Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

[The Platypus]

Do you realize how many times I've read the above?

You're in the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" section of the forum. Welcome.

The way you 911 dudes act, arrogant and always puffing yourself like that, it's no wonder you hear that allot. Like i need you to tell me where i am and then he welcomes me. See what i'm saying, sigh...

I noticed you said earlier that:

"Men more qualified than they (they, refers to the members here) have outlined detailed arguments as to why they're wrong".

Who are these men? What makes them the sole ones qualified enough to know? What makes you 911 CTers so arrogant that you proclaim yourselves the smartest people there are and completely infallible when your so far from either? Delusions of grandeur or what?

It's seems to be that the consensus of the vast majority of the experts that have dealt with 911, "men more qualified" than anyone in the 911 fringe, have outlined detailed arguments as to why your tiny handful of "men" are wrong.

So what of that?

 

[tempesta29]

I state that a 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy is 100% impossible, yes.

You should absolutely be ashamed of yourself for having such a state of mind. It's one thing to declare "black being white" or "zero having the value of one" impossible, but it is another altogether to deem what is merely a complicated conspiracy 100% impossible. It simply underscores the fact that you don't know what possibility is.

You are a disgrace to critical thinking, sir, and I will no longer be responding to your counter-intuitive drivel.

 

[DC]

You should absolutely be ashamed of yourself for having such a state of mind. It's one thing to declare "black being white" or "zero having the value of one" impossible, but it is another altogether to deem what is merely a complicated conspiracy 100% impossible. It simply underscores the fact that you don't know what possibility is.

You are a disgrace to critical thinking, sir, and I will no longer be responding to your counter-intuitive drivel.

You as a fan of Critical Thinking, have you also taken a critical look at the theories you beliefe?

 

[Comrade Raptor]

There are always distinct causes for every reaction. That doesn't mean there is evidence of those causes in this particular case.



Once again, steel will offer a minimum amount of resistance to collapse. For 2.25 seconds, no components of WTC 7 offered any resistance. What exactly am I misinterpreting here? Your assistance in such confusion would be greatly appreciated.

There is quite a bit of evidence for those causes.

And a portion of WTC7 was in freefall for 2.25 seconds, which is a subset of the existing NIST data, which actually serves as proof that NIST's analysis is correct.

You would not be so confused if you did not mine data from a polluted vein.

Now, you can act all smug and superior as you see fit. This does not alter the fact that you are not only wrong, but wrong in the very elemental basics of what you seek to "investigate". This has the aggregate effect of making you look quite foolish, but if that's how you want to waste your time then it's yours to waste.

But you should take a moment to ask yourself how many years you are prepared to sacrifice out of your life in the quixotic pursuit of a fake rabbit.

 

[tempesta29]

You didn't answer his question. Show us how your "compartmentalization" can cause the participants of such a huge complicated conspiracy to not be aware of the destruction you allege that they could have done. Show us how the building could have been rigged for a CD without the demo team knowing about it. Tell us how the conspirators could have kept silent, every potential whistleblower who had a suspicion that they were part of the chain of events that caused the murder of 3000 people. Tell us how the thousands of volunteers and professionals who did the recovery and cleanup could hide away any evidence of detonators, det cord, explosive residue, thermite residue, thermite burnt steel columns, and shape charges and keep their co-workers silent. tell us how could the thousands of engineers architects and staff and outside vendors work in cooperation to falsify a 2000 page report, Without a single member spilling the beans in ten ***** years!!! Tell us how you could keep the suspicions of teams of investigators silent as they pored over thousands of tons of debris on sorting conveyors and then raked through the remains again after it was spread out on the ground with rakes looking for things no bigger than a thumbnail at fresh kills. tell us why absolutely none of the engineers, architects, fire and rescue, police, clean up and demolition professionals who actually worked the ***** site agree with you that it was a CD? Tell us how the chemists or lab assistants or testers whom you allege developed and processed the tons of thermite or thermate or nano thermite or whatever flavor of the week the jackass truth movement tries to back into a conspiracy based on nothing but profound ignorance, managed to keep silent for over ten years and could have successfully buried any trail of evidence whatsoever of its production, testing, and application.

Being incredibly repetitive and redundant as you've performed above just makes it that much harder to respond, but I will do my best.

Unfortunately your question presumes so much. Your inquisition presumes that without precise answers, my theory is false. It's one long rambling logical fallacy. Do the proponents of the official story promise such detail? You want to know how chemists involved kept silent? My short answer is: they're those autistic types who are really smart but don't know what's going on.

That's the type of answer I give people I generally disdain. Why I hold you in such disregard should be obvious. Your questions are insulting, and they are off point. I never entered this thread claiming knowledge of such detail.

You got nothing, Nothing but your stupid incredulity. You are not unique. Nothing new. You spout the same idiotic talking points right down the line of a movement you claim not to be a member of. Your conspiracy is based on nothing more than the thinnest slice of "it could happen". But it cant and we have shown you why. Instead of reading the books you eat the covers. Its "too much work for you". Remain ignorant then. You can be another prime example of a truther we can hold up and say "This is your brain on stupid".

I am unique, actually. Not unique for being involved in this. No, not by a long shot. I'm unique for other reasons which you will most likely never discover, but thanks for being so interested in my personality at all. It shows tremendous adventurism.

My favorite part of your above quote is the oft-witnessed "you're wrong and we've already demonstrated why" argument. I love that one. It's akin to the "my two hot supermodel girlfriends just blew by in my lightning fast Ferrari; guess you missed them" approach. Well played.

 

[tempesta29]

You as a fan of Critical Thinking, have you also taken a critical look at the theories you beliefe?

Yes. Have you, Christian Scientist?

And a portion of WTC7 was in freefall for 2.25 seconds, which is a subset of the existing NIST data, which actually serves as proof that NIST's analysis is correct.

Which portion of the structure? Cite it please. I already quoted the passage earlier. NIST never claimed only a portion of WTC 7 descended at gravitational acceleration.

Now, you can act all smug and superior as you see fit. This does not alter the fact that you are not only wrong, but wrong in the very elemental basics of what you seek to "investigate". This has the aggregate effect of making you look quite foolish, but if that's how you want to waste your time then it's yours to waste.

I was attacked from the moment I "stepped foot" in this thread. I'm not being smug; I'm holding my ground, and you don't like it. And I've never been too concerned with how I look. That's your business.

 

[tempesta29]

Who are these men? What makes them the sole ones qualified enough to know? What makes you 911 CTers so arrogant that you proclaim yourselves the smartest people there are and completely infallible when your so far from either? Delusions of grandeur or what?

I don't really care that much who they are, nor do I care of the credentials of proponents of the official story. If something is false then it can usually be proven false. The same holds true for truth; therefore, credentials matter little. They feel good to have behind you or your "cause" but they have no bearing on actuality. I am a man voicing my opinion. That opinion is either true or false. You can choose to work with me to highlight the truth or you can choose to engage in an ad hominem attack because of your insecurities which you dress up as boredom and weariness.

It's funny that your tedium doesn't deter you from posting in this sub-forum altogether. I suppose the allure of ridiculing others keeps you inspired. Good for you. It's always good to have 'that thing'.

 

[DC]

Yes. Have you, Christian Scientist?

oh wow, i am a Christian now LOL and a Scientist, im neither

and yes i very well have done so.

 

[tempesta29]

oh wow, i am a Christian now LOL and a Scientist, im neither

and yes i very well have done so.

Oh. Well please pardon my presumptuousness. I'm typing past my bedtime.

 

[DC]

Oh. Well please pardon my presumptuousness. I'm typing past my bedtime.

oh well i forgive you, i hope that doesn't look too Christian

 

[tempesta29]

oh well i forgive you, i hope that doesn't look too Christian

Not these days.

 

[dc1971]

Your science is fool-proof right? But it isn't.

No one ever said science is fool-proof!

 

[dc1971]

Do you think such a secret gets easier or harder to maintain over time? I'll give you time to answer that one (tricky).

Ummmm, it's not tricky at all... it gets much harder to keep a secret over a period of time. Here's an example (pay attention around 4:50)...

 

[NutCracker]

If something is false then it can usually be proven false. The same holds true for truth; therefore, credentials matter little. They feel good to have behind you or your "cause" but they have no bearing on actuality. I am a man voicing my opinion. That opinion is either true or false.

Well then, lay all the relevant facts on the table, radar data, photographic evidence, video evidence, CVR audio, FDR data, witness testimony, documents etc, etc., and show us as the cold hard facts dictate your heading how its leads to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job of some kind. If your opinions holds true, you should be able to provide such an argument.

Up to know you have been wondering into the hypothetical. An hypothetical explanation doesn't make a true explanation automatically. Having strong opinions on it doesn't make it true either. The possible explanation has to match reality.

Arguing how 9/11 could have been a vast inside conspiracy does not make it a reality. Arguing how the collapse of buildings could have been a CD doesn't make it so. You will have to prove it. For any CD devices of some kind are used. These devices leave traces in reality. Their operation might leave visual and audible traces that could be discernible in video evidence. There operation might leave chemical traces behind. After operation the materials that these devices do not disappear from reality. You have to come of with the remnants of these devices.

You can choose to work with me to highlight the truth or you can choose to engage in an ad hominem attack because of your insecurities which you dress up as boredom and weariness.

You have to understand that your arguments are not new to forum members here. Quite the contrary Countless times have new members started threads putting these arguments forward as evidence for the events of 9/11 being some vast inside conspiracy. On every occasion forum members have demonstrated these arguments to have no merit. The boredom you ascribe to insecurities and weariness is very real.

 

[NutCracker]

I've seen this before. You don't need to skip over the scientific parts if you're right! Why skip over those parts? Your science is fool-proof right? But it isn't. At the very least the science of the WTC collapses is disturbing and at its greatest extent it is damning and indicting. No steel-framed high rise will collapse at free-fall acceleration without explosive assistance. It cannot happen under any other conceivable circumstances. You genuinely believe that there were circumstances for which there is no physical evidence that caused some magical internal situation that led to an occurrence that had never happened before? You can't see it. I've read the NIST report.

We know the predominance of the core columns didn't collapse until the outer structure did so because there is still a remaining structure on the roof just prior to global collapse. Do you genuinely believe that showing an unwitting controlled demolition expert a video of that collapse would elicit that person to respond that the building collapsed from anything but explosives? I would be willing to bet you that in a demonstration to 100 of such individuals that not 5 would even consider the collapse to be anything but controlled. Would you take that kind of bet?

Please, claiming your opponent's position is imperfect doesn't make it so. Neither does putting forward arguments from incredulity like claims of the impossibility of free-fall of (part-of) a building in a structural failure induced collapse.
An appeal to authority like your demolition expert argument does not prove your position.
And even if your opponent's position is imperfect, that does not imply your position holds true.

You have been invited to prove your positions on several occasions here. Please do.

 

[Craig4]

Do you think such a secret gets easier or harder to maintain over time? I'll give you time to answer that one (tricky).



Pardon me but do you see anyone using its possibility as evidence that it happened? I sure hope not, because I see quite a few using its alleged "impossibility" as evidence that it never happened, hence my response.

Read post 219.

 

[Craig4]

Okay, great do you have explosive residue on any of the debris from the towers? You want to tell us this is a controlled demolition, where is the explosive residue?

 

[Thunder]

I was attacked from the moment I "stepped foot" in this thread. I'm not being smug; I'm holding my ground, and you don't like it.

do you consider yourself to be a suffering servant for "the truth"?

 

[Thunder]

You are a disgrace to critical thinking, sir, and I will no longer be responding to your counter-intuitive drivel.

irony...is not strong enough of a word.

 

[twinstead]

The evidence supports the commonly-held narrative of 9-11, no matter what a tiny cult of deniers say. tempesta29 you are just spinning your wheels if you don't have evidence that explains what was seen that day better.