Top OS contradictions that silence it's proponents

Now we're talking. Like I said to you in another thread, a reasonable response with some sort of fact and basis is appreciated. I want you, and you specifically, to know that I agree it's a logical and probable deduction. I'm just asking that people base their arguments on the things you do. It's like a math test. Some people may be able to fill in the right answer but you always have to show your work and method of getting there. When someone argues something with me I want them to have shown that they studied all possibilities and reasoned it out instead of spewing what others say. You unlike others can consistently do that and I respect that. a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: TheBolt

And at the same time I respect that you can have a calm and reasoned discussion. It's always nice to have one of those.

And now that the mutual admiration society is done.....

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Look, the engine in NYC was from the wrong plane. Will I look for sources? Well about as much as I'll look for sources that the Earth is round. The world knows the engine was wrong and it's not up to me, to look for "evidence" that the world knows already.

So you make a silly claim, refuse to back it up, and claim it is true...

This is how truthers "debate" things here!

It's funny because I'm not here to "debate" with you or anyone really. I'm "here" on the site because I want to learn more about various topics. Not "debate" anyone. And especially not these nonsensical tangents you guys keep throwing at me and everyone. I'm not debating nor am I interested to look for sources on common-knowledge topics.

It's common knowledge that the NYC engine was wrong.

4 crashes with almost-no debris: Also common knowledge.

Will I look for sources for common knowledge? Nope. The whole world knows these things already. Why assume I want to debate about established facts?

I'm here to read and learn. Imagine that lol.

originally posted by: peacefulpete
It's funny because I'm not here to "debate" with you or anyone really.

That is obvious, you are only interested in making false claims, then refusing to back those false claims up!

It's common knowledge that the NYC engine was wrong.
4 crashes with almost-no debris: Also common knowledge.

Except that is not common knowledge, just a false claim you make, but are unable to back up!

I'm here to read and learn.

Certainly does not look like it, you just make false statements and are not interested in facts!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: peacefulpete
It's a known fact that there was almost no debris on all 4 supposed crashes of 9-11, for example.

In the fantasy world truthers live in that may be true, however in the real world tonnes of aircraft debris were removed from both Shanksville and the Pentagon

I'm not making things true,

That is a true statement, you are certainly not making things true by repeating silly made up stories....

I'm repeating things that the world has known to be true for years now.

Only know in the truther fantasy world, that is!

Nope the world saw them explode.

Still wrong, the world saw them collapse.

And I'm not citing sources because

You cannot, or your "sources" just made it up!

If you keep pestering me for sources, maybe I'll cite them, but it would be pointless

Because we know they will not be true!

Just like it would be pointless for me to look for sources to cite that the Earth is round,

It is a oblate spheroid actually...

If there was a lot of damage from any of those plane crashes, I have yet to see photos, which would be the only thing that would convince me. I've only seen tiny bits of wreckage, and / or none at all.

Actually it was the mainstream media photos that showed me the lack of wreckage and convinced me there were not planes there. So my "truther fantasy world" is based on mainstream news. Funny right?

Everything I've stated is common knowledge known by the world for many years. The world watched the towers explode and vaporize.

I could cite sources but I'm really not here to debate you. I don't care what random strangers think. Enjoy believing the official story, while most of the world knows better.

"It is a oblate spheroid actually..."

^Congratulations. But the Earth is round. Your statement doesn't negate that, as you seem to think.

And your statement should read, "It is AN oblate spheroid." Not "It is a oblate spheroid."

"An" is used instead of "a" when the following word begins with a vowel.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: peacefulpete

Saying they exploded, or they collapsed doesn't change the fact that the debris from the aircraft was inside the towers at the time. There's no way that much wreckage is going to survive having a 110 story building come down on it.

Well really the larger point is that the buildings left very little debris on the ground. There is not the debris to account for the towers themselves, let alone, to account for covering over planes, although I'll admit that now we are both just talking speculations.

The towers really did seem to explode, vaporize, and float away in massive clouds. Very odd collapse, wasn't it?

The extremely tiny amount of debris from the towers, would not be something I'd assume would cover up airplanes.

The Pentagon "crash" is even more blatant in its lack of plane debris, and PA most blatant of all.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TheBolt
it's pretty clear you have your responses already a drawn up before anyone says anything.

It is not very hard with truthers, they have been spouting the same lies here for years.

I also said that the engine would be consistent with someone planting evidence. Someone could have put it there

As it exited the WTC and bounced off and damaged 45 Park Place and cracked the pavement when it landed, it must have been fired out of a large cannon. Truthers really are getting sillier and sillier!

That is a hilarious concept of planting evidence. This guy has quite the imagination.

Typically planting evidence would mean: Someone placing it there. But yeah, sure, cannons and cartoon physics. What a silly guy.

originally posted by: TheBolt
I really wish you'd stop calling me a truther, especially a "silly Truther". You have no idea what I believe because you only talk and never listen. a reply to: hellobruce

The irony about people using "Truther" as a bad word: What does that make them? Anti-Truth, apparently...

originally posted by: peacefulpete
Typically planting evidence would mean: Someone placing it there. But yeah, sure, cannons and cartoon physics.

But funny how it is almost as if you did not realise they worked out its trajectory from the plane hitting the building and exiting the WTC, hitting another building and damaging it, then landing and cracking the pavement where it finished up. You also seem to think someone can just dump a few hundred kilos of jet engine in New York during the day, and no one noticed.

They would have had to use a cannon to plant it, otherwise how do you explain its trajectory and damage.

But the no planes hit the WTC conspiracy theorists are way out there!

As to the term "truther"

9/11 conspiracy theorists (collectively referred to as "truthers")

rationalwiki.org...

a reply to: peacefulpete

You completely ignore the debris from both locations because it doesn't fit what you think it should look like.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: TheBolt
I really wish you'd stop calling me a truther, especially a "silly Truther". You have no idea what I believe because you only talk and never listen. a reply to: hellobruce

The irony about people using "Truther" as a bad word: What does that make them? Anti-Truth, apparently...

I know right, like seeking truth is a bad thing! It's just another term created by the secret cabel to demean those who don't swallow the government version, hook, line and sinker. Much like the term "conspiracy theory" after the JFK murder, used by the same dark powers in our world.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Actually, "truther" is sarcasm, issued in the recognition that the person is not actually looking for the truth, but for justification of their own views in absence of the truth. Did that help?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Actually, "truther" is sarcasm, issued in the recognition that the person is not actually looking for the truth, but for justification of their own views in absence of the truth. Did that help?

No. I can't think of one thing that I have ever read from you that "helps", to be honest.

The opposite of a truth seeker is one who spreads lies, either intentionally or not. Seeking the truth is noble and right. It will continue.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

I show you the full quotes that you have mined and how the full quote is the complete opposite of what you believe...and you say that does not help.

I show you where the FDNY says that WTC 7 was heavily damaged and that they expected it to fall all by itself....and you say that does not help.

I show you where pilots who worked with Hani Hanjour say he was fully capable of what Flight 77 did....and you say that does not help.

I show you where to find the evidence to answer the questions that you have asked...and you say that does not help.



I post that "truther" is issued in recognition that someone is not actually seeking the truth, but to justify their own false beliefs..........and you chime right in saying that me pointing you to the truth does not help.


Thank you for confirming my post.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

All of your "proof" is from the official story, which is a lie. You call it quote mining when at least five committee members says that the official story is not truthful. If given a list of 10 things to explain, you will choose one to poke holes in, to try to deman the poster, and ignore the rest. You are not after truth, you are trying to validate the official story, which it's own author's (collectively) didn't see as truthful. I can't respect where you are coming from. In fact quite the opposite. Zap knows planes, I can appreciate his point of view.

When you bring in the history around 9/11, one can see that it fits right in with the long history of flase flags and subversive activities by the elite, and executed by our government.

I don't wish to engage with you Cardsfan. We really have nothing to say to each other. I seek truth and you see something else. My initial comment thst you chose to respond to wasn't intended for you in any case.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

No...I pretty much poke holes in all the ideas you bring up. And, your post also confirms what I have said for years. There will NEVER be an investigation that will satisfy you.

FDNY...official story

Witnesses in Arlington....official story

Civilian engineers who assessed the collapses....official story.


There is not a single, solitary piece of evidence that you will accept, because you will forever wave it off as the "official story". So, there will never be an investigation you will accept.


Thank you for AGAIN confirming my post.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

It is you who won't acknowledge anything that counters the official story. You say that you have researched this but somehow have no questions, that it all makes sense. I find that impossible.

You think it's normal for three steel-framed buildings to fall. You think it's no issue that the committee members said the facts presented were less than truthful. You can watch building 7 fall and say, that looks perfectly normal. No good camera views from the Pentagon, no problem. Lack of appropriate wreckage for a huge airliner, no issue. Indestructible flight recorders destroyed, no problem. DNA surviving a fiery inferno, no issue.

You can watch the bin Laden "confession tape" and somehow not see anything unusual. You can ignore the antrax attacks, which Bush wanted to pin on "Middle Eastern Terrorists", but which were proven to come from the US military, and not find any parallel with 9/11. You can see how the Patriot act and war plans were written before 9/11, and never wonder why.

You can keep your disingenuous "thanks" and you will get none of that from myself. I don't thank you for anything. Predictably, you will pick the one item you want out of the list above to exploit, never acknowledging any problems with the account.

Please just leave me alone.

a reply to: Jchristopher5


" You think it's normal for three steel-framed buildings to fall"

I don't think its normal for hijackers to fly airliners into buildings.

"You think it's no issue that the committee members said the facts presented were less than truthful."

I look at the entirety of the process. The first days in which we were told that our response that day was slow, but organized. I look at the Commission saying that the job should be easy based on what we were told in the days following 9/11. I look at what happened when the Commission got the records that showed what we were originally told about a slow, yet organized response, was completely wrong. Finally, I look at the end where the Commission says that the Report is an accurate comparison between the story told in the days following, and the reality of that day, pointing out the differences.


You, choose to only look at the Commission members getting pissed about the differences between the public statements and the records. Then you choose to flat out ignore the rest of it.


"You can see how the Patriot act and war plans were written before 9/11, and never wonder why."

Since those plans are written, and rewritten on a regular basis, its not really a surprise to anyone who pays attention. How many times have you seen people bitching about President Obama and Executive Order 13603 and how it allows him to take over everything and institute martial law....and those same people NOT knowing that it was just a revision of Orders originally issued under Harry Truman?


" Lack of appropriate wreckage for a huge airliner, no issue. "

And, another case of you ignoring evidence because it comes from the "official" story. The reality is, EACH of the Airliners that day left wreckage behind, identifiable as coming from the airliners.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5

I show you the full quotes that you have mined and how the full quote is the complete opposite of what you believe...and you say that does not help.

(You did give the full quotes but they really didn't confirm anything other than that despite many instances of interference, misinformation, and flat out lies they managed to piece together an accurate account of the information they were given. You interpret it in a somewhat more rosy light and that's not necessarily wrong but certainly not definitively right)

I show you where the FDNY says that WTC 7 was heavily damaged and that they expected it to fall all by itself....and you say that does not help.

(You show me where the FDNY says SPECIFICALLY that they thought WTC7 was heavily damaged enough to collapse in it's entirety in less than 10 seconds and you may be on to something. It's just as possible that they meant the building could collapse in the same manner that every other steel framed building in history had up to that day: that is to say with one or more floors partially collapsing with the frame still intact. Again, your interpretation of what they say is different and you're just as guilty of seeing it only the way you want to)

I show you where pilots who worked with Hani Hanjour say he was fully capable of what Flight 77 did....and you say that does not help.

(I didn't see this particular information so I can't comment on it. I suppose I could counter with the fact that there are also statements from people who knew him and worked with him saying it was surprising that he could do that, but who's to say which witness statements are the most accurate? Either side can't use these witness statements as definitive proof of anything)

I show you where to find the evidence to answer the questions that you have asked...and you say that does not help.



I post that "truther" is issued in recognition that someone is not actually seeking the truth, but to justify their own false beliefs..........and you chime right in saying that me pointing you to the truth does not help.

Thank you for confirming my post.

(All the points I mentioned above should show how I feel about the hypocrisy of this last statement)

a reply to: TheBolt

"
(You show me where the FDNY says SPECIFICALLY that they thought WTC7 was heavily damaged enough to collapse in it's entirety in less than 10 seconds"

Ah yes....the ever popular moving of the goalposts. You give up denying that FDNY was saying that the building was going to fall...so you move the goalposts to "Show me where they said it would fall in less than 10 seconds" The funny part is, it took longer than ten seconds.