Moderated Legitimate 9/11 Questions

KreeL said:
Sure he was...right after moneyshot II.

So we have moneyshot I - the first strike, captured by Jules - who just happened to be in the perfect location with no distractions from traffic with his camera running, AND we have moneyshot II by Gideon who just happened to be waiting with his camera running and pointing at the south tower.

Can this be all there is? Is this the end of the Naudet freakshow?

Hardly.

Anyone else catch Naudets' 911 and want to guess what else they captured that morning?
Click to expand...

Oh do tell.
 
Arus808 said:
Well this thread quickly went right in to the STUPID questions about 9/11 . After the 2nd page, we already had our resident trolling troofers step in and repeat their long debunked tripe.

can we stop engaging these trolls, and stick the thread about LEGITIMATE questions about 9/11 and the events that lead up to it. Stop debating with the woo, about stuff that has been covered in OTHER and VERY current threads
Click to expand...
Yes the ignore button works well plus the forum community is a great place to visit.
 
RedIbis said:
I've asked for specific information about the soil analyses. Little to nothing has shown up, and the only comments on the subject suggest that there was no soil contamination.
Click to expand...
If you are legitimately interested in the subject, submit a FOIA request for the soil tests and the groundwater tests (yes, they are separate things and they are not in any way interchangeable). If and when you do so, you should receive extensive reports (which, in light of your track record, you will probably not understand and will probably grossly misrepresent) but let's start there just the same. That would be far preferable to you spouting off a couple of sentences from a 2001 newspaper article, bastardizing it, and using your personal interpretation of it to further your own agenda, I'm sure you will agree.

Once you obtain and post the results of your FOIA request, (i.e. the results of soil tests and the results of water tests and all of the accompanying appendixes - which will be extensive, see below), I will be delighted to get into this with you further. I have some experience with environmental litigation, environmental assessments, the various tests and levels of assessments conducted, etc. and I am familiar with the extensive reports that are generated as a result. I also have ready access to experts in environmental contaminants, levels of contamination, determining safety levels, determining classification levels, interpreting the type of reports that are generated by those conducting the tests, etc.

So, once you have taken the preliminary step of actually providing evidence - which should be easily obtainable by you by virtue of a very simple FOIA request - I will be pleased to discuss this in great detail and I will be pleased to seek and obtain the expert opinions of those specifically qualified to comment upon whatever it is that you come up with.

So, send in your FOIA request and post the results when you obtain them, and then let's talk.

In the interim, you should stop making uninformed, uneducated, blanket statements about things of which you have no knowledge. Like these, for instance:
RedIbis said:
If there's no contamination of the soil, there was no fuel.
Click to expand...
RedIbis said:
She's referring to all of the tests, soil and groundwater. I thought this was fairly clear when she said, "the soil is being tested for jet fuel, and [...]"
ETA: Unfortunately, these vague statements appear to be all that's come up so far. Like I said, I'm interested in any reports on the soil, if they exist.
Click to expand...

The first quoted post is nothing but your uneducated opinion without any basis in fact or reality. The second is you citing a partial quote from a local newspaper article dated October 2001. Jesus. THIS is what you rely upon to say that you are legitimately interested in the question? Seriously? Colour me skeptical.

Like I said, send in your FOIA request for all information, correspondence, reports, tests, results (both Phase 1 and Phase 2) relating to any and all soil testing and any and all groundwater testing at the site, post the results when you obtain them, and then we'll talk. Unless and until you do so, it appears that you are just blowing smoke, as usual.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why these so-called "Truthers" are uninterested in the fact that a former national security adviser to President Clinton plead guilty to destroying classified documents while preparing for testimony to the 9/11 Commission. That would seem like a major development for anyone seeking 9/11 "truth". Wrong President, I guess.
 
T.A.M. said:
Ok, so before you all get your knickers in a knot, I have not suddenly lost my mind and converted to trutherism.

This thread was inspired by the need/desire to find some common ground with at least a small part of those who question the events of 9/11.

Please note, this is not a place for MIHOP questions, however, i think we can TOLERATE some LIHOP angles if presented well.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
.
I don't give a damn about LIHOP, MIHOP, Bush, Cheney, Islam, Christianity, the US government, Islamofascism, ordinary fascism or anything else not relevant to Newtonian physics. Since Newton was an alchemist then the effects of heat on various things is Newtonian also.

How could they have designed and built 1360 foot skyscrapers without figuring out how much steel and concrete went where? So why don't we have accurate info about that after SEVEN YEARS? Closer to EIGHT now.

psik
 
Truthers are a hypocritical bunch. They ignore legitimate questions, especially ones pointing to the wrong Administration, in favor of stupid shaving cream like fuel in the ground or melted steel.
 
Galileo said:
How did Atta and the terrorists get the explosives into the WTC without being seen?
Click to expand...

"Explosives" is an inaccurate word, in that the jet fuel was not technically an explosive; "deflagratives" would be a better word, and to my surprise does in fact exist. The means for getting the deflagratives into the tower was by flying an airliner at high speed so as to crash into the WTC Twin Towers, penetrating the outer walls and allowing the deflagratives to enter the structure; the resulting extensive damage to the structure of the airliners resulted in the widespread release of deflagratives within the towers. Atta and the terrorists could not be seen in the course of this action because the outer skin of the airliners was interposed between them and the cameras that recorded the events, although the entry of the airliners into the towers was widely seen and recorded.

The question is certainly legitimate; I don't recall a stipulation in the thread that the questions also be intelligent.

Dave
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
I don't give a damn about LIHOP, MIHOP, Bush, Cheney, Islam, Christianity, the US government, Islamofascism, ordinary fascism or anything else not relevant to Newtonian physics. Since Newton was an alchemist then the effects of heat on various things is Newtonian also.

How could they have designed and built 1360 foot skyscrapers without figuring out how much steel and concrete went where? So why don't we have accurate info about that after SEVEN YEARS? Closer to EIGHT now.

psik
Click to expand...

Please state how this is related to legitimate (valid questions that debunkers and truthers want answers to) 9/11 question. If it is not, please take it elsewhere.

TAM:)
 
Dave Rogers said:
The question is certainly legitimate; I don't recall a stipulation in the thread that the questions also be intelligent.

Dave
Click to expand...

Though I should have made it more clear in the OP, I was trying to find a common ground, so the questions, as "legitimate" were to be ones that both debunkers and truthers want answers to. In other words, no MIHOP questions.

TAM:)
 
psikeyhackr said:
.
I don't give a damn about LIHOP, MIHOP, Bush, Cheney, Islam, Christianity, the US government, Islamofascism, ordinary fascism or anything else not relevant to Newtonian physics.
Click to expand...

If you're that concerned about Newtonian physics, then perhaps you should learn some.
 
T.A.M. said:
Though I should have made it more clear in the OP, I was trying to find a common ground, so the questions, as "legitimate" were to be ones that both debunkers and truthers want answers to. In other words, no MIHOP questions.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Truther questions are almost always disingenuous in that their true purpose is not a request for information but an attempt to state a belief without "owning" that belief.

Red Ibis, for instance, can't say that he believes no plane crashed in Shanksville, because then he has to deal with all the cognitive dissonance associated with explaining away the missing plane, the missing passengers, and the more than ample evidence at the scene. Therefore, he asks questions that are designed to allow us to come to the same whacko conclusions he has come to, but won't admit to.

Psikeyhacker pretends to be interested only in physics, when it is clear that his interest in physics only goes so far as to attempt to prove that the big, bad gubmint is lying to us.

It may have been overly optimistic to expect to find common ground with the truthers on legitimate questions when their concepts of "legitimate" and "questions" are alien to most rational people.
 
LashL said:
If you are legitimately interested in the subject, submit a FOIA request for the soil tests and the groundwater tests (yes, they are separate things and they are not in any way interchangeable). If and when you do so, you should receive extensive reports (which, in light of your track record, you will probably not understand and will probably grossly misrepresent) but let's start there just the same. That would be far preferable to you spouting off a couple of sentences from a 2001 newspaper article, bastardizing it, and using your personal interpretation of it to further your own agenda, I'm sure you will agree.

Once you obtain and post the results of your FOIA request, (i.e. the results of soil tests and the results of water tests and all of the accompanying appendixes - which will be extensive, see below), I will be delighted to get into this with you further. I have some experience with environmental litigation, environmental assessments, the various tests and levels of assessments conducted, etc. and I am familiar with the extensive reports that are generated as a result. I also have ready access to experts in environmental contaminants, levels of contamination, determining safety levels, determining classification levels, interpreting the type of reports that are generated by those conducting the tests, etc.

So, once you have taken the preliminary step of actually providing evidence - which should be easily obtainable by you by virtue of a very simple FOIA request - I will be pleased to discuss this in great detail and I will be pleased to seek and obtain the expert opinions of those specifically qualified to comment upon whatever it is that you come up with.

So, send in your FOIA request and post the results when you obtain them, and then let's talk.

In the interim, you should stop making uninformed, uneducated, blanket statements about things of which you have no knowledge. Like these, for instance:



The first quoted post is nothing but your uneducated opinion without any basis in fact or reality. The second is you citing a partial quote from a local newspaper article dated October 2001. Jesus. THIS is what you rely upon to say that you are legitimately interested in the question? Seriously? Colour me skeptical.

Like I said, send in your FOIA request for all information, correspondence, reports, tests, results (both Phase 1 and Phase 2) relating to any and all soil testing and any and all groundwater testing at the site, post the results when you obtain them, and then we'll talk. Unless and until you do so, it appears that you are just blowing smoke, as usual.
Click to expand...

So you didn't find much information about soil analyses either. I'll remind you that your longwinded, condescending post is not in the spirit of this thread.

Do you have any specific, "legitimate" questions about 9/11, not so far answered by official accounts or research?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Are you going to tell us, specifically, why soil analysis is so important? Surely you believe there is some implication to this that you're not sharing with us?
Click to expand...

Nope, it just means that in the search for the elusive "holy grail" of smoking guns that prove 911 was an inside job (that truthers KNOW must surely exist) he is willing to bring just about ANYTHING to the table. If it turns out to be irrelevant or wrong, as they all ultimately are, he'll just go on to the next "this time it really is a smoking gun" de jour, in some other thread.
 
RedIbis said:
My question was specific and legitimate. Only one of your links addresses the soil tests and this is what the article states:



Not much mention of jet fuel contamination. Was there any follow up report that released the results of the groundwater samples?
Click to expand...

heres a couple of pieces in info that go into them testing the ground for jet fuel.

Flight 93 relatives gathering for service

Monday, September 17, 2001

"Also yesterday, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said it would begin taking soil and well water samples today to determine whether contamination occurred from Flight 93's aviation fuel, hydraulic fluids and other hazardous materials following the crash."
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010917somerset0917p2.asp

then we have-

Latest Somerset crash site findings may yield added IDs

Wednesday, October 03, 2001

"The soil is being tested for jet fuel, and at least three test wells have been sunk to monitor groundwater, since three nearby homes are served by wells, Betsy Mallison, a state Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman, said.

So far, no contamination has been discovered, she said."

http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp


its pretty interesting that at the wtc site, the explosion was massive and at the crash site of 93, grass wasnt even burned right beside the crater!!
 
Those dumb ****ers at NWO headquarters ****ed it again. I told them, if you are going to fake the crash, you have to cover the area in jet fuel or else the crack investigooglers will be on to it.

Remind me to find out who was in charge of faking the UA93 site will you.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom