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

Well, not to try to attempt to investigate the extent of your hypocrisy, but to use your own mantra against you...

Please prove that statement. I want you to provide the report on the research study, and the data that the conclusions are based on, that prove 99.9% of the scientific community accepts the NIST report.

Hopefully you have it right there by you and can just scan it in real quick.

I love this one.

www.youtube.com...

When you lie so much, you start to get tripped up on your own lies, and start sounding crazy. Just like this. Hah, "Obviouslly the TV was on?", What a dumba$$

They should have arrested him on the spot after saying this.

I tried to post the one where Rumsfeld says flight 93 was taken out by a missile, but it's been pulled down, at least the lik I have was.

But I mean really, do your own research and come to your own conclusion. I'm sure if you have half a brain, you'll realize 9/11 was an inside job. The US as well as many if not all the World powers have been useing the same tactics.

The idea probably goes back to the first Kingdoms. Lets burn one of our buildings, plant some evidence of a country we wanna go to war with, thier flag/colors whatever, there ya go, instant support from your people and troops. It's not rocket Science.

Just watch Loose Change, Zeitgeist(sp?), and September Clues. I think you'll be pretty well convinced 9/11 was an inside job. It's just to much for me to write down everything in all those movies and explain them to you.

I mean really who are you gonna believe CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/BBC and co., or independant filmakers who just want the truth, they have no stake in it, like billions of dollars that our government made off 9/11?

How do you feel the Main Stream Media is doing with the political coverage so far? Think they are giving everyone a FAIR shake? Your gonna put your trust in what these people tell you? Because afterall, you know who pulls thier strings.

Originally posted by jfj123

What abundance of evidence?

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

It would be refreshing if you would keep that in mind, every time you promote the "official" reports as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Which they definitely are not. You have yet to scientifically prove anything yourself. You merely keep falling back on hearsay from the White House "official" reports.

All you redundantly keep telling us is you question(ed) nothing. You simply accepted what you were told by hearsay at face value and hold firm. You continue to project nothing but blind loyalty for the White House "official" reports. Then you have the pomposity to personally attack others unwilling to become blind loyalists exactly like yourself.

Originally posted by jfj123

May I respectfully ask what your background is in building construction and science? Thanks.

If you did not recognize it when you saw it, no explanation is going help at this point in time.

reply to post by Valhall


Val,

Just for you....

How's this.....

There are VERY few "qualified" people that have read the NIST report that disagree with their findings. Those that have, have been unable to provide any written documentation that shows NISTS findings false.

Val, do you have any papers from qualified people that show that NIST got it wrong? Are they peer reviewed? HAve they been reviewed at all?

If you do have one, or some, please present it here.

Thanks,

C.O.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Hi Orion,

I snipped your post down to this. Why? Because this sums all of your posts up in one. You have been presented all the evidence that shows the events on 911 happened just the way the offical version states it did.

You truly did not have to inform us again of your lack of knowledge in the sciences. You can stop relentlessly jabbing us with that sharp point. We got that sharp point from you long ago.

Originally posted by apex

You compared earthquake damage to a plane hitting a building. How is that scientific? The two are hardly comparable. And I am not saying anything about what caused the towers to come down, whether it was a plane or not. Yes I said a plane in that post, but I don't know what actually happened for sure. And I still say that foundation damage isn't similar to the proposed damage to the WTC.

And still, do you know what a pyroclastic flow is?

At this point, you have given me no choice but to write the following.

"For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none is possible." Anonymous

reply to post by OrionStars


EXACTLY the answer I expected. You have not once offered anything in regards to evidence to support any of your theories.

Typical

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Valhall

 

Val,

The post was directed to Orion who dismisses the entire government investigation, physical evidence, DNA evidence, eyewitness statements, photographic & video evidence. Orion is a no planer and voice morpher supporter.

That is nothing more than additional disinformation. 9/11 Committee co-chairs soundly refuted your opinionated argument long ago. You know there has been validation presented more than a few time. Because I presented it myself in various of these discussions. You simply go from discussion to discussion rolling out the same disinforamtion to frustrate your opposition.

