The FBI claims bombs were used on 9/11

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, May 3, 2012.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why did you make those rules? What do you fear about specific debate?

    Address this question: Why is the thread title false and misleading? The FBI has made no such claim.
     
  2. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Really? Now you're mocking the fire fighters? Wow. A new low for truthers.
     
  3. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope. Not making anything up. The experts at Lamont Doherty said there was no evidence of the telltale seismic evidence controlled demolition shows on seismographs. Here is more information on the seismographs including ones in lower Manhattan that would have picked anything unusual up.

    Of course, I've given you this stuff before which means once again your posts are lies about me "making stuff up".
     
  4. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Once again you proclaim you have evidence. PLEASE PRESENT THIS EVIDENCE! Oh right. You have no evidence. :lol:

    Yup. Certainly sounds like the rules you live by.
     
  5. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Um, maybe because your video is another example of quote mining that the truthers are famous for?

    Why do YOU think that is?

    Actually I will admit it and have.

    The sarcasm was not directed at you. I apologize if you took it that way. I was paraphrasing Mark Roberts in a debate with Richard Gage. Gage had nothing to defend the holes in his theory by the way.

    But I notice that sarcasm seems okay if it is coming from you.



     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,644
    Likes Received:
    3,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Denial Projection?

    Your trying to claim that the government somehow slipped up by conducting a bomb investigation and then lying about not finding any bombs? Why would that happen? If the FBI was aware of some sort of government involvement they wouldn't have conducted a bomb investigation. If the FBI wasn't aware of supposed government involvement they would have found bombs. So what part of that makes any sense at all to you?

    That's as stupid a premise as the idea that the government conducted a fake WMD search that didn't uncover any WMD.
     
  7. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The cleanup process started right away.
     
  8. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No...YOU mock the firefighters by calling them names in a recent previous thread. I was mocking those that claim the explosions (that are clearly heard) were just exploding pencils or frozen hamburgers exploding, as you side contends.
     
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes it did. That's not the question you asked.
     
  10. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No one here has claimed that the explosions were "pencils or frozen hamburgers ".

    Except you.
     
  11. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm finding that the debris was being transported immediately after the collapse, and by the Department of Design and Construction. The decision was made pretty quickly too. Michael Burton, the apparent czar of the operation, already knew why all the towers fell, "Because they flew two planes into the towers."

    http://www.historycommons.org/timel...estigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation

    So it appears as though the FBI and other investigative teams were not able to thoroughly scan materials as suggested...“We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.”
     
  12. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess you'll have to weigh the credibility of historycommons.org regarding this report.

    If you are gullible you might be mislead by this time-line, or you don't follow the references to the real source material. Which is it?
     
  13. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the confusion lies in WHERE the steel was examined. The steel was not examined at ground zero because they needed to clean up ground zero, which makes the quote you quoted valid, yet misleading. Ground zero was a health hazard and a dangerous environment for investigators. The steel was shipped to several sites in NYC, most notably the fresh kills landfill where the debris was divided up and gone through as much as possible. The structural steel remained at the landfills until the examination by all interested parties was complete. Pieces of interest were removed from the site and stored in an 80,000 sq ft hangar at JFK airport. The rest was sold for scrap or used in other projects.
     
  14. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What's wrong with their credibility? They appear, by all stances, to be a neutral source of information.
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Until you follow the original sources and note how they quote mine and skew.
     
  16. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fire fighters and cops who are not now claiming a cover-up are a valid source of information on wehat happened that day.

    Drooling morons like Griffin and MacQueen just take their words and apply some utterly stupid sort of twist to them.

    Those people who think that the steel should have been examined and tested where it sat at Ground Zero have no bleeding clue how fires are investigated. This applies as well to that freaking sociopathic rookie who founded Fire Fighters for Truth. He wasn't there and he belittles some of the people who helped write the proceduresw that the jackasses claim were ignored.
     
  17. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Remember . . . you're supposed to be reading info from both perspectives. Not just from the sources that tell you what you want to hear.
     
  18. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Historycommons credibility is good because they source their claims, however they do have a truther balance that doesn't always tell the whole story. Basically they give everything; the good, the bad and the ugly. Following the links and doing further research can show if their sourced links are credible or not. Like any site, think for yourself and look at the big picture and you'll find the truth.
     
  19. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, DUH! There was a fire underneath that steel and, as far as FDNY knew, a few live people trapped and needing rescue.

    Leaving the steel where it was was NOT at any time an option. Let me explain something about fire fighting operations.

    The cops do not come anywhere near a fire scene until the fire Chief tells them it is okay. While they were trying to get the steel off of the fire and possible survivors, they had no time to baby-sit detectives swabbing down the steel looking for explosives residue that they already knew perfectly well would not be there.

    Anybody who actually knows anything about the way that steel structures behave in a fire, or who knows anything at all about building demolitions knows that there was not ONE valid account of anything that could in any way have served as a demolitions charge. Nothing. Not even the moving walls in the basement.

    This, again, falls into the category of things that make an experienced fire fighter and arson investigator say "WELL, DUH!"

    And, before you ask, yes, I am a veteran fire fighter and college-trained in arson investigations.

    Neither that senile old coot Griffin, or that fat pig Fetzer or the vapid twit Budhist monk MacQueen have ever offered an argument that has any merit outside their own pea-sized brains or those of the uninformed conspiracy-believers who follow them.

    Total crap. We have thousands of objects recovered and identified from the rubble of the WTC. Everything got looked at until Rotten Rudy got tired of his city's looking like a war zone and started scooping and dumping as month or so later.
     
  20. Alucard

    Alucard New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,828
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I remain skeptical.
     

Share This Page