MovieChat Forums > World Trade Center (2006) Discussion > To All 9/11 Truthers/Conspiracy Theorist...

To All 9/11 Truthers/Conspiracy Theorists


To be frank, you are the epitome of ignorant, and honestly very offensive to the people who lost their lives or loved ones that day.

From all of the things I have read that conspiracy theorists have written (which is alot,) there is not even ONE shred of irrefutable proof or EVIDENCE that 9/11 was an inside job.

A lot of conspiracy theorists bring up the "faked" calls from the flights, the engine or wheel found at the site of the pentagon, the fact that our government would be stupid enough to accidentally let information about it being an inside job slip, etc.

Do yourselves and everyone else a favor and look at these two websites. Read EVERYTHING. Or, just read about the things you really believe to be true. Give it a chance instead of instantly dismissing it. You will see that all of your theories are either speculation, have been proven WRONG since by SCIENCE and FACTS, or based on misinformation.

Cheers

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

reply

[deleted]

True, true, true, true, true. The desperate *beep*

Thanks for the reply!

reply


From all of the things I have read that conspiracy theorists have written (which is alot,) there is not even ONE shred of irrefutable proof or EVIDENCE that 9/11 was an inside job.


Obviously you didn't know the towers were blown to ash that day.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5860825099435530591#[/

reply

The towers weren't "blown" to ash. They crumbled because the steel holding it up couldn't take the heat from the burning Boeing 767's that plowed through them.


reply


The towers weren't "blown" to ash. They crumbled because the steel holding it up couldn't take the heat from the burning Boeing 767's that plowed through them.


http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/images/9-11-towers.jpg

The photo indicates the entire upper section was blown apart to ash, leaving the unburned lower section intact - at that very moment.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5860825099435530591#[/

reply

The photo indicates the entire upper section was blown apart to ash, leaving the unburned lower section intact - at that very moment.

That's still not "ash" McDickwad, and you have to be a complete idiot not to figure out that the rest of it was sure to crumble with the upper section. And did you even look at the pic you're showing me? Because I see some pieces in the lower section starting to crumble right there.



reply

That's still not "ash" McDickwad, and you have to be a complete idiot not to figure out that the rest of it was sure to crumble with the upper section.
Dumb ass, why would the under affected bottom start to crumble?

And did you even look at the pic you're showing me? Because I see some pieces in the lower section starting to crumble right there.
No you see evidence of controlled demolition from the BOMBS that went off to take out the support for the building (bombs going off too early proving us with great evidence)

As long as you're talking crap about 9/11 on IMDB, I will be here to school you

IMDB Trolls http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg&NR=1

reply

Dumb ass, why would the under affected bottom start to crumble?

Because the damaged caused by THE PLANES took out the rest of the building!!



No you see evidence of controlled demolition from the BOMBS that went off to take out the support for the building (bombs going off too early proving us with great evidence)

No you THINK that's demolition from bombs!



As long as you're talking crap about 9/11 on IMDB, I will be here to school you

The REAL crap about that line, is that you think YOU school ME!

*I was the one who told YOU the difference between the Mexican-American War and Spanish-American War.


*I was the one who told YOU that the bridge those five Israelis who YOU THINK were Mossad agents were busted on was the George Washington Bridge which crosses the Hudson River in Upper Manhattan, not the Brooklyn Bridge, which crosses the EAST RIVER in Lower Manhattan.

So, you DON'T and CAN'T "school" me!

reply

Because the damaged caused by THE PLANES took out the rest of the building!!
the rest of the building has NOTHING TO DO with the underpart, just because the TOP is damaged doesnt mean the bottom is too,

No you THINK that's demolition from bombs!
no, I KNOW it is because its clear for EVERYone to see, try and explain it away someone other way (and try to refrain from that “puffs of air created from the above collapsing floors“crap, there are 40 floors between events in some cases

The REAL crap about that line, is that you think YOU school ME!
no, yours is the crap and I always school you, and you seem to want detention

*I was the one who told YOU the difference between the Mexican-American War and Spanish-American War.
WTF? No you didnt TELL me about it, you simply corrected my small error of getting the spanish-american and the mexican-american wars mixed up (its so funny how you try and hang on to these things)


*I was the one who told YOU that the bridge those five Israelis who YOU THINK were Mossad agents were busted on was the George Washington Bridge which crosses the Hudson River in Upper Manhattan, not the Brooklyn Bridge, which crosses the EAST RIVER in Lower Manhattan.
no, I saiid Washington, YOU said Brooklyn, and again, a small error (this time on YOUR part) that doesnt matter, small errors about location names mean nothing on the grand scale so try sticking to the subject (and they WERE Mossad agents)

So, you DON'T and CAN'T "school" me!
only because you're too dumb to be schooled in the first place, thats why your mother sat you in front of the TV in hopes you could learn something from somewhere because you werent bright enough to enter into the school system

Chad Vader: Fox News Reportwww.youtube.com/watch?v=4sz7xn4utLo&feature

reply

the rest of the building has NOTHING TO DO with the underpart, just because the TOP is damaged doesnt mean the bottom is too,

In the case of the WTC, it sure as hell did!



no, I KNOW it is because its clear for EVERYone to see,

No, you THINK it is, because you WANT TO think it is, because you were duped into thinking America is evil.



no, yours is the crap and I always school you, and you seem to want detention

You don't school *beep* clown!


WTF? No you didnt TELL me about it, you simply corrected my small error of getting the spanish-american and the mexican-american wars mixed up

No, that is NOT a "small error." That's a nearly 60 year difference between two different parts of the Western Hemisphere and two different circumstances. And the fact that I knew the difference between the two wars and you didn't proves that I AM the one who schooled you.


no, I saiid Washington, YOU said Brooklyn,

No, it was YOU who said Brooklyn, and I said Washington, and I've reposted your ignorant quote on numerous occasions. And these location errors DO mean something, which is that the massive geographic errors prove that all the other accusations can't be true. Furthermore they WERE NOT Mossad agents, and members of your cult have claimed to have spotted them at numerous locations on BOTH SIDES of the Hudson River. They've claimed these five Israelis were spotted in such locations as Jersey City, Weehawken, and even in Manhattan.


only because you're too dumb to be schooled in the first place,

No, it's because I know BS when I hear it, and that's all you twoofers spew.





reply

[deleted]

Jesus Christ. What you are looking at in that picture is not a controlled explosion. In order for that to be the case, people would notice the miles of wires.
What you have in that picture is an accordion effect. As the building is crashing down, the pressure forces air down and it blows out the windows.

This is the problem with conspiracy theorists. The very logical, and very scientific evidence is not accepted. Instead, they want to believe wildly absurd theories.
Every single silly "proof" that the nuts believe have been easily debunked by basic high school science. This is why everyone makes fun of you people.

reply

fivehole84,

In order for that to be the case, people would notice the miles of wires.


