero character...you use character assassination on anyone who raises a dissenting opinion...you are the skeptics that rely on the cheap shot to win an argument rather than explain fact, because winning the argument in your eyes is like gaining a victory for the worldview that you use like a mantra...it proves nothing, and still you continue...believe whatever you want....your going to anyway...but please just explain the following:

How you can believe 3 mutually contradictory explanations for collapse?

Why can't we see one picture of a plane anywhere near the pentagon..it must have been caught from every angle imaginable..

Why despite the protests of a Commissioner, 9/11 families, and numerous new yorkers a more comprehensive investigation wasn't done?

What caused a Eutectic reaction for the first time ever in a building fire, something that would require temp's in extreme excess of what this disaster is capable of producing, and something that is a hallmark of explosives...Remember the FEMA team looked for a cause in the buildings themselves and found nothing worthwhile...so this is still a mystery...


What physical evidence is there to prove as FACT the official story? By it's own admission it is a hypothesis.

Why don't you recognize that the official version is a conspiracy theory of similar magnitude to the ones you decry, and that our government has taken part in all kinds of conspiracies for years, not to mention one in particular that detailed the planning of a staged terrorist attack to gain the very outcome that this has garnered ala northwoods...while also disregarding what we know as fact about that day, that cheney ran his own command and control shadow government to coordinate the governments response...

Your ultimate comeback has been.."well...it would take thousands of people to pull this off..." as if this one comment will some how debunk the whole idea when in reality it would take just a few well placed people to throw a few well placed wrenches to stop the machinery of the government at any time...

You prize your pseudo logic until someone uses it to create a CT claim, then it's the most wretched form of disinformation...quit contradicting yourselves...
 
Last edited:
Kevin_Lowe said:
I thought we had already been over this. And over, and over...

You have absolutely no basis for claiming that the buildings should have fallen faster than they did. No evidence, no source with relevant expertise, nothing.
Click to expand...

I never said that they fell faster than they did....I said that they fall at nearly free fall speeds which they do...get it straight man.
 
thesyntaxera said:
You have taken my comments out of context to call me a liar...
Click to expand...
You are not playing devil's advocate here are you? You really believe the "Official Story Is Not True" line. So either you were lying in your original claim, or you are an idiot who doesn't know what "playing devil's advocate" means. Which is it?

I make a real effort to be nice to people here, even when I strongly disagree with them. But I am making a special effort not to bother in your case because you're a deliberate liar who pretends not to believe something when you really do, and who keeps trotting out the same debunked claims again and again and again - just like a True Believer should! Plus, you're boring. And it's Tuesday, when my tolerance is traditionally at a low ebb. So while I'm showing off my lack of personal etiquette and exercising my A-Hole credentials:

percieved
ettiquette
[FONT=&quot]innane
[FONT=&quot]inconsistancies
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]verifiy
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]thier
[/FONT]
Click to expand...
[FONT=&quot] Learn to spell!

Also, you smell funny and have poor dress sense.

Apologies to the other thread denizens for this. I think it was the 6,000+ word cut-and-paste and the size=5 post that tipped me over the edge. I won't do it again, I promise.
[/FONT]
 
thesyntaxera said:
to add to this..there is also the fact that in order for the building to fall as fast as it did it would have to be progressively weakened in advance of the falling debris to remove any resistance by the building itself...like a demolition
Click to expand...

And might I ask how you reach this conclusion ?

thesyntaxera said:
Explained? You call what you guys do explaining? The points that I mention are directly taken from the documents that you so prize...there is no explaining needed. I am adamant yes, but only because there are so many glaring holes that you seem to think are invalid if you can write them off with right brain logic.
Click to expand...

Syntax, this IS beign close-minded. You're not pointing out what part of our argument is flawed, you're just repeating the same assertions over and over and claiming that ours are false to start with. The REASON for you beign adamant is NOT our lack of proof or logic, but rather the fact that you decided, in advance, that you would hold this conclusion, and convince US or else.

That's not the way investigations work, Syntax. You'd do a very poor detective.

thesyntaxera said:
Sort of...more like there are visible "squib" jets, there is a pyroclastic flow of hot dust and debris that usually accompanies volcano's, this flow has to be a certain temperature in order to behave this way,
Click to expand...

So, what now ? A volcanoe destroyed the WTC ?

not exactly. it ignites by heating air with glow plugs until it reaches it's flash point, and then injecting the fuel into thje mix....
Click to expand...

Wanna do an experiment ? Buy a liter... sorry... a gallon of diesel fuel from your local vendor... and then put a match to it. If you survive, tell us about your conclusions.

Go buy a small can of diesel and throw a match into it....my bet is that it probably won't flash like gas.
Click to expand...

Your BET? So basically you know HOW diesel engines work... and you think that diesel CANNOT flash just because those types of engines don't NEED to use a sparkplug ? This is like saying that water-soluble paint won't go away with oil.

uh...no....I am suggesting that there may have been some explosives present, and that there might have been sensitive materials that needed obscuring.
Click to expand...

So... the evil government is just hiding the fact that the attacks made the stockpiled explosives blow ?
 
thesyntaxera said:
Has anyone reviewed the 2nd video of the 1st impact? The one that captures the impact and a second explosion 9 seconds later that visibly shakes the camera?
Click to expand...

Oh NO! Shockwaves from explosions take time to reach the camera! What ever shall we do ?

thesyntaxera said:
Why can't we see one picture of a plane anywhere near the pentagon..it must have been caught from every angle imaginable..
Click to expand...

