What would prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy?

Originally posted by tezzajw
When I ask for any data to prove that the alleged flights AA11 and UA175 allegedly crashed into the towers, I get called names by some people in their reply posts to me.

Yes it is funny how people that beleive the official story keep asking for evidnece but as soon as you ask them for evidence the get insulting and say they do not have to come up with evidence that they know what hapepned.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

Example: A problem or exercise used to illustrate a principle or method.

Example: If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

Once things are put in motion, it's pretty hard to stop it.

Indeed. So how did the top of the tower magically correct itself?

Well it would seriously depend on the amount of explosives used and of course the size of the building. I'm pretty sure there are no examples (so no way to prove it) as that is not the point of a CD.

Example:

And you have evidence of this?

Logical inference. If the planes didn't knock 'em down, and the fire didn't knock 'em down...well, maybe the duck did it!

So which is it? Was it a CD or did the steel moltenize?

Why not both?

Have you ever seen a CD moltenize steel?

Yes.

Have you ever seen a CD in which the buildings did not fall immediately?

They did fall immediately. There's nothing dictating that CD had to occur simultaneous with the impact of the plane.

Asking for data to back up your claims is considered trolling?

It is when you refuse to acknowledge the evidence when it has been put right in front of you time and time again. It's one thing to provide counter-evidence. Quite another to ignore what is obvious. Troll.

Originally posted by tezzajw
When I ask for any data to prove that the alleged flights AA11 and UA175 allegedly crashed into the towers, I get called names by some people in their reply posts to me.

What names have I called you?
I have provided that data, and you still haven't shown me anything that suggests that data is false in any way.


Ultima:

Yes it is funny how people that beleive the official story

So everyone who disagrees with you believes the "official" story (whatever that is)?

keep asking for evidnece but as soon as you ask them for evidence the get insulting

I have provided the evidence. You have yet to show the evidence provided, which confirms 100% that those planes crashed, is false. If you have any reason to think the evidence is false then please present it.
I have been asking for the past couple of days for just one piece and you have yet to provide. There are tons of conspiracy sites out there, surely one of them has a piece of evidence that would cause you to think otherwise right?

As for any insults....as your friend jacks states.....if it looks like a duck....
Seriously, no insults. I was seriously asking...

jack:

Indeed. So how did the top of the tower magically correct itself?

It didn't. Videos show this. We've been through this already...

Example:

You didn't answer my question. Why aren't explosives placed outside the building during CDs.
Also, what is the relevance to WTC? Are you suggesting explosives were placed on one floor and that brought the buildings down?

"Have you ever seen a CD moltenize steel?"

Yes.

Link?

They did fall immediately. There's nothing dictating that CD had to occur simultaneous with the impact of the plane.

LOL
Then answer my first question. The explosives survived the plane impact and resulting explosion? What were they, superexplosives?
Also, why the delay?
And I take it that you're now going to provide us with evidence of these explosives.

It is when you refuse to acknowledge the evidence when it has been put right in front of you time and time again. It's one thing to provide counter-evidence. Quite another to ignore what is obvious. Troll.

Ok, tell me what I ignored and I'll address it. Simple as that.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

It didn't. Videos show this. We've been through this already...

The video shows an anamalous occurence which has yet to be explained. If failure initially occured on one side, causing the tilt of the top portion, there is no logical explanation as to why that motion should not have continued, sending the top portion sliding off the stump of the tower that would have remained. Particulalry considering that what remained would have offered at least some resistance.

You didn't answer my question. Why aren't explosives placed outside the building during CDs.

I didn't answer it because it is a moronic question that doesn't have to do with anything. But of course, you are tryin to claim that somehow by placing the charges inside, your version of events will have some sort of corroboration. But you are again mistaken, since you need many charges throughout the building. Not just at one point to cause total failure in a uniform fashion.

Also, what is the relevance to WTC?

Having trouble remembering your own questions now? Or, are you just trying to ignore the answers again?

Are you suggesting explosives were placed on one floor and that brought the buildings down?

Um, what?

The explosives survived the plane impact and resulting explosion? What were they, superexplosives?

Thermite is not an explosive.

Also, why the delay?

How should I know?

And I take it that you're now going to provide us with evidence of these explosives.

Once again you ignore the evidence of thermite residue round at Ground Zero. Right on there detective.

Ok, tell me what I ignored and I'll address it. Simple as that.

Look up.

[edit on 3/21/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

I have been asking for the past couple of days for just one piece and you have yet to provide.

We have all provided ample evidence that you continually ignore, when it is not our obligation to do so. It's about time you got back on the topic of this thread, now that you have made a mockery of the OP with your trolling.

