Skeptics rule another 911 forum

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Skeptics rule another 911 forum; so far they are winning
Topic Started: Jul 8 2009, 06:53 AM (357 Views)
datman	Jul 8 2009, 06:53 AM Post #1
Posts: 112 Group: Members Member #137 Joined: 01/19/08	http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/79885-9-11-coincidences-enough-any-detective-world-suspicious.html I tried and failed, every attempt to point out errors in the investigation have been pretty much blow out of the water. I can’t win this argument anyone care to take a whack at it? Edited by datman, Jul 8 2009, 10:17 AM.
Posts: 112 Group: Members Member #137 Joined: 01/19/08


BoneZ	Jul 8 2009, 12:31 PM Post #2
Posts: 719 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	Quote: denial disorder - the refusal to acknowledge the existence or severity of unpleasant external realities or internal thoughts and feelings.
Posts: 719 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


jackchit	Jul 8 2009, 01:24 PM Post #3
Posts: 103 Group: Members Member #33 Joined: 01/15/08	zzzzzzzz More deniers crap zzzzzzzzzz They spout the same old flawed arguments time after time and ignore anything they cannot pass off with some tired old rubbish. Ask Mark Roberts if he is associated with any of the 3 letter agencies and he will ignore you because he knows I have proof. The deniers should be ignored.
Posts: 103 Group: Members Member #33 Joined: 01/15/08


datman	Jul 8 2009, 01:40 PM Post #4
Posts: 112 Group: Members Member #137 Joined: 01/19/08	They have made a convincing argument. I was hoping someone better informed than me could go over and set the record strait
Posts: 112 Group: Members Member #137 Joined: 01/19/08


Flippy	Jul 8 2009, 01:53 PM Post #5
Posts: 575 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	Without reading I am guessing their argument is based on "Too many people would have been involved."
Posts: 575 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


Flippy	Jul 8 2009, 01:54 PM Post #6
Posts: 575 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	Yep, just as I guessed. To many people involved. But planning the hijacking of four commercial airlines could have been more easily done by a couple of foreigners. What about building 7 then??? What about NOC?? Edited by Flippy, Jul 8 2009, 01:54 PM.
Posts: 575 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


datman	Jul 8 2009, 02:53 PM Post #7
Posts: 112 Group: Members Member #137 Joined: 01/19/08	What seems to have happened a lot of the events that we the truthers use as evidence to support our theories about 911 is based on news reports that may have been wrong. They have been able to produce different reports that speak contrary to the once used in the movement. Their stories may have been false but I don’t have the knowledge to prove it. I’m beginning to think they are more right than wrong and I have been a fool for letting this become so important to me. I know it would be a lot to read but if you just go to this thread and answer these questions http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/84645-our-turn-just-ask-questions.html
Posts: 112 Group: Members Member #137 Joined: 01/19/08


BoneZ	Jul 8 2009, 03:21 PM Post #8
Posts: 719 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08	They may very well be right on some points. However, information like the following that I post at ATS: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread479971/pg1#pid6661508 is undebunkable. I've challenged many debunkers and not a single one has even tried to debunk me. They just keep spewing the same garbage over and over. So are debunkers correct on some things? Yes. But when it comes to certain things like the controlled demolition of the WTC, they will never be right. Edited by BoneZ, Jul 8 2009, 03:22 PM.
Posts: 719 Group: Members Member #269 Joined: 02/03/08


tuatara	Jul 8 2009, 05:23 PM Post #9
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09	datman Jul 8 2009, 02:53 PM What seems to have happened a lot of the events that we the truthers use as evidence to support our theories about 911 is based on news reports that may have been wrong. They have been able to produce different reports that speak contrary to the once used in the movement. Their stories may have been false but I don’t have the knowledge to prove it. I’m beginning to think they are more right than wrong and I have been a fool for letting this become so important to me. I know it would be a lot to read but if you just go to this thread and answer these questions http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/84645-our-turn-just-ask-questions.html There's a large amount of "Why" questions in that list Datman. I'm not sure how we can answer them given all we are doing is looking at the evidence not trying to make sense of the motives. For example :- Quote: 11) WHAT was the point of "bombs in the basement prior to collapse" when the building was "demolished" from the top down ? How can we know the point of it? The fact is that there is overwhelming witness evidence that there were large explosions in the basements and that there many of them. We can speculate as to the motive - for example maybe the explosions were designed to hamper any fire-fighting efforts. However we cannot dismiss witness evidence on the basis of "we do not know the point of doing it, therefore it didn't happen". That is patently ridiculous. Now let's take a look at the work of CIT given it is the simplest to understand and analyse this supplementary question :- Quote: I'd just add one in; if a missile hit the Pentagon, what knocked down four traffic lights outside of the Pentagon? If you say it was "operatives" then how did one smash through the windshield of a cab driver? There's no evidence a missile hit the Pentagon. There's no evidence that a lightpole smashed through the windshield of a cab. There are no eye-witnesses claiming the lightpole hit the cab windshield (except the cab driver). There is strong eye-witness evidence that a large plane flew north of the Citgo gas station (and so didn't hit the downed light poles) and that there was an explosion at the Pentagon around the time that this plane reached the Pentagon. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the eye-witness evidence is that the plane flew over the Pentagon. I don't really have enough time to answer all of the questions and most of them aren't valid anyway.
Posts: 194 Group: Members Member #1,046 Joined: 02/02/09


Miragememories	Jul 9 2009, 07:19 AM Post #10
Posts: 753 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	datman "What seems to have happened a lot of the events that we the truthers use as evidence to support our theories about 911 is based on news reports that may have been wrong. They have been able to produce different reports that speak contrary to the once used in the movement. Their stories may have been false but I don’t have the knowledge to prove it. I’m beginning to think they are more right than wrong and I have been a fool for letting this become so important to me." bolding is mine The knowledge is there if you are willing to take the time to examine it. Of course there has been erroneous evidence presented by both sides, but from the 9/11 truth standpoint, a few errors do not the negate the case that 9/11 was unquestionably an inside job. Those supporting the official story are compelled to attack every point raised by the 9/11 Truth Movement because each unanswered question acts like a potential key to the 9/11 Pandora's Box. Personally, I started my re-think about 9/11 after my attention was drawn to the mysterious high speed collapse of WTC 7. If you research all the other information available, it quickly becomes evident that it could never have collapsed from office furnishings fires alone. It had to have been pre-rigged for a controlled demolition. If it was, then the perpetrators must have known of the impending aircraft strikes on WTC 1 and WTC 2. Look at WTC 1 and WTC 2. Try and get ANY so-called skeptic to explain how each of those towers' upper sections, achieved the necessary pile driver-like DROP, required to completely center-crush the intact lower building structure, at a rate of speed close to freefall, all the way to the ground. Oh they'll give you all kinds of genuine formulae, potential energy numbers and kinetic energy created, but they can't or won't explain the sudden arrested topple of the upper sections, or what mechanism must have caused the necessary instantaneous removal of the vertical support across a complete floor! CIT have provided excellent eyewitness testimony that establishes how false the official story is regarding the Pentagon attack on 9/11. Instead of being eager to argue with the zealots defending the official 9/11 smokescreen, read through some of the major threads here that cover these subjects. If you don't engage these people with thorough research, they'll eat you alive and they'll resort to any means to discourage your attempts. Invite them to bring their arguments here if they are so certain of their merit. If they act in a civil respectful manner, no one is going to ban them. MM
Posts: 753 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


TDX	Jul 9 2009, 10:34 AM Post #11
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08	"Try and get ANY so-called skeptic to explain how each of those towers' upper sections, achieved the necessary pile driver-like DROP, required to completely center-crush the intact lower building structure, at a rate of speed close to freefall, all the way to the ground. Oh they'll give you all kinds of genuine formulae, potential energy numbers and kinetic energy created, but they can't or won't explain the sudden arrested topple of the upper sections, or what mechanism must have caused the necessary instantaneous removal of the vertical support across a complete floor!" That's the worst thing to do. Nobody can know without cruel LS-DYNA model or something like this Those things are based on actual numbers. You just can't make statements like that. You can't win argument based on collapse dynamics because you are not a physicist ...and it's complicated like hell. There are other good arguments.Stick with WTC7.
Posts: 159 Group: Members Member #435 Joined: 03/24/08


JFK	Jul 9 2009, 10:39 AM Post #12
Posts: 4,154 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	TDX Jul 9 2009, 10:34 AM "Try and get ANY so-called skeptic to explain how each of those towers' upper sections, achieved the necessary pile driver-like DROP, required to completely center-crush the intact lower building structure, at a rate of speed close to freefall, all the way to the ground. Oh they'll give you all kinds of genuine formulae, potential energy numbers and kinetic energy created, but they can't or won't explain the sudden arrested topple of the upper sections, or what mechanism must have caused the necessary instantaneous removal of the vertical support across a complete floor!" That's the worst thing to do. Nobody can know without cruel LS-DYNA model or something like this Those things are based on actual numbers. You just can't make statements like that. You can't win argument based on collapse dynamics because you are not a physicist ...and it's complicated like hell. There are other good arguments.Stick with WTC7. http://www.lstc.com/lspp/
Posts: 4,154 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Q	Jul 26 2009, 08:34 AM Post #13
A Higher Evolution Posts: 519 Group: Members Member #12 Joined: 01/13/08	Datman, there is one very simple thing for you to remember. We do not carry the burden of proof. In these fora alone, there is enough evidence to show that the "official" story just doesn't stand up to an objective evaluation. Stick by the creed "Ask Questions--Demand Answers". If some "septic" is going to whip your ass with mathematical formulae that are probably crap anyway, then ask them questions that you know they cannot answer. Why were there reports of explosions before the planes struck? Why did the BBC announce the fall of WTC7 20 minutes early? How did some guy who couldn't even fly a Cessna manage to complete a nearly 360 degree turn and descent in a Jumbo to hit the only re-inforced part of the Pentagram with such precision? If the planes that hit the towers were so thoroughly incinerated by their own fuel, how did a couple of the "high-jackers" passports end up in the street? I, for one, will be fire-proofing my house with passport paper.



Flippy	Jul 26 2009, 02:20 PM Post #14
Posts: 575 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08	Q Jul 26 2009, 08:34 AM If the planes that hit the towers were so thoroughly incinerated by their own fuel, how did a couple of the "high-jackers" passports end up in the street? I, for one, will be fire-proofing my house with passport paper. Me too LOL! - Anybody have the video of the reporter waving the passport around?
Posts: 575 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: 01/12/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »