Why There Were No Helicopter Rescues At The WTC’s On 9-11

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It states that the fire was the primary cause of the collapse, YES or NO?

It is just an article/story, written by people that were not part of the official investigators. YES or NO?

Originally posted by gavron
It is just an article/story, written by people that were not part of the official investigators. YES or NO?

NO, it was not just a story and it was writtn by engineers.

The NIST report was written by people that were not part of the official investigators, YES or NO?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


These "engineers" were not part of the official investigating team, so all they are stating is their opinion. It is not based on fact, strictly just their story.

By no means, an official report, as you would make it seem....

Originally posted by gavron
so all they are stating is their opinion. It is not based on fact, strictly just their story.

So your stating that these enginers do not know what they are talking about, and they have no facts?

We do know the official story is not based on fact, its based on a conspiracy.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Those "engineers" are stating their opinions. Since they were not part of the official investigation teams, they did not have access to the same data the REAL investigators have.

Werent you looking for the truth? Yet you seem to base your opinions on the media stories ( yes, the JOM story you linked was a media article). I thought you said the media was part of it too?

Originally posted by gavron
Those "engineers" are stating their opinions.

Kind of like NIST stated thier opinions RIGHT?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You mean the NIST (which is part of the Dept of Commerce, and had full access and authority)? I'm curious why you so quickly discount their reports, yet eagerly grasp at any media story that supports your conspiracy theory....why is that? What happened to finding the truth? What happened to helping the victims families?

Originally posted by gavron
I'm curious why you so quickly discount their reports, yet eagerly grasp at any media story that supports your conspiracy theory....

I discount the NIST reports becasue that have been questioned or debunked by other reports, and the fact they failed to do a proper investigation of buidling 7.

Since when is looking for the truth a conspiracy?

Also i do not grasp at media stories, thats why i do not beleive the medias offical story on what happened on 9/11.

I use mostly government or professional research sites where information can be verified.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Other reports? You mean the FBI or NTSB reports which havent been released yet?

Wait...maybe you mean more articles posted in the MEDIA. Oh wait, you don't believe the media.

Well, which reports then. ULTIMA?

Originally posted by gavron
Other reports? You mean the FBI or NTSB reports which havent been released yet?

No other agencies that used much the same evidence as NIST had to make thier reports.

Wait...maybe you mean more articles posted in the MEDIA. Oh wait, you don't believe the media.

I believe information that can be supported or verified. I have used media information to even question the official story.

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by ULTIMA1

 

You mean the NIST (which is part of the Dept of Commerce, and had full access and authority)? I'm curious why you so quickly discount their reports, yet eagerly grasp at any media story that supports your conspiracy theory....why is that? What happened to finding the truth? What happened to helping the victims families?

Well if one were to look at his posts, they would assume that he isn't interested in finding the truth but trying to prove the government is somehow involved planning and executing 9/11.

Originally posted by jfj123
Well if one were to look at his posts, they would assume that he isn't interested in finding the truth but trying to prove the government is somehow involved planning and executing 9/11.

Funny coming from someone who can only repeat what the media has told him to believe. Someone who has not done any real research to find the truth.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by gavron
I'm curious why you so quickly discount their reports, yet eagerly grasp at any media story that supports your conspiracy theory....

I discount the NIST reports becasue that have been questioned or debunked by other reports,

Or were the other reports debunked by the NIST report?

Since when is looking for the truth a conspiracy?

Since the truth is irrelevant to your investigation.
Since the truth is ignored for more spurious hypothesis' to help prove your made up ideas of what you BELIEVE really happened.

Also i do not grasp at media stories,

This is an interesting statement. You just made a blanket statement that you do not grasp media stories. Which means you ignore all media stories automatically no matter what the content is. Even if the content happens to be factual. That would make you a horrifically poor investigator.

thats why i do not beleive the medias offical story on what happened on 9/11.

So you don't believe the media's official story because you have decided not to believe it... Got it. No reason for your belief.

I use mostly government or professional research sites where information can be verified.

Oh like the NIST?
Wait a minute. You use websites from the same government you claim is part of a conspiracy? WHAT?
Let me say that again....
WHAT !?!?!?!?!?!??

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by gavron

I have used media information to even question the official story.

No you don't use media information.

Here's the proof

Also i do not grasp at media stories, thats why i do not beleive the medias offical story on what happened on 9/11.

So which one of the 2 statements is a lie? Just curious

Originally posted by jfj123
So which one of the 2 statements is a lie?

Neither, i do not beleive media stories but have used them to debate beleivers.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So which one of the 2 statements is a lie?

Neither, i do not beleive media stories but have used them to debate beleivers.

Excellent so you use information you know to be false to prove your arguments. Well doesn't that just spell CREDIBILITY ???

Originally posted by jfj123
Excellent so you use information you know to be false to prove your arguments.

You mean just like the beilievers use information proven to be false to prove their arguments? So i use thier own information against them.

You are a good one to talk about credability.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Excellent so you use information you know to be false to prove your arguments.

You mean just like the beilievers use information proven to be false to prove their arguments? So i use thier own information against them.

You are a good one to talk about credability.

Now the fun part about your comment is that you admit to lying

You mean just like the beilievers...

That's why nobody takes you seriously.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1]

NO, it was not just a story and it was writtn by engineers.

The difference here is that the NIST engineers had access to structural documentation that the engineers in your article did not. Therefore, your engineer's article is indeed based on opinion, and has little facts to back it up. Nor is there any legal constraints on them to factual, and are free to make up whatever they want, as long as libel/slander issues are avoided, but this is easy to do. NIST engineers presumably aren't free to do as they please. I would imagine that if they were to knowingly put out a false report, that these individuals would be open to legal action of some sort. Your engineers aren't under this restraint.

Nor is there any reason to expect that anyone would release those structural docs to anyone other than a guv agency. Property rights/ 5th Amendment issues come into play here. Or do you believe that a private group should have access to private property/info whenever they have questions about.... whatever?

It's a slippery slope once you start down that road. What if someone has questions about your tax returns. Would you advocate a requirement that you release that private info to anyone other than the IRS - a guv agency? I doubt it...

Originally posted by jfj123
Now the fun part about your comment is that you admit to lying

Just like you have admittind to lying when you agree with my statement.