9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

Originally posted by apex
It looked like one, because both the WTC flow and a pyroclastic one had fine particles in them, and were gravity flows, but thats all the similarity.

So, show us an example of a gravity flow from a gravity driven collapse of a building. Oh, that's right, since a plane never flew into a high skyscraper before, all physics is thrown out the window.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Add to it the sheer amount of condescention the adherents apply to anyone who dares to question their theories.

Jee, and I thought it was us truthers that get that type of treatment.

If you're going to start official names for groups of people in this debate I would appreciate it if people like me finally get a name as well, because I'm sick of being classified in with the Truthers by those who oppose any talk against the official story, and I'm sick of being grouped with those who accept the official story as is by Truthers who think anyone who won't accept their religion must be a "sheeple".

So, with that said, I am of a group of people who do not have a conspiracy theory for 9/11. We are not LIHOPs, we are not MIHOPs, and we think a majority of the conspiracy theories generated by the multiple truth movements are ludicrous and offend the senses. HOWEVER, we believe that the official story is unacceptable and that the investigations that took place were half-measures, incomplete and down right fallacious in some regards.

I respectfully request to be called an OOB from now on...an Objective OBserver.

I feel complete now - I have a label.


[edit on 1-27-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
I respectfully request to be called an OOB from now...an Objective OBserver.

I have been calling myself a "questioner" for a while now. Not a truther. Although truther would more apply since I'm looking for the truth, but as you pointed out, nowadays has negative connotations.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by apex
It looked like one, because both the WTC flow and a pyroclastic one had fine particles in them, and were gravity flows, but thats all the similarity.

So, show us an example of a gravity flow from a gravity driven collapse of a building.

Well, technically, I just mean that it's the type of flow. All I was disputing is the ability to call it a pyroclastic flow, which it was not. I'm not saying that it wasn't a CD, it might of been, I'm not a structural engineer (well not if i can avoid it), so I can't prove it was one, nor will I blindly claim it a CD because "it looks like one". All i'm saying is it's a gravity flow (technically a gravity current) as defined by this from Wikipedia:

In fluid dynamics, a gravity current is a primarily horizontal flow in a gravitational field that is driven by a density difference. Typically, the density difference is small enough for the Boussinesq approximation to be valid.

Oh, that's right, since a plane never flew into a high skyscraper before, all physics is thrown out the window.

No, the physics departed the other side of the building, along with the wheels and engines.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by apex]

Originally posted by Valhall
HOWEVER, we believe that the official story is unacceptable and that the investigations that took place were half-measures, incomplete and down right fallacious in some regards.

Hate to tell you but that sounds like a lot of truthers.

please do use the Search engine for 9/11 evidence.
otherwise just another cheap disinfo thread.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Hate to tell you but that sounds like a lot of truthers.

Yeah, I'm sure most of them started there. That's about all I have in common with them though.

Originally posted by Valhall
Yeah, I'm sure most of them started there. That's about all I have in common with them though.

Well i am sure there would not as many theories if the FBI and FAA would release more information. The more they hold back the more it looks like they are covering something.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


See, your statement right there is why I don't get "you people"...lol.

Why does not getting information make you think you have to "make up a theory"? Not getting information means the government is trying to prevent you from seeing all the data - big phat period. It does not equate to:

holograms
mini-nukes
missiles
George Bush did it
or anything else

The moment you step off into wild, unfounded speculation (which is fine in and of itself) and then MARRY yourself to that speculation, you become a fanatic dedicated to dogma and you start filtering data - does it support my theory? if no - reject, if yes - accept....and you lose your way. This, of course, is my own humble opinion...but that's the way I see it.

Originally posted by Valhall
See, your statement right there is why I don't get "you people"...lol.

Not getting information means the government is trying to prevent you from seeing all the data - big phat period.

But doesn't that also mean that "you people" that believe the official story have no information and evdeince to support the official story. (since the government is not letting us see all the data)

So the question can be asked, how can you believe the official story if there is no evidence to suport it (since the government is not letting us see all the data) ?

Also i use government and professional research sites to get my information. I have access to resources most people on here do not have.


[edit on 27-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You just exhibited the most clear instance of not reading another person's post before accusing them of something that I've seen in a long time.

THAT IS UN-F***-ING-BELIEVABLE.

And "you people" wonder why no one wants to treat you sane, let alone serious.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Prove to me and everyone here that terrorist's didn't board those planes and fly them into the towers. Prove that a plane never hit the pentagon, prove that a plane never crashed in shanksville after the cockpit was bombarded by the passengers.

No. Since the official story says they did, the onus on you to provide the proof that those things DID happen. We can not prove a negative.

Err....no, that's not how it works. The proof whether you believe it or not, is there in the official report. And since there is no official reports concerning outlandish conspiracy theories, its then up to YOU to prove it is a conspiracy.

Let me try one more time, Ultima.

I'm an OOB - that's what my first post was all about. I'm an OOB. Go back and read what that means.

I'm an OOB.

Don't call me anything else, don't accuse me of anything else. I'm an OOB.

Dammit.

well if the italian president, who worked with the CIA, says that he knows that it was government conspiracy, then I believe him.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
OK I read this from another thread regarding 9-11:
"You will find that most truthers refuse to observe the evidence. The ABUNDANCE of evidence.

What abundance of evidence?

1. The FBI has not released a photo or video that shows flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

2. The FBI and FAA will not release the part numbers of the 9/11 planes to match the parts found.

So please show me the abundence of evidnece that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

A lack of evidence is not in and of itself, evidence.

Also there is evidence that the government had lots of warnings from domestic and foreign intell agencies that something was going to happen. How many warnings does it take to at least raise the security level ?

Which security level from which agency? You know, the agencies that rarely talked to each other about anything? This last statement show incompetence, not complicity.



[edit on 27-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Valhall
an Objective OBserver.

Personally I feel the same way. Despite all these (very) odd ideas and accusations, there's no substantial evidence that there were holograms, micro-nukes, planted charges in the towers, or plots from the Jews.

For some reason the usual group that pleads for us to use Occam's Razor as a standard for evaluating truth, wants to dismiss that process here. The simplest explanation is that terrorist flew planes into the towers and Pentagon. The towers couldn't take the stress and collapsed. Maybe it was a design flaw? Look at the recent !-35 bridge collapse. You wouldn't think it would be possible but it happened.

While I don't buy that Bush & Co produced 9/11, I do feel they intended to maximize the damage for their benefit. That's where the real conspiracy lies. Yet here we are stuck in a discussion on "Could the towers have collapsed?" Duh! The towers did collapse. We should move on past that point and focus on important issues like "Was it planned?" and look for evidence that the government is capitalizing on the event.

Here we are in 2008, still discussing the events of 2001. Is this an engineering, pilot ability, experimental technology forum? Or could it be used to find out who planned it, why, and what are they doing with the results?

Objective Observer. There should be more of these.

reply to post by dbates

Personally I feel the same way. Despite all these (very) odd ideas and accusations, there's no substantial evidence that there were holograms,

Further more regarding the whole hologram idea, we have shown quite a bit of evidence showing that holograms could not have been utilized during 9/11.

You can find all the info on the below thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In my opinion, based on all the presented evidence, the hologram idea can be completely dismissed at this time so that is one idea that's down and out.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by jfj123]

I'm not even sure what the point of 911 posts are anymore on this forum. The people who blindly believe everything BushCo tells them will never open their eyes no matter how obvious it is that reality went out the window that morning and a sort of Looney Toons kinda cartoon physics suddenly applied to everything in that one little area.

What is the point? All we do is stress ourselves for no reason trying to get these people to take one step back and look objectively at any one of the myriad of ridiculous hoaxes being perpetuated, whether it is the bumbling fighter jets somehow getting lost for 2 hours or simply watching the video of the buildings collapsing.

As has been mentioned in many a essay on this subject, it is only through the passage of time that the obvious nature of 911 will be revealed. None of the criminal overlords is suddenly going to step forward and tell us how a handful of people manipulated events and structures to pull the greatest magic show off and got away with it. I hope it isn't too long in the future that 'popular consent' sways to the side of reason and blatant obvious reality, but in the meantime it seems pointless to forever beat our heads against a wall the sheeple are bricking up further by the day.

Originally posted by thesneakiod

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Prove to me and everyone here that terrorist's didn't board those planes and fly them into the towers. Prove that a plane never hit the pentagon, prove that a plane never crashed in shanksville after the cockpit was bombarded by the passengers.

No. Since the official story says they did, the onus on you to provide the proof that those things DID happen. We can not prove a negative.

Err....no, that's not how it works. The proof whether you believe it or not, is there in the official report. And since there is no official reports concerning outlandish conspiracy theories, its then up to YOU to prove it is a conspiracy.

Err...no, Your wrong and Griff is right.

Fundamental principal - Right to Petition. 911 as told was adopted by the US Government Story, so government must give up data upon the people’s request.