Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: turbonium1


That there is no evidence to support the official explanation offered by NIST, and that 16 years later some people are still reciting that official explanation with no evidence whatsoever, demonstrates clearly that yes it is true, some people can be fooled all of the time. A sad comment on part of the human condition.

Well you be sure and let us know when you come up with an alternative explanation that works. Maybe in another 16 years you might manage that

When you let me know that you can prove any element of the official story, I shall reciprocate. As it stands right now, you and your mates are unable to prove the official narrative, and you've had 16 years to do so. Sorry, 14 years to do so, as POTUS Bush suppressed an investigation for about 2 years.

As he said, let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.

Any time you're ready

a reply to: mrthumpy


I'm ready, but please something original. The same tired old government talking points prove only one thing--the skills of deception possessed by the pentagon and other federal agencies.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy


I'm ready, but please something original. The same tired old government talking points prove only one thing--the skills of deception possessed by the pentagon and other federal agencies.

What is it like not being able to cite truth movement material because it has been debunked over and over again? That truth movement debunkers actually cite tower collapse video and actual physics to support inward bowing and buckling initiated by dropping floor trusses?

Scientists for 9/11 Truth showing in numerous papers that all the evidence at the pentagon points to a large jet impact. There is no evidence the damage was caused by a bomb, missile, or small military jet.

What is your belief this week? No jet at the pentagon, or did you flop back to small military jet?

Again? Are you just trying to make the truth movement look ignorant? You are doing a great job.

Do you have a truth movement stereotype check list or something?

Base arguments on innuendo, check.
Rant, do not engage in debate. Check.
Ignore questions about conspiracy theories while asking the same questions over and over that could be answered through honest research. Check.
Use quotes out of context. Check.
Never correct anyone of the truth movement even when making false statements. Check
When lossing a argument, accuse debunkers of being sheep and buying every part of the offical narrative. Check.
When cornered intellectually, say it’s a lie. Check.
Ignore blatant AE 9/11 Truth false statements. Check.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy


I'm ready, but please something original. The same tired old government talking points prove only one thing--the skills of deception possessed by the pentagon and other federal agencies.

Still got nothing huh? Oh well we'll just have to go with the official story until someone comes up with something better. Good luck with that

a reply to: Salander

If it is impossible for fire to cause a high rise structure to fail, what happen to the steel structure in the Madrid Windsor tower.

If it is impossible for fire to cause a high rise structure to fail, why are millions spent on steel fire insulation research, development, instillation, insulation inspections, insulation repairs, and insulation upgrades?

a reply to: mrthumpy


We both have nothing. The original story cannot be proved. For some like yourself, no proof is necessary if the authorities say thus and so.

Some of us require proof, especially when those telling the story are well known for their false statements.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy


We both have nothing. The original story cannot be proved. For some like yourself, no proof is necessary if the authorities say thus and so.

Some of us require proof, especially when those telling the story are well known for their false statements.

At least you accept you have nothing. Look forward to seeing what you can manage to come up with though

a reply to: mrthumpy


Actually, I do have something, but it is circumstantial and requires one to be able to judge the preponderance of the evidence.

What I do have is the complete absence of UA93 at the field, a forged FDR provided by NTSB 5 years later, and a debris field and toxic air at WTC that cannot possibly have been caused by the NIST explanation.

And of course the Vigilant Guardian exercises which started the day. And much more that you would not be interested in. Most folks do not understand the meaning of "preponderance of the evidence".

a reply to: Salander

www.nps.gov...

a reply to: Salander

All of your supposed evidence has bee out there for 16 years.
And yet the conspiracy crowd has not bee able to tie it all together.
Beliefs here and hunches there do not make evidence.

Why don't you put it all together from before the first impact to after the clean up.
Show us real proof for each aspect.
Otherwise the cesspool of the 911 conspiracy seems to be drying up.

a reply to: Salander

You don’t even have circumstantial evidence.

You have a collection of misquotes out of context, the ignoring of evidence, ignoring the science of high speed impacts, you choose to believe complete strangers telling you what you want to hear over the 1,400 first responders at the recovery, you ignore the human remains identified and released to families, and you pursue spun false narratives of the truth movement pushed by those that take advantage of individuals like you to exploit 9/11 for person gain.

People are eager for you to have the backbone to lay what you believe on the line, and face you in open debate.

I guess that is hard for you to do when:

1) You claim in one post no jet hit the pentagon. Another, you claim a military jet hit the pentagon.

2) You go on and on claiming statements made by an individual directly to TV cameras as he walked out of the crash site shaped your current believe. Statements you cannot provide quotes of. Statements you cannot reference any source to cite. You cannot even state what network carried the event. Statements not referenced in any truth movement articles.

You don’t even have circumstantial evidence to back your own believes. That is what happens when you base your beliefs on truth movement falsehoods.

a reply to: Salander

You don’t understand that smoke inhalation is the leading cause of death from fires?

Smoke inhalation is the most common cause of death in house fires
msue.anr.msu.edu...

You don’t understand how two 110 story buildings full of buring wire insulation, computers, synthetic fabrics, battery backups, electronics, office appliances, refrigerators, AC units, cars in the parking garages, white boards, plastic plants, office furniture, vending mechines produced so much toxicity? Material that smoldered for months and creator a toxic soup when sprayed with water?

a reply to: Salander

Burning Old Computers Threatens Ghana’s Health
m.huffpost.com...

Can my computer poison me?
computer.howstuffworks.com...

In 2006, Greenpeace published the results of an X-ray examination of the materials found inside five leading brands of laptops (Acer, Apple, Dell, Hewlett Packard and Sony), revealing a laundry list of heavy metals and chemical compounds either known or suspected to pollute the environment and potentially cause health problems in humans. For example, the internal wiring of three out of the five laptops contained polyvinyl chloride, better known as PVC [source: Greenpeace Research Laboratories]. A known carcinogen, PVC exposure can lead to nerve damage, immune reactions and liver cancer [source: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry].

The presence of brominated flame retardants (BFRs), found in the cooling mechanisms of all of the tested laptops, was cause for more alarm. Bromine-based chemical compounds may be carcinogenic to humans and have triggered thyroid problems, neurobehavioral disorders, liver tumors and immune system problems in test rats and mice [source: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry]. These compounds can leach out of computers, into the air and into humans' bodies. Moreover, a swipe test study of 16 office computers in eight different states found traces of BFR dust on each one [source: McPherson, Thorpe and Blake]. Although the amounts of BFR are small, environmental groups are more concerned about potential bioaccumulation, in which it gradually builds up in the body after long-term exposure.

How Modern Furniture Endangers Firefighters
www.theatlantic.com...

Consumer goods are increasingly made of synthetic materials and coatings. The carcinogens they give off when they burn could be driving high cancer rates among first responders.

Break


Ironically, the most dangerous thing about an occupation that involves running into burning buildings isn’t the flames, but the smoke. Cancer is the leading cause of firefighter line-of-duty deaths in the United States, and according to the International Association of Fire Fighters, about 60 percent of career firefighters will die this way, “with their boots off,” as they call it.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy



What I do have is the complete absence of UA93 at the field, a forged FDR provided by NTSB 5 years later,

I thought it was flight 77 that had a few seconds of flight recorder data that was problematic in decoding.

Is this not the release of flight 93’s flight data in February 2002?
www.ntsb.gov...

and a debris field and toxic air at WTC that cannot possibly have been caused by the NIST explanation.

.

Another lie you have bought in to by the truth movement. A little research shows there is more than enough toxins released from office fires to account of the toxicity of the WTC. Sad, but as quoted above, studies of firefighters show 60 percent will die due to cancer. And that is from individuals that will not receive a one time dose of toxicity as massive as received at the WTC from 9/11.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy


And much more that you would not be interested in..

Yeah me not being interested is why I asked you to to come up with an explanation

a reply to: blackaspirin


Those photos are extremely well known and 15 years old. What's your point?

a reply to: samkent


It's not drying up at all. The official story has been disproved at every turn. Neither you nor anybody else, including the government and the mainstream media can prove a single element of that story. It fails, and we both know it.

That's why the heads of the government commission both stated they were set up to fail.

What you don't understand is that those who are making the claim (like you) are unable to prove that claim. And what evidence there is actually contradicts that claim. Because of that, my only claim is that yours is invalid, and you demonstrate that by your inability to be able to prove it.

Black Aspirin shows some 15 year old pictures that prove there was no airliner in the field. ACARS data shows why--the flight was still in the air 30 minutes later somewhere in Illinois.

a reply to: Salander

We both have nothing. The original story cannot be proved. For some like yourself, no proof is necessary if the authorities say thus and so.

followed by

Actually, I do have something

Contradictions and delusions of grandeur.

Lines that you read and post like a telemarketer.

What I do have is the complete absence of UA93 at the field

So none of flight 93 was recovered and taken away to be investigated?

Not even a small percentage of the plane?

a reply to: InhaleExhale


My analysis is probably too subtle and nuanced for you. As I said, many do not grasp 'the preponderance of the evidence'. I guess I've been around too many lawyers and watched too many police mysteries. Not to worry.

No, as Miller said after walking the field, there was nothing there that looked like a wrecked airliner with passengers.

No landing gear, no engines, no nothing.

Yes, the government came up with some debris somewhere in the Moussaoui trial that they said belonged to 93, but nobody was allowed to examine those things that could have come from anywhere.

a reply to: Salander

Yes, the government came up with some debris somewhere in the Moussaoui trial that they said belonged to 93

Some?

No, as Miller said after walking the field, there was nothing there that looked like a wrecked airliner with passengers. No landing gear, no engines, no nothing.

So with 95% of the plane recovered,

ah

never mind. what that implies and how you would brush it off is all to predictable.

I knew the answer you were going to give was none,

not sure why I asked, maybe to verify things for myself.