What would prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy?

You have failed to provide sufficient evidence that there was not a conspiracy. You lose.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

What names have I called you?
I have provided that data, and you still haven't shown me anything that suggests that data is false in any way.

Here is a list of names and insults that you have made about me. All these quoted sentences are from this thread. It's very easy to use the THREAD button to find where they have been copied from. Count how many times you consider me a waste of space and dense. You're probably lucky that the moderators have not taken action against you for possibly breaching terms and conditions by attacking me instead of my arguments.

ThatsJustWeird
I see you're just joking now with all of this.....
Are you seriously this dense?
He thinks he's making a point or something but all he's doing is making himself look stupid.
...but of course you'll continue to ignore the evidence and talk all this BS.
See, you are purposely being dense.
You're here simply trying to start ****.
Until then you continue to waste space in this thread.
tezz, your post grow increasingly disturbing. Either you can not read, or you are being purposely ignorant.
Now you're just purposely being annoying and are wasting space.
Your refusal to look at the evidence is an indication that you are either an idiot or just playing around.
...you're wasting time and space.
You truely are a (nevermind) tezz...
Until then, you're useless.
Are you that dense?
as I can tell you have done NO research whatsoever, yet you come here starting all this #.
...you're a waste of space and contributing nothing to this thread.

In between your insults to me, I'm still waiting for you to provide the forensive evidence that show two airliners allegedly crashed into the towers. Thanks.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by tezzajw]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
The video shows an anamalous occurence which has yet to be explained. If failure initially occured on one side, causing the tilt of the top portion, there is no logical explanation as to why that motion should not have continued, sending the top portion sliding off the stump of the tower that would have remained. Particulalry considering that what remained would have offered at least some resistance.

Look at the videos again and follow the top portion....

I didn't answer it because it is a moronic question that doesn't have to do with anything. But of course, you are tryin to claim that somehow by placing the charges inside, your version of events will have some sort of corroboration. But you are again mistaken, since you need many charges throughout the building. Not just at one point to cause total failure in a uniform fashion.

That is not my point at all.
You asked me to prove a CD would only take one charge to bring down a building. I said that wasn't the point of CDs so there wouldn't be any examples. Then you posted a picture of Oklahoma City as if that was an example of something.
OKC was nothing close to a CD. That's why I asked you why CDs aren't done on the outside. Chances are you would not bring down a building that way. The damage would more superficial (than had the explosion been on the inside) and the core structures would probably remain more intact than not. The explosion would also be distributed differently than in a CD.

Having trouble remembering your own questions now? Or, are you just trying to ignore the answers again?

No and no.
You asked me if one charge could bring down a building. I said probably if the explosives were strong enough and depending on building size. It's never been done before however (not to my knowledge) as CDs are meant to minimize damage and doing that would cause the building to not fall in on itself.

Um, what?

Well since this is a 9/11 thread and you're here asking about one charge bringing down a building, I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this.

Thermite is not an explosive.

Exactly.

And I take it that you're now going to provide us with evidence of these explosives.

Once again you ignore the evidence of thermite residue round at Ground Zero. Right on there detective.

1. Didn't you just say thermite wasn't an explosive?
2. The only so called evidence of thermite so far came from Dr. Jones, who has been proven to be a liar. Has anyone confirmed his findings?
3. Can't remember if you've completely answered or not, but have you ever seen a building brought down by thermite? Have you ever seen a CD using thermite?

Look up.

We have all provided ample evidence that you continually ignore

1. Evidence of what?
2. My apologies. It is not my intention of ignoring anything. If you can please tell me what I have ignored, I'll address it.

It's about time you got back on the topic of this thread, now that you have made a mockery of the OP with your trolling.

*

You have failed to provide sufficient evidence that there was not a conspiracy. You lose.

My first post pretty much explains it
There will never be sufficient evidence to prove...well I should say convince people there was not a conspiracy. There may be evidence that proves it, but people won't believe it.
As we see here, people argue about simple facts like the planes crashing into the WTC but provide no reason as to why they're arguing that. They just have their mind set and are only searching for "evidence" that supports what they set their mind too.
I have done my best to try and provide neutral data. I know one of the videos was a little bias, and I apologize, but it provided important information to expose a few things. All I have asked in return is that some of the responses to that data be backed by more neutral data showing why you disagree with it or why it's wrong.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

Look at the videos again and follow the top portion....

Yup, watched it fall straight down since there was nothing under it.

Then you posted a picture of Oklahoma City as if that was an example of something.