Originally posted by OrionStars


You truly did not have to inform us again of your lack of knowledge in the sciences. You can stop relentlessly jabbing us with that sharp point. We got that sharp point from you long ago.

Troll much?

Look, lets get back on topic. And the topic is very broad.

Let's look at the Penatagon just a second... Now people want an "independent" investigation-- well I believe a company out of California did just that, unfortunatly for certain people the findings were not what they wanted to hear-- so, of course they are called shills, ect.. When in actuality they were using the information avalible to them, and came to the most widely accepted conclusion, not because they were "told" to, but because that is where the evidence led them..

The video summary of this independent investigation--

Originally posted by apex

Just because it looks the same doesn't mean it's correctly called that.

If it looks like a duck; waddles like a duck; and quacks like a duck, it is the highest reality probablity a duck. Perhaps, it is you having a severe problem with critically thinking in reponse to abstact concepts not defined in dictionaries, but definitely exist in reality. You know - connotation and denotation.

reply to post by OrionStars


Orion,

I will not allow you to lure me into an argument. Please provide ANY evidence you have that proves any of your theories. If you can not, then you once again show what you are about.

Thanks once again,

C.O.

reply to post by OrionStars


Well, thanks for trying to explain it so well. I would have preferred an actual explanation of how earthquake damage is similar to the WTC, but since none is forthcoming I'll assume you can't give me one.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by apex

Just because it looks the same doesn't mean it's correctly called that.

If it looks like a duck; waddles like a duck; and quacks like a duck, it is the highest reality probablity a duck.

Only the WTC debris flow lacked fast moving volcanic boulders, searing hot gases and a massive eruptive column behind it.

[edit on 27-1-2008 by apex]

Originally posted by jfj123

In case you missed my last post...

May I respectfully ask what your background is in building construction and science? Thanks.

In case you missed it, I am not here at your beck and call. I already responded earlier if you have bothered to have some reasonable patience.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I'm not a real old time "been through all the wars" ATSer, but I've posted enough to consider myself at least a veteran of the "police action" that is the 911 conspiracy forum.

People on all sides of the debate would acknowledge that much of the world of men is run on mathematics. Calculations dictate policy and action. Calculations provide the concrete benchmarks of common sense. A lot of money is made in Las Vegas every day because of calculated probabilities. Much of the world can be understood very well by means of statistics.

From where are you determining the world is running on mathematics? That is sounding very familiar and very occult. If that is not what you meant, what exactly did you mean?

Originally posted by apex
quantum mechanics? Maybe but i thought it was relativity that gave us the nukes.

Exactly in what did you think Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory are based if not quantum mechanics? Physical matter?

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
Perhaps CO should have said "Overwhelming majority" -- whatever, argue semantics-- the point remains.

Perhaps, people should stop being overwhelming vague and start dealing with specific details instead, particularly pertinent science details.

reply to post by Valhall


Val .... here is a paper that i think you may be interested in reading. (if you haven't already)

"Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause it?"

Written by: Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Lialang Li, Frank Greening, and David Benson.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL.


Here is some information on Zdenek Bazant:
He is the McCormick Institute Professor and W.P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science, Northwestern University,
2145 Sheridan Road, CEE/A135,
Evanston, Illinois 60208

If you see that his findings are in error, please E-mail him:

[email protected].

The paper is in PDF format here


I would like your thoughts on this if you are interested.

Thanks,

C.O.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

How's this.....

There are VERY few "qualified" people that have read the NIST report that disagree with their findings. Those that have, have been unable to provide any written documentation that shows NISTS findings false.

C.O.

In what way were they (whoever they are) qualified according to your interpretation? How do you assess a person's qualifications? If responding, please be specific not vague.

Why do you place the word qualified in quotation marks? One is either legitimately qualified or is not. When legitimately qualified, no quotation marks are necessary.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Perhaps, people should stop being overwhelming vague and start dealing with specific details instead, particularly pertinent science details.

Troll bait!

It was only vague because you cannot put the post in context--it is a comprehension issue for you--unfortunately, that seems to be your modus operandi.

Look at my latest post and independent investigation video for 'specific details"

And is there a reason you do not use the word "scientific?"