Discussion in '9/11' started by Leffe, Mar 28, 2012.
"Evidence is evidence".....glad to hear that.
I stand by my comment, your question is pointless and proves nothing. It's pure internet hyperbole.
Perhaps Jango should expand on his comment and leave out the negative stuff?
Would you bet your life on that question?
It is a shame you run from the evidence though. For instance, you claim that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, yet 13 people survived the collapse in Stairwell B of the North Tower. Where are the stairwells? In the core. Where are the vertical columns? In the core. Not only did these 13 people not hear any explosions going off, but the very fact they survived in the very location truthers claim the explosives would have been going off proves there were no explosives going off before or during the collapse.
So is evidence evidence or is only truther "evidence" evidence when it comes to truthers?
Well that's certainly a good question. That's what I'm trying to ascertain. Is evidence only considered evidence when it comes from people that don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, or can evidence from opposing points of view be considered as well?
I'm trying to stick to specifics, not run. Are you?
Evidence is evidence. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Evidence has merit. If evidence can be disproven, that merit is bad. If evidence can't be disproven, that merit is good. You claim the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Evidence cited? None. Opinion is not evidence. You claim the towers came down too fast. Evidence cited? None. You claim there were explosions caused by explosives. Evidence cited? Pretending you know what firefighters are "REALLY" thinking even though not one of them has stepped forward to claim they thought the explosions were from explosives even though that would be the right thing to do AND their job if they really thought that way.
On the other hand you have 13 people who survived in Stairwell B in the very place truthers claim the controlled demolition would be taking place. This is evidence of no controlled demolition. How? Because they didn't hear explosions going off before and during the collapse. These explosions are what truthers claim HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED in order to bring the towers down as fast as they did. Further evidence of no controlled demolition is the fact they survived in the very area truthers claim the explosions would have occured in.
So we have two examples of evidence both for and against controlled demolition.
My evidence holds up to examination. Can you refute the evidence? Are the survivors fakes? Do you have any evidence that proves they are lying?
Your "evidence" doesn't even fit the criteria for evidence as it is based on opinion and what you think the firefighters were really trying to say. Even your non-evidence doesn't stand up to examination as not one firefighter will back up your silly claim that you know what they were really thinking.
There is plenty of information as to what many of the firefighters think and say right here.
Perhaps you could avail yourself of these individuals and what it is that THEY think, rather than attacking me.
Question : how many members of that organization were on the scene on 9/11?
None of them were at Ground Zero on 9/11, so what they think has the same credibility as the tripe in your posts. Explain how none of the firefighters there on 9/11 have come forward to claim they thought there were EXPLOSIVES used on 9/11 as you so dishonestly pretend they think? Why do they need a bunch of nobodies out on the net to tell the world what they think? It has been over a decade now. Why haven't any of them come forward to expose the lie you claim exists? Are you trying to pretend not one member of the FDNY has the balls to tell the truth?
Fantastic. Now you're insulting the fireman in the source as well. How can anybody debate you when you won't give any credence to ANYONE if they are counter to your "official" version of events? They're all just a bunch of "nobodies". Members of the FDNY HAVE come forward regarding 9/11....but I guess if I presented their information, you'd insult and discredit them too, so what would be the point?
So you would accept testimony from fireman "on the scene" as viable????? Yes? No? Please choose an answer.
Of course I would.
Answer my question, now. How many members of that organization were on the scene on 9/11?
Respect my direct question with a direct response. Please don't attempt to change the subject again until we have dealt with this point. Thank you.
Were they there on 9/11? No. Are there truther nutjobs who are also fake firemen? Ap
Because they are not valid witnesses. Were they there? No. Do they lie their lily white asses off? Yes. Why should I give credence to a bunch of liars who weren't there?
They were not there. A couple of retired FDNY members who were not there on 9/11 and are lying their asses off are not credible. Period.
Let me prove it. Here are the lies your supposed credible firefighter tells in just one paragraph.
Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Numerous structural steel buildings have collapsed prior to 9/11. Were they as big? No.
Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The survivors of the North tower collapse were extracted from atop several stories of rubble. It wasn't all in the basement.
Even you should be able to recognize this as a lie. Did the towers truly fall at free fall speeds or was it slower? Still think this guy is credible or is he full of (*)(*)(*)(*)?
Nobody but truthers bring up "melted steel" as a cause of the collapse. And again, the complete and utter dishonesty of pretending the only fuel in the fire was kerosene. Come on. What is this? Amateur hour?