Yup, one very big bomb going off, blowing out many key support beams, yet what is left of the bulding is still standing.

The damage would more superficial (than had the explosion been on the inside) and the core structures would probably remain more intact than not.

Half the damned building was blown away, hardly superficial. And what "core structures" are you saying weren't wiped out in that blast?

The explosion would also be distributed differently than in a CD.

Sure, because in a CD, you break every single primary support structure in the entire building. Otherwise, the entire building won't collapse.

I said probably if the explosives were strong enough and depending on building size.

And once again, you prove that you have no idea what you are talking about. Even on a structure that is clearly based on redundant support, such as a suspension bridge, one charge still will not bring down the entire structure.

Well since this is a 9/11 thread and you're here asking about one charge bringing down a building, I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this.

Because you have one of two choices. There was either one point of critical failure that caused an instantaneous cascade, or you have multiple failures happening simultaneously. Which do you choose? You must choose, but choose wisely. For one answer is impossible, and the other will doom your theory.

1. Didn't you just say thermite wasn't an explosive?

I guess I was wrong to assume that you had any amount of common sense whatsoever. Have fun trying to figure out if thermite is an explosive or not.

2. The only so called evidence of thermite so far came from Dr. Jones, who has been proven to be a liar.

Okay, prove to me he is a liar.

3. Can't remember if you've completely answered or not, but have you ever seen a building brought down by thermite? Have you ever seen a CD using thermite?

Doesn't make any difference.

All I have asked in return is that some of the responses to that data be backed by more neutral data showing why you disagree with it or why it's wrong.

All data is neutral. The question is wether or not it has been modified in any way, and how it correlates to other data.

They just have their mind set and are only searching for "evidence" that supports what they set their mind too.

As I stated earlier, I had no particular opinion about the Twin Towers. In fact, I was at one time, very much against the CD theory. Thank you for helping to clarify my opinion.

I know one of the videos was a little bias, and I apologize, but it provided important information to expose a few things.

That was actually a good video. Biased yes, but all evidence must be considered. It showed me that there was a deliberate disinfo bomb placed in the conspiracy theory, so that people could point out one single photo and say "see that picture was wrong. That's proof positive that there is no conspiracy." Ever heard of PsyOps?

My first post pretty much explains it ...

Good. Thanks for your input. Buh-bye.









[edit on 3/22/0808 by jackinthebox]

[edit on 3/22/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I have provided that data, and you still haven't shown me anything that suggests that data is false in any way.

No, you have no real, physical evidence that the planes that were supposed to have hit the towers actually did.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, you have no real, physical evidence that the planes that were supposed to have hit the towers actually did.

You aren't turning this into a "No planes" thread are you?

Saying "planes that were supposed to have hit the towers" implies that you think there were no planes involved. Is that true?

[Yup, watched it fall straight down since there was nothing under it.

Partly correct. There was nothing under it, but the leaning part did not fall straight down. The rest of the tower did however.

Yup, one very big bomb going off, blowing out many key support beams, yet what is left of the bulding is still standing.

Yeah....
What does that have to do with this thread though? The support beams that were holding the rest of the building up obviously weren't destroyed in the blast.

Not sure where this belongs but you forgot to mention an important fact about OKC. The upper floors were NOT completely destroyed immediately in the initial blast. The first few floors were, then the rest collapsed...

Half the damned building was blown away, hardly superficial. And what "core structures" are you saying weren't wiped out in that blast?

The ones they blew up when the demoed the building...

And I wasn't just talking about OKC, but in general. Had that bomb been on the inside, you would have seen something completely different.

And once again, you prove that you have no idea what you are talking about. Even on a structure that is clearly based on redundant support, such as a suspension bridge, one charge still will not bring down the entire structure.

proof?
If they are just bringing the structure down, then why couldn't a big enough charge placed at the right spot bring a structure down?

Because you have one of two choices. There was either one point of critical failure that caused an instantaneous cascade, or you have multiple failures happening simultaneously. Which do you choose?

What?
I think I'll stick with C Bob. This offers one of the best explanations I've seen so far...
Could change to D if something better arises.

You must choose, but choose wisely. For one answer is impossible, and the other will doom your theory.

What theory?

I guess I was wrong to assume that you had any amount of common sense whatsoever. Have fun trying to figure out if thermite is an explosive or not.

Go back and read what you wrote....
I KNOW thermite is not an explosive. You KNOW that.
Then when I said show evidence that explosives were used to demo the Towers, you said I continue to ignore the evidence of thermite.
Thermite isn't an explosive and thermite is not used in demos, so why did you bring it up?

Okay, prove to me he is a liar.

The fact that he claimed there was thermite found and that was evidence of a demolition

He's also using doctored photos claiming it's evidence.

Doesn't make any difference.

Sure it is. If you're claiming that the Towers were CDed, and then claim thermite found as evidence of a CD then tell me when you have ever seen thermite used in a CD.

All data is neutral. The question is wether or not it has been modified in any way, and how it correlates to other data.

Yeah, you are correct. So....how about that unmodified data now.....

As I stated earlier, I had no particular opinion about the Twin Towers. In fact, I was at one time, very much against the CD theory. Thank you for helping to clarify my opinion.

And what is your opinion now? And which pieces of evidence are you using to support your opinion?

That was actually a good video. Biased yes, but all evidence must be considered. It showed me that there was a deliberate disinfo bomb placed in the conspiracy theory, so that people could point out one single photo and say "see that picture was wrong. That's proof positive that there is no conspiracy." Ever heard of PsyOps?

It wasn't just one photo that was in error or deliberately twisted.
Do you have any proof Dr. Jones (or anyone else) purposely doctored that photo to make the people who believe in conspiracies look bad?

Yes I've heard of PsyOps. Relevance?



Ultima:

No, you have no real, physical evidence that the planes that were supposed to have hit the towers actually did.

I have no physical evidence that you exists, but I know you do. Why?

(Also, the engine matches perfectly, the pieces of fuselage match perfectly, the wheels match perfectly, the bodies match perfectly, the other pieces of equipment which have serial numbers -one of which I posted earlier, there's also the life vests and stuff-, etc. You have yet to show that stuff was planted or is false)

I await your answer to the plethora of other evidence that positively identifies the plane as again, you do not just need physical evidence to positively identify something.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by Disclosed
You aren't turning this into a "No planes" thread are you?

NO, i never stated that, please do not twist my words. I have stated there is no physical evidence or reports that match the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes (that does not mean there were no planes). Just that there is no evidence to support what planes did hit the buildings.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird


I'll respond when you have something valid to argue. Until then, buh bye.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

NO, i never stated that, please do not twist my words. I have stated there is no physical evidence or reports that match the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes (that does not mean there were no planes). Just that there is no evidence to support what planes did hit the buildings.

So now there is the possibility of even more planes involved? Not just the missing passenger jets, but additional planes the approx size of passenger planes?

You have evidence of these? Or is this just your theory?

Originally posted by Disclosed So now there is the possibility of even more planes involved? Not just the missing passenger jets, but additional planes the approx size of passenger planes?

Oh i see you have to twist my words or misinterpret them becasue you cannot post any evidence of what planes hit the towers and the Pentagon.

Can you post any hard, phycial evidence of the planes that were suppoed to have hit the buildings actually did, YES or NO?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Perhaps you need to refresh your memory and review some of the official reports that have been released. They would include reports from the NIST, FEMA, and the 911 commission reports. They have the information you are seeking.

Funny, I thought you would have done that kind of research already.

Guess I was mistaken.

Originally posted by Disclosed
Perhaps you need to refresh your memory and review some of the official reports that have been released. They would include reports from the NIST, FEMA, and the 911 commission reports. They have the information

Please show me in any of those reports anywhere that it matches parts found to the 9/11 planes by part or seial number.

Please show me anywhere in any of those reports a actual photo or video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

Also those reports are not the official reports. In case you did not know the FBI and NTSB are the main investigators for 9/11 and their reports are the official reports.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Also those reports are not the official reports. In case you did not know the FBI and NTSB are the main investigators for 9/11 and their reports are the official reports.

If you know they havent released the official reports, then why are you asking ME for them? Do I have some official power to have reports released that I am unaware of?

wow...

Perhaps the people you should be asking for your information should be the FBI and NTSB....don't you think?

Did you ever think about that?

Originally posted by Disclosed
If you know they havent released the official reports, then why are you asking ME for them?

Becasue you keep saying you know what happened and have the evindece to support it, so i am asking you to post it.

As stated many times i have FOIA request into the FBI and NTSB.



[edit on 23-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Becasue you keep saying you know what happened and have the evindece to support it, so i am asking you to post it.

As stated many times i have FOIA request into the FBI and NTSB.

I keep saying I know what happened that day and have the evidence to support it?

I challenge you to show me one post where I stated that exact thing.

I think we will all see that you are lying.

Unless you mean showing people the NIST reports, FEMA reports and 911 commission reports, plus interviews by professionals (pilots, fireman, etc)....and using those to disprove your claims.