Are you seriously even trying to use this as an argument?

Too bad no-one noticed the miles of wire that was in plain view before this calamity:

http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/21/74221-004-91614A05.jpg

I suppose you are also going to claim ignorance on the fact that wireless explosive devices have been commercially available since the 1980's and technologically available for who knows how long before that.

Conventional controlled demolitions use the wiring because it is the cheapest way to do it. That certainly doesn't mean that other means are unavailable.

What you have in that picture is an accordion effect. As the building is crashing down, the pressure forces air down and it blows out the windows.


This was the ridiculous theory espoused by Jim Meiggs of Popular Mechanics on the History Channel's documentary about 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Meiggs' theory is an obvious fail for several reasons.

First, Meiggs' has no evidence, or experiments conducted on the part of the engineers at Popular Mechanics to back up this speculation.

Second, Meiggs does not defer to any sound engineering or mechanical principles or professionals to lend support to this theory.

Third, The powerful jet streams of smoke (squibs) are clearly occurring on random floors sometimes high up on the building while others occur 20 or 30 stories below the collapsing building. This would imply that the pressure that is building on certain floors as it collapses is significant enough to cause these energetic puffs close to where it is collapsing, then on very few of the floors under it except on floors far beneath where the pressure would obviously be at a different magnitude yet the puffs are just as energetic.

That doesn't support the idea of any build up of pressure.

Fourth, and most importantly, the idea that a massive steel building is going to cause the same kind of effect as an accordion being squeezed in terms of air pressure is beyond stupid. I would rank it about as likely as Judy Woods' moonbeam theory (or whatever she subscribes to.)

A steel building is a rigid structure and when collapsing it will not allow the pressure to go through 20 separate floor structures to break certain isolated windows with an equal intensity as the other squibs.

Get some construction grade steel, glass and cement and build yourself an accordion. Then demonstrate your theory of the transfer of pressure by playing your instrument.

Good luck.

PS your profanity at the beginning and condescension at the end is designed to lend more weight to your two failed arguments.

It doesn't.



"knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

reply

>>Third, The powerful jet streams of smoke (squibs)

What experience in controlled demolition do you have to determine they were squibs?

This is what the Truthers own poster boy Danny Jowenko (CD expert) had to say about the collapse:

If it had been done with explosives it would have collapsed from below >>>> It collapsed at the exact location where the plane hit and heated it >>>>> it can't have been explosives as there was a huge fire. If there had been explosives they would already have been burned. What's more, before being burned, their igniters would have gone off at 320 degrees celsius so they'd have detonated sooner>>>>>>>>>> You also see, as it were, the bolts springing loose at each turn. It had a very strong core and the beams were pretty long but they’re joined and it was 410 meters tall. The energy is very uneven. So every vertical column has to carry a certain weight at a slightly different moment from its neighbour so to speak. It can’t bear it so it breaks to pieces across its entire length, bolts and all. It comes loose all the way down, and the side structures also strong because of the wind stress which is how the building was built were mainly pressed outward.


>>A steel building is a rigid structure and when collapsing it will not allow the pressure to go through 20 separate floor structures to break certain isolated windows with an equal intensity as the other squibs.

A muddled sentence as you have not established the existence of "squibs" simply based on what you claim a structure will or will not allow as you have no experience in the former before we even get on to the latter.


reply

Gary-161,

>>Third, The powerful jet streams of smoke (squibs)

What experience in controlled demolition do you have to determine they were squibs?


None at all which is why I used the term "squibs" only in brackets next to the unbracketed term "powerful jets of smoke." This was meant to indicate that I believe they were squibs.

Take a look at this video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EbsGZcl2jk

Please pay particular attention to the frames between 1 minute and 1 min 10 seconds into the clip.

You will notice that you see one powerful stream of air that occurs about 25 or 30 stories under the collapsing building. Then about a second later you see another powerful stream of air about 25 stories above that (which is about five stories under the collapsing building. Air pressure simply cannot account for there being this much air pressure built up about 30 stories below the the collapsing structure and then working its way back up the building. It is impossible.

Do you at least understand my point? If you do, can you address my point instead of attacking my credibility. You know darn well that there are over 1700 architects and engineers that agree with me.

You bring up Jowenko's comments but you have no idea of what he would think now if he were still alive and talking to this large group of architects and engineers and the over 10,000 other scientists that support them.

Sadly Jowenko (like so many other people who were looking into or connected to 9/11 research) has died a premature death.

So why not talk about this man's opinions? He worked for CDI, one of if not the largest demolitions companies in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns_hjONWZ88

Also, next time you print the quote from someone please add a link or at least tell me where you got it so I can know when Jowenko made his statement. If it was last year that would be one thing but if it was several years ago, before AE 9/11 Truth became so vocal based on new evidence, that would be quite another story.



"knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

reply

>>Air pressure simply cannot account for there being this much air pressure built up about 30 stories below the the collapsing structure and then working its way back up the building. It is impossible.

Jowenko said it is "impossible" they were explosives.

>>If you do, can you address my point instead of attacking my credibility.

You know you have no credibility. That is why you appeal to authority all the time. Two can play at that game.

>>So why not talk about this man's opinions?

Why not talk about the man with thirty years experience whose company Sullivan worked for? He had access to the site. Jowenko had similar long term experience. But Dom finds an excuse to dismiss him because he doesn't fit the narrative Dom has based his life on.

>>He worked for CDI, one of if not the largest demolitions companies in the world

They allegedly said as a photographer only. Tom claims otherwise. His licence as a powder carrier issued two months before 9/11. An assistant to an assistant. Crank organizations will always find someone somewhere but so what? Well, the "so what" to Dom is Tom fits his narrative.

>>before AE 9/11 Truth became so vocal based on new evidence, that would be quite another story.

9/11 Truth is always fvcking vocal. Jowenko has pride of place on their front page. So they are not bothered about the years.



reply

Hey Gary,

What did Jowenko say about WTC 7?



"knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

reply

Dom, I can set my watch to your responses. Think about it again.

reply

What did Jowenko say about WTC 7, Gary?

"knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

reply

Dommy, THINK for a change. I have acknowledged Jowenko is the Truther's CD poster boy and has pride of place on their front page. If you had two brain cells to rub together you would then surmise that I would also most likely know *why* he has pride of place on their front page. And it wouldn't be because he doubted Loose Change on the Twin Towers, now would it?

The point is you didn't reject Jowenko on WTC 7 because he said it years ago.

Duh. Jesse Ventura for pwesident. Duh. Duh. Grunt grunt.

reply

Gary-161,

THINK for a change.


Are you implying that I am the one who can't think independently? Do you see how some people might find that comment a bit condescending? (That is without even considering the two brain cells comment.)

The point is you didn't reject Jowenko on WTC 7 because he said it years ago.


Why would I? In the case of the Twin Towers I was talking about new information that he was unaware of. He had said that the Twin Towers definitely did not look like they had the characteristics of a typical controlled demolition. He was right, and their destruction was indeed atypical.

With regard to building number 7 he was certain based on the video and how it looked that it was a controlled demolition. Have the videos of building 7 changed in the last few years Gary? If so, no-one told me about it.

I will make it simple for you...

Jowenko's opinion of the TT was hinged upon his understanding of the event and particularly the fact that it did not at all resemble a typical controlled demolition. Many scientists, architects and engineers thought the SAME thing about the TT for years before looking at the evidence in detail, the witness testimonies, the molten steel (not little pieces of copper pipes and aluminum from the jets), and most importantly the thermitic material that was positively identified on the site.

Jowenko knew that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition as soon as he looked at it. He expressed certainty based on what he saw and his vast experience. Then he died prematurely like many key witnesses and experts in fields that relate to the 9/11 events.

Duh. Jesse Ventura for pwesident. Duh. Duh. Grunt grunt.


I guess your elegant prose does have limits.



"knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

reply

>>Why would I? In the case of the Twin Towers I was talking about new information that he was unaware of.

He was unaware the Penthouse went first on WTC 7 when he was interviewed. So by your own standard he may have rejected WTC 7 as CD when he was privy to more information (the collapse point being an important factor in his assessment of the Twin Towers.) And not least because the final NIST report was not released until two years later.

>>He had said that the Twin Towers definitely did not look like they had the characteristics of a typical controlled demolition.

You are lying. He said nothing of the sort.

>>He was right, and their destruction was indeed atypical.

First you Truthers claim it was so obviously a controlled demolition. Now you say it is atypical. Typical, Lol. You'll say anything to get around problems that contradict your fantasy.

>>With regard to building number 7 he was certain based on the video and how it looked that it was a controlled demolition. Have the videos of building 7 changed in the last few years Gary? If so, no-one told me about it.

Jowenko had better video of WTC 1 & 2 than WTC 7 when he gave his opinion. He complained about what he couldn't see with WTC 7. In fact, he was given no information including its promiximity to the twin towers and the damage sustained. When finally told WTC 7 had actually been on fire he had no answer as to how explosives could be in the building. Unsurprisingly, as he said the fires in WTC 1&2 would have detonated any explosives. So why in a phone call made to him a year later in 2007 could he still hold on to such contradictions?

>>Jowenko knew that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition as soon as he looked at it.

You need totality of information to make such a judgement. But we do know in the 2007 phone call that he had two specific reasonings.

A) A demolition company working for NIST would not tell the truth because they are being paid.

This is worthless supposition and frankly cynical.

B) WTC 7 could not have been brought down by fire. He based his assessment on looking at the building plans (without mention of the penthouse collapse) during the video.

Such a view is unsurprising as little study had been made into the effect of thermal expansion on steel at that point in time. Nor would he have all the necessary expertise or be privy to all the information necessary to make such a judgement. Such as all the videos, photos, eyewitness testimonies in the NIST final report. He made a point of expressing the need to see much more. And yet he is quick to judgement. Why? Well, for a start he was originally on camera and time was inevitably limited. And the direction of the conversation was prejudiced by the speculations encouraged by the interviewer, all insinuating insurance fraud.

>>Many scientists, architects and engineers thought the SAME thing about the TT for years before looking at the evidence in detail, the witness testimonies, the molten steel (not little pieces of copper pipes and aluminum from the jets), and most importantly the thermitic material that was positively identified on the site.

The molten steel arguments are inconclusive and the thermitic materials not positively identified. Take that out of the equation and what do you actually have?

One CD expert (now deceased) with pre-existing prejudices about NORAD's performance on 9/11 and further prejudicial and superfluous commentary during what is supposed to be expert opinion (itself based on partial information.) He is positive about only one out of three buildings on CD. Truthers say WTC 7 being a controlled demolition makes the Twin Towers more likely to be CD. Jowenko puts paid to that argument. He is now dead so not much use as an advocate, even a flawed one.

That leaves Tom Sullivan. Not a CD expert of thirty years standing. An assistant Powder carrier with a licence issued two months before 9/11 and then he said the work dried up after that. Says WTC 7 looked like a controlled demolition. I think we have moved on from that and he is hardly of any statistical worth against the majority of CD experts who allegedly don't agree. Not to mention the various trade associations/bodies concerned with engineering/tall buildings.

>>Then he died prematurely like many key witnesses

Jowenko was not a "key witness." He was not there. The Truthers found a foreigner to tout on their site because no phone calls to Northern American demolition companies yielded a result in their favour. Like I said in my previous post, crackpots will always find the dissenting opinion. It is not difficult. Jowenko didn't seem to know whether he was coming or going in his statements so it doesn't surprise me he ended up wrapped around a tree.

>>I guess your elegant prose does have limits.

Unlike your gullibility.




reply

He was unaware the Penthouse went first on WTC 7 when he was interviewed.


The Penthouse falling first is what would typically happen in a conventional demolition. First they blow the central columns and then a second or two later they blow the rest of the building. This is how they get the building to implode in on itself as opposed to collapsing to one side and damaging other surrounding buildings.

Saying he was unaware of the Penthouse falling first is one of the stupider things you have said recently. He was considered to be one of the top demolition experts in Europe and he was looking right at the video. Anyone watching the video can clearly see that the Penthouse drops first.

You are lying.


I didn't claim it was a direct quote but it is true that he explained that the Twin Towers fell differently so he believed them to not be controlled demolitions. You know this is true too Gary. Obviously you are the liar.

First you Truthers claim it was so obviously a controlled demolition.


No we don't. You are lying again. You know perfectly well that our standard position is that everyone agrees that the Twin Towers did not look at all like a standard demolition but when all the testimonies and facts are taken into consideration it becomes clear only to the experts especially given the fact that WTC 7 was clearly a demolition. It is WTC 7 that is the obvious one.

You know this too Gary. Why do you lie like that? Do you hope that people will read your posts and believe you?

So why in a phone call made to him a year later in 2007 could he still hold on to such contradictions?


His life was cut short just like Barry Jennings, Kenneth Johannemann, Deborah Palfrey, Dr. David Graham and many other interesting individuals who were in the process of bringing new perspective to 9/11, so I guess we will never know why.

A demolition company working for NIST would not tell the truth because they are being paid.

This is worthless supposition and frankly cynical.


It would be naive to think that they would jump at the chance to risk their livelihood to talk about what they really believe knowing full well their comments would just be undermined like all the other experts who have already came forward about the many problems concerning the mainstream 9/11 narrative.

Do you think they would want to be ignored, silenced, ridiculed and lose their company?

WTC 7 could not have been brought down by fire. He based his assessment on looking at the building plans (without mention of the penthouse collapse) during the video.


Just because he didn't mention it doesn't mean he didn't notice it. Reread my prior comments.

The molten steel arguments are inconclusive and the thermitic materials not positively identified. Take that out of the equation and what do you actually have?


There is plenty of solid evidence for both of these things so why would I "take that out of the equation?"

I think we have moved on from that and he is hardly of any statistical worth against the majority of CD experts who allegedly don't agree. Not to mention the various trade associations/bodies concerned with engineering/tall buildings.


Few people who stand to lose their whole company or even their lives will jump at the chance to proclaim that the Emperor has no clothes. It doesn't help that many of the ones who are claiming this seem to be dying young for whatever reason.

Jowenko was not a "key witness."


I never said that he was. Reread my statement.

The Truthers found a foreigner to tout on their site because no phone calls to Northern American demolition companies yielded a result in their favour.


So foreign experts with presumably less to risk than American companies that directly depend on government contracts and the contracts of the big businesses that work with the government are more likely to tell the truth than the companies that have a much greater chance of losing everything.

Will wonders never cease.

Jowenko didn't seem to know whether he was coming or going in his statements so it doesn't surprise me he ended up wrapped around a tree.


Your comments here show a real disdain and disrespect for a man who has passed away in a car accident especially considering he was regarded as one of the foremost demolition experts in Europe from everything (mainstream) that i have read.





"knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

reply

>>The Penthouse falling first is what would typically happen in a conventional demolition.

Dom, you don't have any expertise in controlled demolition so don't tell me what is typical and what is not.

>>He was considered to be one of the top demolition experts in Europe and he was looking right at the video.

Then listen to what he had to say about the Twin Towers instead of claiming he may have changed his mind later.

>>Anyone watching the video can clearly see that the Penthouse drops first.

That predisposes that "anyone" watching is aware they are looking at a Penthouse. Jowenko did not know anything about WTC 7. He is only informed off camera at the end that there were penthouses and this was only in terms of evacuation. He clearly states that the implosion happened at the bottom. That was not the case. The penthouse collapsed seconds before the rest of the building.

>>You know this is true too Gary. Obviously you are the liar.

So I am a liar because I would know you meant something completely different to what you actually said. I am enjoying your cowardly dissembling.

>>No we don't. You are lying again. You know perfectly well that our standard position is that everyone agrees that the Twin Towers did not look at all like a standard demolition

The website says explosives and demolitions, not that they were non-standard. I can't be assed to read it all.

>>It is WTC 7 that is the obvious one.

Doing obvious things being the functional prerequisite of successful clandestine operations. They did something obvious with WTC 7 ("Cooey, everyone, it's all fake!") and then something atypical with the Twin Towers to try and fool experts for years. Well, all those people who don't own companies anyway. Always enjoy your daft nonsense, Dom.

>>Do you think they would want to be ignored, silenced, ridiculed and lose their company?

Supposition is not a reasonable excuse for ignoring expert testimony. It is, however, very convenient for Truthers who only have the likes of poor old redundant hod carrier Tom Sullivan on their side.

>>Will wonders never cease.

Yet you continually boast that "thousands" of experts are speaking out. I guess they don't have companies then. Fear is a convenient deflection for you. When it is no longer convenient then suddenly people are brave to speak out.

>>Your comments here show a real disdain and disrespect for a man who has passed away in a car accident especially considering he was regarded as one of the foremost demolition experts in Europe from everything (mainstream) that i have read.

Doesn't Silverstein and any number of others you have ruthlessly slandered deserve your respect? Thou shalt not bear false witness, Dom. You are not much of a Christian.

reply

>>The Penthouse falling first is what would typically happen in a conventional demolition.

Dom, you don't have any expertise in controlled demolition so don't tell me what is typical and what is not.


Are you really that ignorant about the very basics of controlled demolition or are you just pretending?


Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implo sion.htm

Supposition is not a reasonable excuse for ignoring expert testimony.


You don't need an excuse do you? You completely ignore the over 1700 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and all of the other groups of experts that are speaking out. Shame on you.

Doesn't Silverstein and any number of others you have ruthlessly slandered deserve your respect?


Show me where I have ever slandered Silverstein. Be prepared to link me to my statement. Without that your claim is meaningless.

Thou shalt not bear false witness, Dom.


What have I lied about Gary. If you actually had any real examples you presumably would have listed them.

You are not much of a Christian.


I don't think that judgement is up to you in the end and I will leave it up to my friends and family while I am alive.

"knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

reply

>>Are you really that ignorant about the very basics of controlled demolition or are you just pretending?

Web pages are not sufficient for you to make judgements, Dom. That is why experts are actually consulted in every day life. That is also why I am circumspect in the way I word my replies.

>>You completely ignore the over 1700 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and all of the other groups of experts that are speaking out. Shame on you.

I have not ignored their testimony on the basis they have too much to lose to give an honest assessment. That would be against the evidence. So why are *you* trying to find excuses to ignore expert testimony on that basis?

>>Show me where I have ever slandered Silverstein. Be prepared to link me to my statement. Without that your claim is meaningless.

Dom, you well know your threads get deleted constantly. Don't sit there and try to tell me you haven't accused Silverstein of insurance fraud, complicity in the murder of thousands of people in the Twin Towers or implied it numerous times. You are quite casual about it. It is your endless slanders and silly conspiracy theories that are meaningless.

I note you failed to address any of the important points in my post. You know you have nothing, Dom.



reply

Gary-161,

>>Are you really that ignorant about the very basics of controlled demolition or are you just pretending?

Web pages are not sufficient for you to make judgements, Dom. That is why experts are actually consulted in every day life. That is also why I am circumspect in the way I word my replies.

Do you think that one website is the only place that has mentioned this process? This process is fairly well known. If you are too uninformed to understand the very basics of building implosion then I can't spoon feed you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UPvjOanzgk

In his video here Tom Sullivan talks about the penthouse falling first as this being a typical controlled demolition. If you don't blow the central collumns first then the building might not fold in onto itself. It can easily fall over and damage surrounding structures. What part of this very basic procedure don't you understand?

>>You completely ignore the over 1700 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and all of the other groups of experts that are speaking out. Shame on you.

I have not ignored their testimony on the basis they have too much to lose to give an honest assessment. That would be against the evidence. So why are *you* trying to find excuses to ignore expert testimony on that basis?

Really? So why are you ignoring their testimonies?

>>Show me where I have ever slandered Silverstein. Be prepared to link me to my statement. Without that your claim is meaningless.

Dom, you well know your threads get deleted constantly. Don't sit there and try to tell me you haven't accused Silverstein of insurance fraud, complicity in the murder of thousands of people in the Twin Towers or implied it numerous times. You are quite casual about it. It is your endless slanders and silly conspiracy theories that are meaningless.

Hey Gary, didn't you call the Queen of England a bag lady about four months ago? I am not sure if you did or not but surely people on these boards have done so in the past. Gee I wish I would have kept that post of yours where you said she is a reptilian too. Unfortunately, you know how these things get erased after a while....

Two can play that game Gary.


I note you failed to address any of the important points in my post. You know you have nothing, Dom.

Repost what you believe to be your ahem "strongest points" and I will comment on them.



"knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

reply

>>If you don't blow the central collumns first then the building might not fold in onto itself. It can easily fall over and damage surrounding structures. What part of this very basic procedure don't you understand?

I have not expressed lack of comprehension of the above (if correct.) Jowenko does mention collapse mechanisms.

>>Really? So why are you ignoring their testimonies?

Where have I ignored testimonies? To quote your good self: "Be prepared to link me to my statement. Without that your claim is meaningless."

>>Gee I wish I would have kept that post of yours where you said she is a reptilian too.

See above.


reply

>>Really? So why are you ignoring their testimonies?

Where have I ignored testimonies? To quote your good self: "Be prepared to link me to my statement. Without that your claim is meaningless."


Alright. Maybe saying that you ignored their testimonies is the wrong choice of words. It is fair to say that you are aware of the evidence that is presented by the expert organizations within our movement yet you do not feel that there is a need for a new investigation right?

Is this fair?

If so, then why?

"knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

reply

You live in a bubble, Dom. The immediate concern for you about Obama's election victory is whether or not he is aware 9/11 was an inside job. The entire economic system of the West is in meltdown with worse on the way and you actually believe the priority is your tin foil hat nonsense about drones and bombs in buildings?

9/11 Truth is a NWO/Illuminati/Bilderberg/Whatever offshoot in which various persons are fighting their own ideological/religious battles. They are fetishising the three towers and using them as a prop to fight these battles. They are willing bombs to be in those buildings against all logic which strikes me as morally base.

You can fight sensible and rational ideological battles in the real world (whether rationality is possible with religion is debatable of course.) You don't need props. It's either the essence of who you are or it isn't.

There are people out there with enduring BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) who still think it is 2001 and they must stop the NeoCons at all cost. Bush is gone and was practically persona non Grata with the GOP in the last election unlike Clinton. The Democrats are in a second term. The Republicans are not out for the count but seriously, dude, move on and deal with real world problems of today. Realistic ones. For your own good if not for mine.

reply



First you Truthers claim it was so obviously a controlled demolition. Now you say it is atypical. Typical, Lol. You'll say anything to get around problems that contradict your fantasy.

Would it be fair to state that the implosion of a skyscraper due to "fire" is an atypical event?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5860825099435530591#

reply

Would it be fair to state that the implosion of a skyscraper due to "fire" is an atypical event?


Yes it would. It is so atypical that before 9/11 and since 9/11 there has been no other examples in steel framed high rise structures.

"knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

reply

yep blown to ash
REalOad~

reply

Blown to ash? No dumbass. You knock a hole in a building, dust and dirt that has been present inside and out of that building is going to blow out. Tell me how it is that the tops were blown to ash.....and then suddenly were back in place when the dust settled with very visible holes knocked in em. Idiot.

reply

The towers weren't "blown" to ash. They crumbled because the steel holding it up couldn't take the heat from the burning Boeing 767's that plowed through them.
B.S the towers turned to DUST "MIDAIR" before parts even hit the ground. Concrete doesnt instantly crumble if something holding it up weakens otherwise if you dropped a concrete slab out of a plane it would crumble because NOTHING is hold it up.

We've gone over this before. As long as I seen you talking rubbish about 9/11 I will be right there to school you.

IMDB Trolls http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg&NR=1

reply

[deleted]

You don't school anybody on SH!T, Clown! The towers turned to "dust" because the steel holding it up was too weak to hold up, and it collapsed from "midair" because that was the point of impact of Flights 11 and 175.


reply

[deleted]

And the fact that the only three buildings of that type to ever collapse in a fire happened within blocks of each other on the same day doesn't give you pause?


This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

And the fact that the only three buildings of that type to ever collapse in a fire happened within blocks of each other on the same day doesn't give you pause?

---------------------------------

How many of these other structures had a 500mph aircraft -with an almost full fuel capacity- flown into them?



" The game is over the rebels have won"










reply

Two of them, weren't you paying attention? And they were designed to withstand getting hit by a 707 traveling at 600 mph.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html


This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

This so called evidence doesn't legislate for fire proofing damage though does it?

I watched a team of scientists build a replica model and re-stage the exact events and their building collapsed too.

" The game is over the rebels have won"










reply

LOL! The words of the WTC's designing structural engineer is "so called" evidence, but a MODEL is proof? You think they designed them for the impact but not the resulting fuel spill? Oooookaaaaay.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

do you know how much rubble should have ended up on the street ? where is the rubble ? how about wtc building 7 ? irrefutable proof will not be found except if a true investigation would take place. Why do you expect irrefutable proof from the internet ? Consider the context in which 9/11 happened and what it allowed your government to do afterwards, put in place the police state usa and the final struggle for NWO.

reply

do you know how much rubble should have ended up on the street ? where is the rubble

In the vicinity of where the towers once stood


how about wtc building 7 ?

That was hit by those towers, and when Building 7 came down, it hit some other buildings too.

reply

OP, sorry, YOU are the "epitome of ignorant" due to the fact that YOU have no respect for those innocent souls lost almost 10 years ago! WAKE UP AND SEE THE TRUTH!

"Why Is It That You Are A Complete Douchbag And Waste Of My Air?" Frat House Massacre

reply

The Reason that it looked like little explosions were coming out of the building was because when the building the falling, the floors were sandwiching together, and when that happened, the sudden rush of air blew out the windows.

Anymore conspiracy theories?
How do you kill which has no life?
-Blizzard employee

reply

Nice! This was the perfect venue to finally set the record straight when it comes to 9-11 conspiracy theorists. And thank you as well for making it a completely unsolicited post. The fact that your argument is with nobody in no way makes you look as insane as those people you're railing against.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

the North Tower Spire (google it) turned into dust on national television
No, the spire collapsed.

http://youtu.be/v3yvViAF4IM



"Can't is the cancer of happen." - Charlie Sheen

reply

I think the point is, people don't like to think their own country could do something so dastardly to them. Our military, our CIA has never cared about collateral damage...they only see their goal. The only goal I can see that they had was The Patriot Act and war with Iraq. There was no reason to go to war with Iraq but we did it anyway. Who profited from that war? Haliburton. Haliburton made billions and probably other defense contractors did also. If you look back in history...you will see that our government has lied to us over and over and over, again. Now our country has nothing but debt and an old dead man who probably has been supported by Haliburton, for years.

reply

"an old dead man who probably has been supported by Haliburton, for years."


and that old dead man has probably already been dead for years.

reply

A) http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons


B) EVEN IF their was a conspiracy.... What the *beep* are or could you ever do about it besides bitch? NOTHING

reply

Oh and if 9/11 was an inside job, than Osama Bin Laden was un-justifiably killed. Are you saying it is wrong that he was killed?

reply

Oh and if 9/11 was an inside job, than Osama Bin Laden was un-justifiably killed. Are you saying it is wrong that he was killed?


Osama had undeniable ties with the Bush family, due to the oil business. I personally believe he has been dead since 2002, since Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger's right hand man both admitted in the press way back when (I know for sure the New York Post) that "bin Laden has been dead on ice, since 2002". It has been released many times in the press that Osama was very sickly, likely suffering from kidney problems. If bin Laden knew that he was going to die, then it wouldn't have mattered to him if he was implicated on 9/11. It's kind of that mindset of "Hey, I'm a bad guy already. I've done plenty of bad things, so what will one more thing do to me". Also, the early Osama videos, and the newer ones are completely different. And, by that, I mean that his nose, facial structure, beard, skin tone, etc... are completely different. It's like comparing Brad Pitt with George Clooney. Also, with those videos, bin Laden was left handed with his ring on his left hand, and in newer videos, he is dominant with his right hand, with his ring on his right hand.

With that said, why haven't they shown photographs, or proof that he was killed. For Christ sakes, we saw Saddam Hussein killed, so why would this be any different? Yet, he was buried right away at sea (how convenient), and they try to claim that is in accordance with his religion. Following the "official 9/11 story", he dishonored Islam, so he does not deserve to be buried as one. Islam anymore does not demand one to be buried within 24 hours. Also, since we "killed" him, why not just bury him on land. The people who would be angry that he is dead wouldn't suddenly have a change of heart, because we buried him within 24 hours at sea. They tried to claim that "we don't want to bury him on land, only to make it a terrorist shrine", but wouldn't that anger a person/group more if they couldn't have access to the body. This also brings up the issue of future issues of identification/exhumation. We have to take the word of the US government that they killed him, and it apparently has to be left at that. No autopsy could be done, nor any research could be done.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

reply

Osama had undeniable ties with the Bush family, due to the oil business.

Osama's family had tied to the Bush family. That doesn't change the fact that Osama himself was an uptight hard-line Islamo-fascist.


I personally believe he has been dead since 2002, since Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger's right hand man both admitted in the press way back when (I know for sure the New York Post) that "bin Laden has been dead on ice, since 2002".

There were also people who thought he died at the Battle of Tora Bora. And they were proven wrong too.



It has been released many times in the press that Osama was very sickly, likely suffering from kidney problems.

It was also a rumor that Osama himself has dismissed and that many of his followers believe the CIA made up.

reply

Thrashing69:

A) I'm not a fan of "Loose Change", as I think there are much better documentaries out there, but I give the documentary/film makers credit for making the issue popular. As far as your link goes, this is the typical ad-hominem I'd expect from an ignorant 9/11 official story believer that bashes a 9/11 truther about this issue. First of all, the fact that Dylan Avery is alive means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Let me repeat that for you again: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Do you really think that the government or an entity would kill someone who became high profile, due to a film that he came out with......that is EXTREMELY popular? Wouldn't that make people start paying attention and believing him and his video, if he was in fact killed? People like you make my laugh because you're so darn predicable. You people psychologically fall right into their hands, and it's because you're so easy to read. Anyone with a brain knows that "hey, if I kill that person, it will only give credence to what he was trying to say before, yet nobody listened. Now, people will pay attention".

B) People like you never think outside the box. You only think small term. You never think long term. You simply think "one man can't do anything". That's not true. That one man or woman can let his or her voice be heard to spread the message to others. Once that message has been reached to enough people, people can contact their representatives and demand answers. In short, if enough people are told (as in a "domino effect"), the idea becomes popular enough to where the matter needs to fully be addressed.

As I said before, people like you are SO predictable, that you should be ashamed of yourselves. You A & B points are such facepalm material, that I'd tell the "powers that be" to slap themselves if they couldn't manipulate the masses, due to most of the masses obvious, ignorant transparency.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

reply

please explain the pentagon attack then? where are the holes the the wings of the plane should have created? where is the debris from the flight?

and about the towers, please explain how a steal framed building that was designed to withstand a plane crashing into it fall? one of the most sophisticated and strongest skyscrapers of that time? how 10 minutes of buring fire and bring down that building?

if you did watch loose change you would have seen the part where he explains this. not even a WOODEN framed house will completely collapse to the ground even after half an hour of burning let along 10 minutes.

_
no regrets

reply

"please explain the pentagon attack then? where are the holes the the wings of the plane should have created?"

You expect a plane-shaped hole in wall that was reinforced to withstand an indirect nuclear blast?

"where is the debris from the flight?"

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-photos.html

"and about the towers, please explain how a steal framed building that was designed to withstand a plane crashing into it fall?"

They were designed to withstand the impact of 707s, low on fuel, lost in fog, on approach to JFK from Europe, not 767s with nearly full tanks. Anyway, the they did withstand the impacts; remember how the Towers didn't fall right away?

"how 10 minutes of buring fire and bring down that building?"

More like 56 minutes for South Tower, 1½ hours for North Tower, and nearly five hours for #7. A steel-framed furniture store in Charleston collapsed in about 45 minutes; firefighters reported temperatures in the store were in excess of 1000°

reply

Dylan Avery became high profile. So why wasn't he killed while low profile, before the film came out (or before it was even finished)?

reply

Dylan Avery became high profile. So why wasn't he killed while low profile, before the film came out (or before it was even finished)?


Well, Avery was working with a group of people, for starters. If he was killed, then they all would have to be killed. If they all were killed, then that would draw a lot of attention. Not to mention, the movie was low profile, until it became a sleeper hit.

I don't like the film "Loose Change", as I felt that there are much better 9/11 Conspiracy documentaries that provide evidence, and don't jump to conclusions about accusing random people, and falsify evidence...which is what I felt Loose Change did. But, I have to give the film props for being the first BIG 9/11 Conspiracy documentary, that got a lot of people thinking.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

reply

Three people (Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe) isn't much of a group. "They" were reponsible for 3000 deaths but couldn't be bothered to do anything about three nobodies who started asking the wrong questions?

Try this on for size: Rowe, a veteran of the war in Iraq, duped Avery and Bermas into making the documentary, thereby poisoning the well for future attempts to expose any conspiracy.


reply

Try this on for size: I said before that I wasn't a fan of the documentary.

Try this on for size: Also, it's funny how people are so simpleminded as to think that every time someone knows something, or that person makes a book, radio show, or movie about a conspiracy, they have to be killed...otherwise they are lying. It's funny how people don't think that: "Hey, if something like this truly exists, it would be silly for the criminals responsible to kill EVERY SINGLE PERSON who got wind of the story". Reverse psychology all of the way... If that person(s) was killed, wouldn't that make the naysayers more likely to take it a bit more seriously? If Alex Jones died from a gunshot tomorrow, I GUARANTEE you that MANY more people would start paying attention to what he said. You have to think like someone who has something to hide, but wants to be discreet as possible...in order to understand. Pretty simple...in other words, use common sense.

Try this on for size: If you were Donald Trump, and someone came forward in the media with a conspiracy theory that Donald's(your) toupee was from the hair of the victims from your serial killing days, would you really kill that person, or every person that came forward? It would make you look guilty as hell, and plenty of people would start paying attention to what that person said. That's why you play it psychologically and leave that person(s) alive, but you assassinate their characters, their reputations. Then, there would be plenty of people like you who would come along and say "Hey, so & so is still alive! If that person was telling the truth, then why aren't they dead right now?" You see what I'm getting at.

Three people (Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe) isn't much of a group. "They" were reponsible for 3000 deaths but couldn't be bothered to do anything about three nobodies who started asking the wrong questions?


Try this on for size: It's still a group nonetheless, with normal families that might raise hell and a lot of attention if their kids were killed. See my last two paragraphs for common sense...I mean for explanations. "They" were responsible for 3000 deaths, because they blamed it on a known terrorist group, and while "They" made mistakes due to either arrogance, or underestimating every person in the world, "they" still pulled off the story to many people. "They" confiscated ALL video tapes that could have shown the footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon, but all they have to show us is 5 still frames, and a video off in the distance of an explosion........after all of these years. Don't you find that a BIT strange? The PEOPLE are entitled to that footage, even after all of these years, but the government has kept that under lock and key. "They" used a false flag attack, and fooled the American people into thinking it was just simply terrorists...especially when quite a few of the "hijackers" are still alive and accounted for. And, especially when one of the terrorists was in Florida, getting drunk, going to strip clubs, wearing jewelry, and dating a stripper. Almost all of which are against Islam, especially a fundamentalist sect. Talk about the 97 virgins hypocrisy...



"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

reply

[deleted]

"I said before that I wasn't a fan of the documentary."

You are a fan of documentaries that likely went to the same well as Loose Change, though. How do you feel about 9/11 In Plane Site?

"Try this on for size: It's still a group nonetheless, with normal families that might raise hell and a lot of attention if their kids were killed."

Oh, really? Let's say the three nobodies went for a drive in the same vehicle and died in a head-on collision, also killing the other driver. Who would those families raise hell with?

""They" confiscated ALL video tapes that could have shown the footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon"

And returned those tapes to their rightful owners. What prevented "them" from confiscating Loose Change before it was finished? Wait, let me guess, something to do with "making the three nobodies that more determined", right? Even though Avery showed little, if any, interest in conspiracies until Rowe offered production assistance.

"quite a few of the "hijackers" are still alive and accounted for."

Including those who were victims of identity theft?

"one of the terrorists was in Florida, getting drunk, going to strip clubs, wearing jewelry, and dating a stripper. Almost all of which are against Islam, especially a fundamentalist sect."

And there's zero chance that this particular sect never makes exceptions for future martyrs?

reply

You are a fan of documentaries that likely went to the same well as Loose Change, though. How do you feel about 9/11 In Plane Site?


I'm more of a fan of that film, than I ever will be of "Loose Change". But, then again, you'll want to debate about the film, even though you've never seen it. Because if you had, you would at least understand it, if even to an extent. I think that Zero: An Investigation into 9/11, National Security Alert: Sensitive Information, and 9/11 Ripple Effect are even better. There's no doubt that you'll have some excuse for there being an explosion, RIGHT WHEN the plane starts to enter the tower. There is no doubt that you'll have some excuse about the pod on the bottom of the 767. You'll claim that it is "shadows", or a video error...even though photos and videos that covered various vantage points showed the same exact thing. It's funny how the typical 9/11 "official story" believer uses the "You're not an architect/pilot/mechanical engineer/imagery analysis expert, etc..." excuse, but then again neither is the typical 9/11 "official story" believer. They rely on the NIST/9/11 Commission Reports/Government/Media for their information, and simply throw various "proof by stereotype" remarks at a 9/11 truther. I'm here simply to find as much truth as I can about 9/11. I did many years worth of research about the "official story" of 9/11, and then I did years worth of research about the various conspiracies and conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Oh, really? Let's say the three nobodies went for a drive in the same vehicle and died in a head-on collision, also killing the other driver. Who would those families raise hell with?


Three people making one of the most CONTROVERSIAL documentaries ever, let alone over one of the most CONTROVERSIAL topics ever, and you don't think that ANYONE would raise any eyebrows?!? Bullcrap, and you know it. If they were making the documentary, their families would have known, and Alex Jones would have known, and he would have interviewed them, just in case.

And returned those tapes to their rightful owners. What prevented "them" from confiscating Loose Change before it was finished? Wait, let me guess, something to do with "making the three nobodies that more determined", right? Even though Avery showed little, if any, interest in conspiracies until Rowe offered production assistance.


You're full of crap. The tapes are STILL(key word here) in Federal hands. Any photographs or videos taken of any Federal crime, are erased or altered, until they are EVENTUALLY released back to their rightful owners. Even then, it is up to their discretion. Also, if the "tapes have been released back to their rightful owners", in their entirety, then why haven't there been scores of videos released to the public? There would be NO gag order, because once something like that is released back to the individual, they can do whatever they want to with it. As for "them" confiscating Loose Change, if that happened, there would be no point to any Federal agency confiscating it, since those people would have had copies in various places(admitted in an Alex Jones interview), or they would have just done it again. There would be no real point. Think outside the box here, ok? I know it's hard, but try.

Including those who were victims of identity theft?


If that was the case, then why have their pictures STILL been broadcasted, and the government hasn't changed its position? Even the father of one of the hijackers said that he received a call from his son, a day after 9/11, telling him that he's alright, and that it wasn't him. The "identity theft" excuse is about as laughable as officials finding a terrorist's passport is perfect condition, despite being in a plane loaded with jet fuel that burned everything else up, but somehow, it dropped down to the ground in perfectly readable condition. Paper+Fire=Engulfed in flames, and thus burning up...especially with jet fuel.

And there's zero chance that this particular sect never makes exceptions for future martyrs?


You should take a class in Domestic Terrorism, which is sometimes combined with a Bio-Terrorism class. Plenty of colleges offer it, and you can take it, even for sh!ts and giggles. Even in that class, they mentioned that there are RULES that they abide by, hence why they try to keep to themselves, and have minimal contact with people other than who they have to be in contact with. There are things that the CAN'T do, no matter what, as wearing jewelry, dating or looking at strippers, getting drunk......there is no excuse for any of that in their culture, as they don't need those "guises"(what a joke) to blend in. No Islamo-fundamentalist terrorist organization would allow that. They allow people of other ethnicities or genders to be a part of it, but not someone who does ANY, if not all of those things. Use some logic here...There is NO credible reason for any Islamic terrorist to partake of such acts.

But here is how it usually plays out, you're adamant with your position, and I am with mine. All you're gonna do is b!tch some more about my point of view, and nothing in the end is going to change.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

reply

"I'm here simply to find as much truth as I can about 9/11."

The difference between you and I is that I need evidence. Theories, hearsay, opinions, conjecture, and outright lies (http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html) are not evidence.

reply

The difference between you and I is that I need evidence. Theories, hearsay, opinions, conjecture, and outright lies (http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html) are not evidence.


It's funny how you never addressed any of my other comments in that post, except for that one comment. von Kleist mentioned how you can watch frame by frame of the "explosion" upon impact, from your own home, if you have a copy of the plane hitting. I did, and after I looked at it frame by frame, it wasn't altered. This author of the site that you listed is using HEARSAY, claiming that "people" who talked to von Kleist said that he made certain remarks. I'm not using hearsay. If there is a witness who describes what he saw, that is not hearsay. Your example proved my point of how you're a hypocrite, when you tell me that:

Theories, hearsay, opinions, conjecture, and outright lies (http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html) are not evidence.
...

...when you did at least several of these things already. The funny thing is that if I direct you toward "9/11 Architects, Pilots, etc... for Truth", you'll tell me that they're not experts, but the typical 9/11 official story believer will ignore experts, because it doesn't go along with their official story theory. So, in essence you consider yourself as being more credible, because you have experts that follow the party line. If these experts that follow the official story, were to change their position, it could possibly be bad for them, as they could be fired or blacklisted. I have a buddy who is a metallurgist for Lockheed-Martin, even tell me that anyone who officially changes their position could be fired or blacklisted, hence why many people remain hush hush about it, or have the position that their company wants them to have. Yet, there are many credible pilots that served commercially, privately, or with the military, that don't share the official position. The same goes for firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, media professionals, medical professionals, political leaders, religious leaders, scholars, and scientists...hence why each have their own groups trying to have the investigation reopened. So, you're telling me that these individuals, many of which have hands on experience in their fields, are dead wrong, but YOU are right, because you follow the official position, and the story they give you?

By the way, von Kleist made a documentary in 2007 where he made his point clear, and went in a more detailed direction. He has never claimed to be a "know it all", he has only tried to display the evidence, and asked people to think. If Dave was wrong about a certain detail, he certainly would have corrected in by that time, especially since the details released to the public in 2004 and 2007 were different, in terms of how much info was released, and info that was clarified. Hell, in 2004, there was still much confusion about what info was correct, or just a mis-clarification, because it was only 3 years after the event.

You have to wonder why many people who had much experience in their fields, whether it was a MS, PhD, commercial/military pilot, people who served in intelligence fields (Army, Navy, CIA, NSA, Naval Intelligence, etc...), various architects and engineers, etc... would be a part of these groups, especially with all of their experiences in their fields? But, according to you, all of these people are wrong, and you are right.

Here's the part where you make some minute statement about something that has little, if anything to do with anything. You'll just say that I'm wrong, you're right, and you'll be vague about the details of the side that you have. You'll say that my point of view is simply a conspiracy theory, not a conspiracy. You'll say that all of these people that have experience in their respective fields that formed such and such "for 9/11 truth" are full of crap, and yet you're not. Basically, your tactic with be debating by discrediting the opposition. What I've found is that people I know that are pilots, scientists/researchers, architects/engineers, etc... don't speak up because of one of two things: 1. They don't want to lose their jobs or get blacklisted, so they keep their mouths shut. OR 2. They haven't done any research of the official story or the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, so they believe the official story, because they haven't done in depth research, because they have had no reason to. There is actually a third reason, and that is: People don't want to think that their government, or people within the government could be that evil, so they would rather be in a state of denial. Believe me, I don't "get off" on conspiracy theories. I find them intriguing, but I'd rather have them be not true, than find out that there is truth in various conspiracy theories. Something I learned is: Don't trust your government. You see enough politicians lie through their teeth, and get paid off by lobbyists, so why wouldn't our Heads of State be any different? The government will lie and do covert acts to accomplish what it wants(WMD's, Watergate, Bay of Pigs, etc...). They would rather you be spoonfed information by them/media, than to do your own research.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

reply

True there is nothing to do but bitch its true..... Im in Canada and I know that when i saw those towers falling I thought to myself: "Who benefits from this" and the only answer I could come up with is "The American Government". They are the only ones who have anything to gain my making a self-effacing wound to themselves as an excuse to excercise their war-machine and clamp down at home. Just like OKC.... Then when I heard the governments story on 9/11, and that they actually expected me to believe that TWO - not one - but TWO passports. belonging to the terrorist ON BOARD of the completely immolated aircraft, was found at the 9/11 site THAT DAY- in perfect condition. Thus PROVING tat these men were on the plane yet their passports somehow survived.... Now that is some real B.S... Nothing about 9/11 adds up. They at least LIHOP'd (let it happen on purpose) or MIHOP'd (made it happen on purpose). That much is obvious.

reply

conspiracy theorists are like religious people. as soon as they can't wrap their tiny brains around a certain occurrence, it just had to be either the evil government or an almighty something residing in heaven... or elvis... or [insert superstitious crap].

reply

See mord, you "I'll believe the govt no matter wrong, because they'd do no wrong!" types, are the ones with the tiny brains that can't wrap their puny little heads around a simple concept. For that matter, using ad-hominem attacks as your only retort PROVES my point. Besides, it's a CONSPIRACY, not conspiracy theory. Get it right. I can argue about this with you all you want. 9/11 official story believers are like religious people, they have faith in a higher power, and even when LOGIC is presented to them, they simply throw institutionalized doctrine at you as proof, when it's all that they really have. You, like the religious believer has ONLY the institution's word.

As for your last part of your post, that's a typical "proof by stereotype" instance. You mix a serious subject in with far-fetched examples. You're just like the idiot glenn beck.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

reply

it'd be easy for me to pick your post apart. but i don't wanna waste my time with the likes of you, more than i deem appropriate. so i just do us both a favor and put you in my ignore list. that way i can't read your silly rants anymore and you'll have no trouble convincing yourself that you could win a debate against me.

reply

lol...running away like a coward, are you? It's funny how people who HAVE NO ARGUMENT run away like cowards (and try to cover it up with an excuse), while people WITH AN ARGUMENT stick to their story and are able to successfully counter arguments in a debate. You're just a joke who can't even debate, even if you wanted to. The old "I'll put you on my ignore list" is laughable, at best. We all know that I'm not on your ignore list, you're just a coward WHO HAS NO DEBATE, so you're trying to not make as much of a fool of yourself by making an excuse, as if you're "trying to take the high road" lol. I picked apart what little you had of an "argument" lol.....with each of your responses. You're a coward, that's what.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

reply