NO plane was in the air for an hour and a half from the time it was hijacked. Also the vast majority of the sixty-eight "emergencies" were drug interdiction raids. The one known example of an emergency was Payne Stewarts plane which wasn't intercepted for well over an hour after the emergency was known.
Again this is a claim only truthers make. Where does anyone else say the steel and titanium components evaporated, especially as numerous pictures exist of plane parts including the engine parts?
So you see, RWAF. Once again you take a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up liars and present them as credible. Can you defend this guys lies? This is YOUR SOURCE. This is the man from the FDNY you claim is credible. Lets see you put up or shut up for once.
But I thought you said "Evidence is evidence"? And since you just said, "I FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE," why wouldn't you bet your life? I mean, are there not things in your life that you would bet your life on? Like, if you're married, or have children, your love for them. I'm reasonably sure you could bet on that. Or if you're a religious man. You could bet on that too. People have all sorts of things they can bet on. Things they put faith into. And since you have all of this evidence that clearly absolves the government from any wrongdoing in all ways, and have vigorously defended that position, as well the fact that it is "a decade later", then you should feel more than secure in your faculties to bet your life on it, that the government was not involved in the crime of 9/11 in any shape or way. But I find it odd that when you are pressed, and when asked with a question that invokes that much personal feeling, you throw out all of your evidence and replace it with fear of the unknown. The dreaded, "What if..."
Not to speak for Patriot here but . . . probably because he DID say he follows the evidence. He has an open mind and if presented with EVIDENCE that the government was involved then he would believe that.
Note I said EVIDENCE . . . not speculation, not opinion, not plausible scenarios, not alternative explanations, not suspicions because someone believes the government is inherently bad, but EVIDENCE.
Not to speak for Jango here but, exactly WHAT evidence that tends to go against the grain of the "official" BS story that does indeed exist, would you accept? My guess is none, because it doesn't agree with the "official" BS story. Speaking of BS and the "official" report...the people who supposedly investigated the reports contents themselves say the report is flawed. Some of the reasons they give include the administration, at the time, interfered with said investigation and obstructed the full truth of the report. Phillip Zelikow, (Bush's hand picked report editor) blames the administration as well. Tell me...why should we believe an admittedly incomplete, inaccurate, obstructed "official" report that even the creators themselves say is flawed? Isn't this very subject evidence of failed, faulty or corrupted sources you "official" supporters use as the basis for evidence to begin with?
Can you please stick to the question at hand and not cloud the issue?
There's a question you appear to be ducking.
I don't know that any were on scene at the time. Can only on scene firefighters determine what is pertinent to the idea of controlled demolition? The "commission" wasn't onsite either, yet they generated a report on it. What's the difference?
In the entire organization there isn't one firefighter who was present. That doesn't strike you as odd?
Follow up: of the firefighters that were on the scene, how many have expressed belief that the buildings were brought down due to controlled demolition?
I haven't dug into that line of reasoning either. Would it make any difference either way with what you "officially" accept as credible?
Wouldn't the firefighters who were on the scene be more credible than those who are merely speculating?
In that they witnessed that they actually heard or did not hear, I suppose. Again...the 9/11 Commission speculated on many things. I see no difference, so therefore, and since the report is credible, then these additional firefighters are credible. Why would firefighters need to lie about this stuff anyway?
I have not seen any evidence that does exist that goes against the grain of the official story. I have seen lots of opinion and speculation based on half truths and faulty logic. Opinion and speculation IS NOT evidence. Plausible scenarios and alternative explanations are not evidence. If you would be so kind as to point me to some actual EVIDENCE that goes against the grain of the official version, I'd be more than happy to look at it.
Well, your guess is wrong. I evaluate evidence on its merit, not based on which theory it supports.
I never said the report was perfect. I have said that I believe it to be accurate on the major points.
I am not an "official" supporter. I am not a shill either. And I'll thank you in advance for not labeling me.
I don't rely solely on the Commission Report for my belief of what happened on 9/11. I also take into account the literal mountain of information available and arrive at my own conclusions.
LOL...nice attempt at trying to mask it. But no. He totally threw his evidence out the window and took the safe bet, because he doesn't know what's hidden from him.
You keep saying that. You really don't know if no evidence exists or not, Dave. You cannot say, with 100% certainty that zero evidence exists that doesn't prove the government's involvement, in one shape or another, in the crime of 9/11. You could try, but you would only be 'speculating'. You do not know what is 'classified'. You do not know what is hidden behind those big vault doors. I mean, would you bet your life on it?
Separate names with a comma.