Liability concerns discourage thorough investigation into 9/11

[Drudgewire]

Romero? He LATER reversed his opinion in Popular Mechanics? The paper that quoted him wrote a retraction on SEPTEMBER 22, 2001!! They must have gotten to him pretty quickly... especially since he so emphatically set the record straight.

And let's not forget he hates you people.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

That no evidence for explosives in the towers has emerged in six years is a clue.

Cherry-picked quotes about explosions don't count as evidence.

So then why does the cherry-picked official version work for you?

 

[Firestone]

So then why does the cherry-picked official version work for you?

One of the biggest mistakes truthers commit is believing that people like myself believe or accept an "official version" of the 9/11-events.

That's not the case at all.

The version of the 9/11-events I consider closest to reality is the standard version.
It has been established by countless journalists, investigators, experts, in the USA and in many other countries.
That standard version is corroborated by official documents as the 9/11 CR and the NIST-report about the collapse of WTC 1/2.

That standard version may contain anomalies or improbabilities (if that's a word). Certain details may be unclear, even in dispute. That is to be expected for a complex event like the 9/11-attacks.
However, any alternative to the standard version gives rise to much more anomalies and necessitates an incredibly vast conspiracy.

That's why I (like most others on this subforum) keep asking for an alternative scenario and for evidence.
Merely pointing to small anomalies or "asking questions" won't do it for me.

 

[omegablue]

Or better yet, face reality and accept that 9/11 happened pretty much the way the 9/11 Report and the NIST said it did.

Or better yet! That 9/11 happened pretty much the way YOU (WildCat) wanted to.

 

[Myriad]

Johnstone: This is where it gets murky. The 9/11 Commission didn't believe the hijackers used box-cutters. That is the term that a few people on the hijacked planes used to describe the weapons when calling relatives on cell phones.The Commission believed that the hijackers carried knives with blades shorter than four inches. The checkpoint operations guide expressly permitted short-bladed knives to be carried onto the plane. That's what the Commission believed the hijackers used — short- bladed knives.

I've never seen a box cutter that could not also be described, with complete accuracy, as a knife with a blade shorter than four inches.

Can you show me a picture or a catalog entry of a box cutting tool that is either not a knife, or has a blade longer than four inches? (A long-bladed box cutter sounds like a great way to damage the contents of the box you're cutting open, and a long blade would be useless since boxes that can be cut with a blade at all -- that is, corrugated cardboard boxes -- are only a fraction of an inch thick.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[omegablue]

The level of ingenuity people have to possess in order to fully believe the official report and NIST´s one, is hopelessly ludicrous.

I can´t be sorry enough for these poor ppl, they cannot find ANY INCONSISTENCE, and do not accept any of the serious flaws and omissions. What kind of blindness is that? There are multiple reports and evidences, yes evidences that shows that mostly everything reported is dubious, and that there is lotsa bunk and phony stuff about it, and still they close their eyes, and fight it all because either they want to think there was no one else´s hands on it other that jihadist terrorists, or they trust too much their dear Government. Perhaps both! Do me a serious favor! Don´t call this crap critical thinking at least!

 

[omegablue]

How could you know that?

U see what i´m saying?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

One of the biggest mistakes truthers commit is believing that people like myself believe or accept an "official version" of the 9/11-events.

That's not the case at all.

The version of the 9/11-events I consider closest to reality is the standard version.
It has been established by countless journalists, investigators, experts, in the USA and in many other countries.
That standard version is corroborated by official documents as the 9/11 CR and the NIST-report about the collapse of WTC 1/2.

That standard version may contain anomalies or improbabilities (if that's a word). Certain details may be unclear, even in dispute. That is to be expected for a complex event like the 9/11-attacks.
However, any alternative to the standard version gives rise to much more anomalies and necessitates an incredibly vast conspiracy.

That's why I (like most others on this subforum) keep asking for an alternative scenario and for evidence.
Merely pointing to small anomalies or "asking questions" won't do it for me.

As far as this thread goes I'm not really delving into any alternative theories other then to state what was omitted and ignored. The purpose of this thread is to show other reasons for covering up events revolving around 9/11 other then just to cover-up an inside job. If anything the possibility of an inside job is being covered-up in proxy by those covering-up accountability and liability issues thus never equating to any kind of investigation that could uncover a deeper crime.

 

[omegablue]

That no evidence for explosives in the towers has emerged in six years is a clue.

Are you this blind? There is plenty of earwitnesses. And hell, any stupid person who investigates a little about steel and the WTC frames know that the buildings could sustain the attacks. Leaking fuel? My balls!! It was thermite or thermate, or anything on that "class" of explosives and incendiaries. One have to be way too naive in order to not see the molten steel pouring out from the windows. It is known to anyone that the fuel could not sustain a fire so intense as it occurs in a real furnace that melts steel. You chose to discredit all the ear evidence for explosions, you chose to close your eyes to the molten metal evidence, you chose not to see that steel scraps cut as we have with cut charges. So I can conclude that your ability to close your eyes to evidence is kind of limitless! Anything that your dear official reports says to you, you will be accepting. I´m really sorry for that.

Cherry-picked quotes about explosions don't count as evidence.

In your universe. Again that old crap. What else do not count as evidence? The evidence wiping that occurred on the debris?. Ahh, and the red hot vents and molten metal on the WTC after weeks you know...it´s normal stuff!!! Oh I know I know, just conspiracy crap. Do me a favor will ya?

 

[chillzero]

As far as this thread goes I'm not really delving into any alternative theories other then to state what was omitted and ignored. The purpose of this thread is to show other reasons for covering up events revolving around 9/11 other then just to cover-up an inside job. If anything the possibility of an inside job is being covered-up in proxy by those covering-up accountability and liability issues thus never equating to any kind of investigation that could uncover a deeper crime.

But there are things that it makes sense to ignore, such as beam weapons, missile attacks with holographic airplanes, and the like.

There is no budget or time slot big enough to cover all the things that CTists want investigated without substantiation to warrant that money and time.

I believe that the evidence that is available and was studied includes information that identifies where the explosions came from, and it did not lead them to suspect explosives.

 

[AZCat]

And hell, any stupid person who investigates a little about steel and the WTC frames know that the buildings could sustain the attacks.

Except we're not really concerned about what a stupid person might think about the WTC towers - we'd rather pay attention to what the smart ones think instead.

 

[technoextreme]

Are you this blind? There is plenty of earwitnesses. And hell, any stupid person who investigates a little about steel and the WTC frames know that the buildings could sustain the attacks. Leaking fuel? My balls!! It was thermite or thermate, or anything on that "class" of explosives and incendiaries. One have to be way too naive in order to not see the molten steel pouring out from the windows. It is known to anyone that the fuel could not sustain a fire so intense as it occurs in a real furnace that melts steel. You chose to discredit all the ear evidence for explosions, you chose to close your eyes to the molten metal evidence, you chose not to see that steel scraps cut as we have with cut charges. So I can conclude that your ability to close your eyes to evidence is kind of limitless! Anything that your dear official reports says to you, you will be accepting. I´m really sorry for that.

Well there is plenty of stuff that melts at a low temperature. Not only that but there is a vast amount of evidence that a petroleum fire alone can destroy an building because its happened multiple times.

Are you this blind? There is plenty of earwitnesses.

Actually its a scientific fact that people tend to distort what they hear and see when they are running for their life.

 

[omegablue]

One of the biggest mistakes truthers commit is believing that people like myself believe or accept an "official version" of the 9/11-events.

That´s no mistake mister. You believe the NIST and commission reports. The ones that are counted as official.

The version of the 9/11-events I consider closest to reality is the standard version.
It has been established by countless journalists, investigators, experts, in the USA and in many other countries.

So you think that there are any flaws? I would be more than happy to know what. Another thing about the pro-government report folks is that they loudly tells us that the official reports are corroborated by countless scientists, journalists and investigators! And that the ones from people to do think that there´s a lot of fishy stuff do not. They go further as trying to discredit any, any credibility from those who gets suspicious, even attack their peer review system and further than that. It´s a sad scenario. Makes me believe that human beings are really this naive.

That standard version is corroborated by official documents as the 9/11 CR and the NIST-report about the collapse of WTC 1/2.