Can't see a missile, either.

Why despite the protests of a Commissioner, 9/11 families, and numerous new yorkers a more comprehensive investigation wasn't done?
Click to expand...

You're starting to talk like a JFK CTer.

What caused a Eutectic reaction for the first time ever in a building fire, something that would require temp's in extreme excess of what this disaster is capable of producing, and something that is a hallmark of explosives...Remember the FEMA team looked for a cause in the buildings themselves and found nothing worthwhile...so this is still a mystery...
Click to expand...

NOW you're starting to talk like a theist. "If we don't know what created the universe... it MUST be God."

Why don't you recognize that the official version is a conspiracy theory of similar magnitude to the ones you decry,
Click to expand...

It is. But when did terrorists ever try to hide the fact that they attack the enemy ?

...and that our government has taken part in all kinds of conspiracies for years, not to mention one in particular that detailed the planning of a staged terrorist attack to gain the very outcome that this has garnered ala northwoods...while also disregarding what we know as fact about that day, that cheney ran his own command and control shadow government to coordinate the governments response...
Click to expand...

Slow down, Syntax. What in the blue HELL are you talking about ?

Your ultimate comeback has been.."well...it would take thousands of people to pull this off..." as if this one comment will some how debunk the whole idea when in reality it would take just a few well placed people to throw a few well placed wrenches to stop the machinery of the government at any time...
Click to expand...

Well, in order to pull THIS one off, they'd have to plan the hijack of four planes and a whole lot of other things. They couldn't do it with a handful of people. And what do you do with these people then ? Eliminate them ? Otherwise they may talk: bad for you!
 
thesyntaxera said:
Except that there were visible hot spots 23 days afterward. Thats quite an achievement for a hydrocarbon fire that should by rights, have been nearly extinguished by the debris.
Click to expand...

By what right do you claim 'by all rights'? Its obvious you now zilch about heat and fires. The debris can easily produce an oven effect very easily.

Ever heard of Centralia?
 
I just got an email review of the book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin. The reviewer, Richard Morrock, says:
Most writers on a subject do what is called research on the material, which means reading books, conducting interviews, and tracking down documents. This consumes far too much time and effort for conspiracy buffs like Griffin. His approach consists of asking disturbing questions, ignoring the actual evidence, speculating about the possible answers, assuming the worst-case scenario, and then drawing up his indictment of the administration based on his assumptions, even where they are in flagrant contradiction to widely-known facts.

...

One of the points Griffin raises is why the South Tower collapsed half an hour before the North Tower, although it was struck 15 minutes later. From this alleged discrepancy in the official story, Griffin concludes that the government had planted explosives in the WTC the previous weekend, using a power blackout as cover, and had dynamited the buildings.
Click to expand...

So Syntax, are you David Griffin?
 
CurtC said:
"One of the points Griffin raises is why the South Tower collapsed half an hour before the North Tower, although it was struck 15 minutes later. From this alleged discrepancy in the official story, Griffin concludes that the government had planted explosives in the WTC the previous weekend, using a power blackout as cover, and had dynamited the buildings."
Click to expand...

Which is funny. CTers use this kind of "discrepancy" to prove their point, completely forgetting that, IF someone really HAD decided to bomb the WTC, they'd have toppled the tower that got hit first, FIRST, and second tower LAST.
 
thesyntaxera said:
I never said that they fell faster than they did....I said that they fall at nearly free fall speeds which they do...get it straight man.
Click to expand...

I'm really beginning to wonder why I bother.

You claim that the actual speed of the buildings' collapse is so fast that it is inconsistent with the official story. Right?

You also have absolutely no credible support for this claim. Right? No relevant expert, no experimental evidence, nothing. It's just a claim you pulled out of thin air.

So you're just making completely empty claims. Over and over again.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
I'm really beginning to wonder why I bother.

You claim that the actual speed of the buildings' collapse is so fast that it is inconsistent with the official story. Right?

You also have absolutely no credible support for this claim. Right? No relevant expert, no experimental evidence, nothing. It's just a claim you pulled out of thin air.

So you're just making completely empty claims. Over and over again.
Click to expand...


No thats not what I am claiming...I am saying that when they are timed they fall at nearly free fall speeds...to quote the Steve Jones paper:

Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less than 6.6 seconds; time it!)
Click to expand...

empty claims my arse.
 
Which is it?
Click to expand...

Whichever you choose to label me, Dick.

I make a real effort to be nice to people here, even when I strongly disagree with them.
Click to expand...

I bet.

But I am making a special effort not to bother in your case because you're a deliberate liar who pretends not to believe something when you really do, and who keeps trotting out the same debunked claims again and again and again - just like a True Believer should! Plus, you're boring. And it's Tuesday, when my tolerance is traditionally at a low ebb. So while I'm showing off my lack of personal etiquette and exercising my A-Hole credentials:
Click to expand...

They haven't been debunked, as I already explained. You can't even answer the simple questions I put forward....

As far as being boring...and all that liar nonsense...could you be any more juvenile? Answer the questions or don't....but please don't evolve some sort of emotional attachment to this thread and act like you are on a crusade against injustice just because you can't seem to "win" the debate....which is what you are attempting correct? To be right? Because thats what's important..

as far as spelling...no one else in this thread or on this forum, nor you I am guessing have ever mispelled in typing haste I am sure....
 
You're just jealous you don't look as cool as this guy:

drmas9yb.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom