Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, May 3, 2012.
Ok ...thank you.
What was wrong with it?
No, I did not say that. I'm questioning that they physically screened every piece of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing evidence, and did all of the tests, on all of that material.
At this point, I don't know, to tell you the truth. Was their an independent investigation performed?
Oh, I'm doing plenty of reading on my own, no worries.
So they were suppose to test "every piece of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing evidence" from 1.5 million TONS of "evidence" when there was no evidence of explosives in the first place? How many trillions of dollars did you want the investigation to cost?!? At what point does one realize that they are chasing ghosts?
Show any other investigation that was re-done by an "independent investigation" where serious flaws weren't first proven in the initial investigation. To date, not one piece of evidence has ever surfaced that the investigation was flawed or got any major piece of the theory wrong. Do you have any such evidence to warrant such huge amounts of public money spent on something that won't convince anyone?
Does there need to be? You just automatically assume the government agencies that did the investigation can't be trusted? Because knowing if you hold this position would save us all a lot of time.
By the way, there were several independent studies of the collapse and the government versions were confirmed.
That's good. I would recommend including some non-truther sources though just for balance. And if after that you still believe that the government was behind it, at least you did the research on your own.
When the government says they are looking for WMD in Iraq and they don't find any it's a lie, there was never any WMD.
When the government says they are looking for Bombs in rubble and they don't find any it's a lie. There were bombs everywhere.
Makes sense. Keep working out these awesome theories. RWF.
Keep working out that denial. Mix, stir, and obfuscate. Given the agenda, that makes sense too.
You mean the truther agenda? The best way to obfuscate is to present supposition as fact, something you admit to doing. Hmmmm. Makes sense given your seditious agenda, doesn't it!
No evidence of explosives in the first place? How can you possibly claim such dishonesty this late in the decade, Patriot? There was ample evidence that explosives had been used. First, testimony from rescue workers, like firemen and cops, who were there that day. They reported explosions. They reported all kinds of things. That testimony is from a position of authority. A credible source. It was also reported on television, from the media, that there were explosions from the ground too, which caused the WTC 1 building to collapse.
"CNN is reporting that there was a third explosion that caused WTC 1 to collapse within itself..."
Not to mention this nugget:
"I saw a black, very large air plane."
So there was reason to believe that there were explosives used. Or is this like the "can't quite account for" = 'missing' debate, where you just won't see the logic no matter how hard it slaps you in the face?
So yeah, the FBI and everyone else investigating should have been looking thoroughly, all things considered.
Quit being ridiculous.
Those loud concussion type sounds were just pencils exploding. I'm sure that's what the firemen were referring to.
Yeah, I'm eagerly anticipating how Patriot et al debunks that.
Hearing explosions is not evidence of explosives. It is evidence that they heard something explode.
I know it is a hard concept to grasp that other things in an office building can explode besides a bomb, but give it a try.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf
Well, we know one thing for sure. Those sounds couldn't possibly be from explosive demolition....they sound so much different, and OCTers have explained what those sounds are over and over...reams of paper falling off of desks I think is what they said it was..
No,it couldn't have been exp[losive demolition....sounded nothing like it.
I've already watched that video, Dave.
Did you watch the two I posted? Did you read through the link I posted?
Explosive demolition can be heard for miles, yet video tapes of the collapse don't have the tell tale explosions one hears and sees in every demolition video. Explosive demolition can actually be seen on seismic equipment, yet no seismic evidence of explosives were ever found. Explosive demolition damages steel in an easily identifiable way, none of which was found. Explosive demolition requires extensive building modification, wiring and planting of explosives, none of which was ever seen in the towers or WTC 7. Explosive demolition doesn't go off well before any collapse at random intervals, which are the only explosions truthers try to pretend are controlled demolition.
And most importantly, people don't survive in the exact spot the controlled demolition high explosives were suppose to be going off. Not only did 13 people survive in the very area truthers try to pretend with all their might that explosives were going off, but they didn't hear a single explosion before or during the collapse. Thus proving there was no controlled demolition.
Would you care to address the fact 13 people directly refute your claim of controlled demolition? I'd love to hear what BS excuse you're going to come up with this time.
Well of course they could. I never said they couldn't. Trouble is, there is no evidence to support that theory.
Unless you want to claim that the government has some super secret type of explosive that can be used to bring down buildings without any of the normal prep work that the demo specialists don't even know about.
Jango, I've seen those two videos already, thanks.
As far as the info at the link you posted, with all due respect to the first responders, I see a lot of speculation and opinion but no evidence. Phrases like "sounded like", "looked like", and "believed" are giveaways.
And half the links to the "sources" on that page don't work.
But it always amazes me how some people think that the most accurate and complete reports of any disaster are from selections of the first hurried reports, not from more complete, thoughtful analysis and more thorough eyewitness reports that come later.
You're right, DDave. Here are the tesimonies of the firefighters who were there on 9/11. I'll admit, it isn't easy reading and it is very clear these firefighters went through hell. Yet not one of them claims there were explosives or that they even thought there were explosives being used.
I haven't been able to find one news article that coincides with the testimony of the firefighters in the video I posted. Or about what CNN had reported. I wonder why that is?
I gave you the fire fighter testimonies. Surely you can find out who those men are and read their official testimony yourself.
They said it was exploding leftover hamburgers in all the microwaves that accounted for the explosive sounding things the fireman heard.
Wow! So what was it? What did it sound like to you?
Now you're just makin' stuff up. Especially the seismic activity. That what the bullet points say? Counter with the exact opposite of what is actually there?
There's plenty of evidence that suggest many things...none of which anybody defending the OCT will ever admit. We just get to have insulting exchanges like this one. (works just as well as anything else "officially"). Rule 1...do not alow specific debate. Rule 2...if specific debate is attempted, insult and ridicule, then pose non specific questions relating to nothing.
Separate names with a comma.