There is no standard version other than the CM and NIST. Stop pretending that.

That standard version may contain anomalies or improbabilities (if that's a word). Certain details may be unclear, even in dispute. That is to be expected for a complex event like the 9/11-attacks.

OOhh some hope at least? Did you find any holes in it? Congratulations, you are one step ahead of the majority here on these forums!

However, any alternative to the standard version gives rise to much more anomalies and necessitates an incredibly vast conspiracy.

Not at all. Conspiracy is thinking that all this movement you call "Truth" by "truthers", is based on lunacy of these people. Either they are doing this for making a little fame, or because they are evil and want to mislead the population about the real facts, or they are ALL , ALL lunatics. Honestly, a reportedly corrupt and liar government is way more eligible for being behind this, than many civilians taken as lunatics and just noise-makers for the plain sake of being that way.

That's why I (like most others on this subforum) keep asking for an alternative scenario and for evidence.

Merely pointing to small anomalies or "asking questions" won't do it for me.[/QUOTE]


You do not ask for an alternative scenario as it was already presented by a large number of lays to the most qualified professionals throughout the internet. What you do it´s plain debunking just for the craving. You are already made your mind as everyone here. And now it is a personal thing. You all take it personally when it comes to debunking the CT lunacy.

 

[omegablue]

Except we're not really concerned about what a stupid person might think about the WTC towers - we'd rather pay attention to what the smart ones think instead.

Yeees that´s precisely the strategy. Now, the way you judge a liar from an honest person, or a stupid from a smart person... That´s where the whole problem is.

 

[technoextreme]

So you think that there are any flaws? I would be more than happy to know what. Another thing about the pro-government report folks is that they loudly tells us that the official reports are corroborated by countless scientists, journalists and investigators! And that the ones from people to do think that there´s a lot of fishy stuff do not. They go further as trying to discredit any, any credibility from those who gets suspicious, even attack their peer review system and further than that. It´s a sad scenario. Makes me believe that human beings are really this naive.

Are you talking about the Journal of 9/11 studies???

Yeees that´s precisely the strategy. Now, the way you judge a liar from an honest person, or a stupid from a smart person... That´s where the whole problem is.

Stupid person= No civil engineering degree.
Smart person=Civil engineering degree.
Nuff said.

 

[omegablue]

Well there is plenty of stuff that melts at a low temperature. Not only that but there is a vast amount of evidence that a petroleum fire alone can destroy an building because its happened multiple times.

Only if the fire is controlled and sustained. Given the necessary fuel is assured to sustain the fire to reach the melting temperature. Sadly this was not the case in WTC , come on!!!! I can´t believe people cannot use common sense on this one before doing their own personal investigations.

Actually its a scientific fact that people tend to distort what they hear and see when they are running for their life.

Hmm it seems to me a bit fuzzy. You are trying to say that the stress make they hear explosions and seeing bright flashes inside buildings like those before imploding a building?

Do you think this is compeling as to discredit all the ear-witnesses? Oh my god.

 

[Skibum]

Are you this blind? There is plenty of earwitnesses. And hell, any stupid person who investigates a little about steel and the WTC frames know that the buildings could sustain the attacks. Leaking fuel? My balls!! It was thermite or thermate, or anything on that "class" of explosives and incendiaries.

Earwitnesses to a thermite reaction, thats a good one.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

One have to be way too naive in order to not see the molten steel pouring out from the windows.

So if, as you claim, the fire was hot enough to melt steel, why didn't the aluminum cladding on the building melt as well?

Why didn't the heat melt the tons and tons of aluminum from the airframe still in the building?

Why didn't the heat melt the lead in the UPS room?

Why don't we see these metals pouring out of the building, just steel?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Only if the fire is controlled and sustained.

So, only controlled fires can destroy a building.

Interesting.

 

[AZCat]

Yeees that´s precisely the strategy. Now, the way you judge a liar from an honest person, or a stupid from a smart person... That´s where the whole problem is.

If a person doesn't have a very good grasp of the principles of physics yet persists in claiming they do, I think it's pretty easy to decide which category they belong to.

That takes care of about 90% of the people in the "truth movement".