Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
RedIbis said:
My theory is that due to geo-political reasons, members of the Bush administration, including Rumsfeld were not telling the whole truth and prevented a thorough and comprehensive investigation into 9/11.
Click to expand...

"due to geo-political reasons" isn't much of a motive. If you hope to demonstrate that they had something to gain by concealing the truth, the impact of the truth must be compared to the impact of a lie. And the impact of what you claim to be the truth can't be fully demonstrated unless you say what you think the truth is.

It stands to reason that way--if you say I lied to stay out of trouble, anyone would expect you to explain why I'd be in trouble for the truth.
 
RedIbis said:
You won't want to admit it, but there's a very large group of people who doubt the official account of 9/11. They come from many countries, with many different political beliefs. In fact, other than a healthy skepticism towards a very improbable story, they likely don't have much in common at all.
Click to expand...


A preconceived notion that the U.S. Government (if not the U.S. itself) is fundamentally evil, thereby willing to slaughter its own civilians by the thousands and then lie to the world about it would be a rather significant and relevant similarity.

And we all know that there's been a general dislike for America in many parts of the world long before 9/11 occurred. I would be much more suspicious of the "government story" if my country were respected and loved by a vast majority of the planet's population.

When there are a number of people threatening you with violence, why is it suspicious when one of them actually goes through with the threat?
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
I always forget that Red is kind of a Truther snob, and gets quite upset when someone lumps him in with other truthers that are "inferior" to him.

qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent.

Anyway, I wonder if truthers get upset with Red when he won't answer a simple "bandit" related question.

Makes the No Planers and Space Beamers look bad, Red.
Click to expand...
I find it weird that I was able to get that without a translation, and I don't even speak Latin.
 
RedIbis said:
My theory is that due to geo-political reasons, members of the Bush administration, including Rumsfeld were not telling the whole truth and prevented a thorough and comprehensive investigation into 9/11.
Click to expand...

So you think the official story is improbable based on an improbable set of circumstances you've created? :stone031:
 
dafydd said:
I've asked every truther here that and never got an answer. It seems to defeat the object of of the 'truth' movement if they won't tell you what they think that the 'truth' is.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that from the lurking I've done the last couple weeks. For being so certain about something, they aren't too certain about anything.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
This is another lie that truthers like to tell. Response:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard
​

That applies as much to the reports regarding WTC 7 as it does to the main towers.

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?



More:

​

The reason we know that bombs are ruled out is because we've studied the evidence, and have not restricted ourselves to misrepresentations of what people said. So no, a combination of planes and bombs is not a possibility. This has been established.

Look, you act as though these are issues that have not been addressed before. They have. And in great detail too. Before you go off and make a claim like the one I'm responding to, why don't you do some basic searching on this forum first and see what we've already said about it? The whole "bombs" argument is old, well disproven, and frankly tiresome. We expect people to understand that when they engage in debate here. You cannot simply say that the ruling out of bombs is "presumption"; it is not. It is concluded from the evidence.

So please, do yourself a favor: Look things up before presenting them. It'll be better for you and will result in less sarcasm from us. Many of us are tired of seeing the same old canards hoisted week after week.
Click to expand...

The above is just disinformation. All three buildings went down swiftly and evenly. Damage may occur swiftly but never evenly. And global collapses of huge buildings don't happen in threes. Especially when there had never been a global collapse of huge building without it being a controlled demolition.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The above is just disinformation. All three buildings went down swiftly and evenly. Damage may occur swiftly but never evenly. And global collapses of huge buildings don't happen in threes. Especially when there had never been a global collapse of huge building without it being a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

It's rare to see so much wrong written in so few words. Nice font too.
 
I just find it strange that they stood for 30 years when they were in pristine condition, and ONLY collapsed after a couple of planes were hijacked and used as missiles igniting huge fires and crippling the fire suppression systems while removing some columns [/run-on].

And that thing about 4 other buildings on the WTC complex (3, 4, 5, 6) were perfectly fine until they were crushed under the debris of the bigger ones... totally doesn't happen in quintuplets; outside of controlled demolitions that is...!

:tinfoil :tinfoil
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
I don't know if it's annoying, but it sure isn't persuasive when anyone does it.
Click to expand...

It just shows there is an agenda afoot. The reason people don't know every aspect of the biggest news story in American history is because the MSM has subjected it to a blackout.
 
Clayton Moore said:
It just shows there is an agenda afoot. The reason people don't know every aspect of the biggest news story in American history is because the MSM has subjected it to a blackout.
Click to expand...

Uhhhh, Clayton?

We just went through this in the other thread, didn't we?

You know, where I explained the whole "MSM" is a dinosaur?

And how people complaining about "MSM blackout" are about as quaint as someone complaining that you can't get the model T in any other color but black.

Hey, it's an easy cop out for you. I get that.
 
16.5 said:
Uhhhh, Clayton?

We just went through this in the other thread, didn't we?

You know, where I explained the whole "MSM" is a dinosaur?

And how people complaining about "MSM blackout" are about as quaint as someone complaining that you can't get the model T in any other color but black.

Hey, it's an easy cop out for you. I get that.
Click to expand...

Wanna buy my MSM TV?
 
AJM8125 said:
It's rare to see so much wrong written in so few words. Nice font too.
Click to expand...

No kidding. To wit:

Clayton Moore said:
The above is just disinformation. All three buildings went down swiftly and evenly. Damage may occur swiftly but never evenly.
Click to expand...

Bare assertion. It's irrelevant when damage occurs. It's when failures occur. And also how.

Besides, what's "evenly"? If the assertion is that the buildings should have tipped over, I refer back to Brent Blanchard's quotes. If it's that they supposedly fell into their own footprints, I point at Wintergarden, 30 West Broadway, and Deutsche Bank as proof that they didn't.

When AJM said "wrong", he actually meant wrong, as in "factually incorrect".

Clayton Moore said:
And global collapses of huge buildings don't happen in threes. Especially when there had never been a global collapse of huge building without it being a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

This is supposed to be compelling? What about the number 3 invalidates this? No huge buildings were ever intentionally rammed by 400+ MPH jets, none shared the same design features, and no tower fires that large were ever left unfought.

And: Have never been? You should isolate the actually applicable factors before you parrot such a sweeping statement. We've heard this before:

http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.
Click to expand...

Clayton is a rather average truther in that he simply parrots the same arguments that others have in the past and moved forward from. He's even resorted to the canard of claiming "disinformation", a favorite truther buzzword that's utterly misapplied to factual rebuttals of conspiratorial fantasies. Part of me is wondering if he's pulling a Telltale Tom and is actually a Poe in disguise; he's acting that clichéd. Regardless, whether he's being ironic, or posting in genuine belief, the fact remains: The statement about "never been" (i.e. "First time") is crafted to be deliberately deceptive. And in his case, ill crafted (Clayton: You shouldn't use the "never been" argument in the way that you did; it's too easily refuted. You should hold it until the topic turns to the minutiae of how steel reacts in fires. Using it here makes it obvious that it's just an argumentative tactic, and not an attempt to appear as though the point is genuinely studied and is a genuine comparison with other steel-framed structures around the world.

Not that that's correct; the Cardington fire tests give lie to the presumption that steel constructs don't collapse due to fires. But, we're experienced; you're not. We've already gone multiple steps beyond the arguments you've presented so far, and you're only now learning that. Do a forum search for those past threads.)

Anyway, as I noted in the previous posts: Intentional explosives (not "controlled", Clayton; you must learn what the industry nomenclature actually is. We here were corrected on that years ago) demolitions are ruled out via the evidence. Again:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/

Also:
http://debunking911.com/overp.htm
http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm


Last: Wow... how many years have we been linking the same sites over and over? It seems like the conspiracy peddlers as a whole never learn.
 
ElMH; a point I like to add is that this is certainly a rare occssion (possibly the first) in which a high rise suffered the ignition of large area multi-floor fires all within seconds rather than over the course of hours as would be the case in a more common fire situation.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
No kidding. To wit:



Bare assertion. It's irrelevant when damage occurs. It's when failures occur. And also how.

Besides, what's "evenly"? If the assertion is that the buildings should have tipped over, I refer back to Brent Blanchard's quotes. If it's that they supposedly fell into their own footprints, I point at Wintergarden, 30 West Broadway, and Deutsche Bank as proof that they didn't.

When AJM said "wrong", he actually meant wrong, as in "factually incorrect".



This is supposed to be compelling? What about the number 3 invalidates this? No huge buildings were ever intentionally rammed by 400+ MPH jets, none shared the same design features, and no tower fires that large were ever left unfought.

And: Have never been? You should isolate the actually applicable factors before you parrot such a sweeping statement. We've heard this before:

http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm


Clayton is a rather average truther in that he simply parrots the same arguments that others have in the past and moved forward from. He's even resorted to the canard of claiming "disinformation", a favorite truther buzzword that's utterly misapplied to factual rebuttals of conspiratorial fantasies. Part of me is wondering if he's pulling a Telltale Tom and is actually a Poe in disguise; he's acting that clichéd. Regardless, whether he's being ironic, or posting in genuine belief, the fact remains: The statement about "never been" (i.e. "First time") is crafted to be deliberately deceptive. And in his case, ill crafted (Clayton: You shouldn't use the "never been" argument in the way that you did; it's too easily refuted. You should hold it until the topic turns to the minutiae of how steel reacts in fires. Using it here makes it obvious that it's just an argumentative tactic, and not an attempt to appear as though the point is genuinely studied and is a genuine comparison with other steel-framed structures around the world.

Not that that's correct; the Cardington fire tests give lie to the presumption that steel constructs don't collapse due to fires. But, we're experienced; you're not. We've already gone multiple steps beyond the arguments you've presented so far, and you're only now learning that. Do a forum search for those past threads.)

Anyway, as I noted in the previous posts: Intentional explosives (not "controlled", Clayton; you must learn what the industry nomenclature actually is. We here were corrected on that years ago) demolitions are ruled out via the evidence. Again:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/

Also:
http://debunking911.com/overp.htm
http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm


Last: Wow... how many years have we been linking the same sites over and over? It seems like the conspiracy peddlers as a whole never learn.​
Click to expand...


What crap. It's amazing and pathetic at the same time. At the same time the truth is so obvious that trying hide the truth should be considered an accessory after the fact offense.

The towers could have been lumped together as coincidence but WTC7 and the stand down of the American military put that to rest.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom