Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
T'was thinking about a response I got from a controlled demo proponent quite some time ago. I made the decision to post a bibliography of my reference materials so if he were willing he could either find the books at a library or buy them himself if he was interested in learning some extra stuff... Obviously the outcome was somewhat predictable... he weaved around having to go and read them, stating that but that they were also written after the incidents and thus were based on "invented" theories. When shown that the copyright date on two of the books was pre-2001 (1999 for the most recent of the two) he further claimed they had nothing to do with issues pertaining to 9/11, and then further claimed that Gage's seniority (solely based on age, and time in the profession) superseded my age.

Just curious if anyone's had a similar experience... I pretty much understand the deal that many of them have a double standard when it comes to appeal to authority (whether the appeal itself as a fallacy is relevant or not). I don't think I've ever heard anything from the resident CD proponents here what they thought of the available materials outside of both the NIST documents AND the truth movement books...
 
their argument is more of an "appeal to book learnin'". They don't care if their "expert" is an expert in the relevant field (Gage, DRG, etc...are examples of this), they think having a few letters after their names is sufficient.

TAM:)
 
Grizzly Bear said:
[...] stating that but that they were also written after the incidents and thus were based on "invented" theories. When shown that the copyright date on two of the books was pre-2001 (1999 for the most recent of the two) he further claimed they had nothing to do with issues pertaining to 9/11 [...]
Click to expand...


So... Anything written on the topic after 9/11 is tainted by "invented" theories. Anything written on the topic before 9/11 is irrelevant. Beautiful. :rolleyes:
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
So... Anything written on the topic after 9/11 is tainted by "invented" theories. Anything written on the topic before 9/11 is irrelevant. Beautiful. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yup... they seem to figure it's a win-win situation if they can avoid reading something that doesn't refer to either the TM or the WTC event directly, even if the concepts are perfectly applicable. I've also provided page scans to some of them, only to find out that they completely ****** up their reading of it.

I figured honestly if they had any doubts about what I was saying I'd give them the option of actually looking them up directly, but none of the craziest ones have the fortitude to do it...
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Yup... they seem to figure it's a win-win situation if they can avoid reading something that doesn't refer to either the TM or the WTC event directly, even if the concepts are perfectly applicable. I've also provided page scans to some of them, only to find out that they completely ****** up their reading of it.

I figured honestly if they had any doubts about what I was saying I'd give them the option of actually looking them up directly, but none of the craziest ones have the fortitude to do it...
Click to expand...

Ohhh, you've been conversing with MM then lately have you?:D
(see the "300 DVD.." thread.........)
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
I'll pick the latter! Since Bill loves to twist words around! ;)
Click to expand...

In the last month or so I have taken the time to watch/read the links that bill posts only to find that more often than not that the content has been twisted so much as to have either bill's comments or the comments of the 9/11 conspiracy believer in the link be as close to a lie as anything that Dick Cheney or G.W. Bush ever said.

bill gives 'truth' a purple nurple every time.
 
bill smith said:
So I guess we will we having some fun discussions on 'simile' and the like in the next few days. lol. Get used to this video debunkers- you're going to see a lot of it.

FIREFIGHTERS DESCRIBE MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o&feature=player_embedded
Click to expand...

Especially the part where the firefighter says he saw an airplane hit the building...so sad for the no-planers, isnt it bill.

Do you particularly like the part where the building stands after these explosions long enough for them to get out of the building?

TAM;)
 
bill smith said:
So I guess we will we having some fun discussions on 'simile' and the like in the next few days. lol. Get used to this video debunkers- you're going to see a lot of it.

FIREFIGHTERS DESCRIBE MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o&feature=player_embedded
Click to expand...

Wow I haven't seen that before. Do you think the explosions they felt were soda cans popping or crt monitors, like in the examples debunkers always give of things that make noises in office fires?
 
cooperman said:
Wow I haven't seen that before. Do you think the explosions they felt were soda cans popping or crt monitors, like in the examples debunkers always give of things that make noises in office fires?
Click to expand...
It was not from explosives, they would be dead. You have not worked around explosives, I can tell by your weak attack on debunkers.

They guys are talking soft, and can hear people talking normal, they were not exposed to explosives.

Failure, 9 years, here we go again, 911 trurth with a problem, they can't do similes. The fireman saw a plane hit; oops, Tony's real cd deal with no planes is debunked again.
 
Last edited:
cooperman said:
Wow I haven't seen that before. Do you think the explosions they felt were soda cans popping or crt monitors, like in the examples debunkers always give of things that make noises in office fires?
Click to expand...

Yup. There were explosions that a fireman would have heard. If he still has his hearing, they weren't demolition explosions.

Here are examples of explosions that were possible on 9/11.


Lots and lots of chemical explosions
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4695471#post4695471

Universal Studios fire. Explosions! Beams Melt!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neaN06P9L6c
http://www.infowhores.co.uk/images/universal_studios_fire.jpg

Paint store explosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2178600570591048350
News Story
http://blogs.chron.com/woodlands/archives/2006/02/fume_fire_paint.html

Backdraft explosion #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1_u-eAq5QU
Backdraft explosion #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkNCqrJiXsU
Fire Dept practice mistake
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3326847714607168493
Click to expand...
 
What evidence suggests that the explosions heard were NOT related to the fires and combustibles?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
What evidence suggests that the explosions heard were NOT related to the fires and combustibles?
Click to expand...

They were in the lobby. The fireman described them as definitely secondary explosions and say that any of these buildings could blow up. They are the experts and I trust what they say.

Of course, they aren't the only ones. Steven Evans from the BBC described a "huge" explosion at the base of the towers, which he says "we all heard and felt".
 
cooperman said:
They were in the lobby. The fireman described them as definitely secondary explosions and say that any of these buildings could blow up. They are the experts and I trust what they say.

Of course, they aren't the only ones. Steven Evans from the BBC described a "huge" explosion at the base of the towers, which he says "we all heard and felt".
Click to expand...
Wow, it was CD. You win.

Oops, no, you have similes for your explosives, you lost; 10 years of failure are safe for 911 truth.
 
bill smith said:
So I guess we will we having some fun discussions on 'simile' and the like in the next few days. lol. Get used to this video debunkers- you're going to see a lot of it.

FIREFIGHTERS DESCRIBE MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o&feature=player_embedded
Click to expand...

This bit of video is part of the 80GB NIST download. I came across it last night.

I'm sure BS & Friends will be opaque and oblivious to the fact that the collection contains countless examples of a tower collapse with perfectly clear audio of street noises but not a single demolition blast to go with it.
 
cooperman said:
They were in the lobby. The fireman described them as definitely secondary explosions and say that any of these buildings could blow up. They are the experts and I trust what they say.

Of course, they aren't the only ones. Steven Evans from the BBC described a "huge" explosion at the base of the towers, which he says "we all heard and felt".
Click to expand...

If he wasn't made deaf it wasn't loud enough to be a demolition explosion.
 
cooperman said:
They were in the lobby. The fireman described them as definitely secondary explosions and say that any of these buildings could blow up. They are the experts and I trust what they say.

Of course, they aren't the only ones. Steven Evans from the BBC described a "huge" explosion at the base of the towers, which he says "we all heard and felt".
Click to expand...

So then you agree that WTC 7 was fully involved and was likely to collapse, since that is what the experts said?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom