challenge to the gifted

reply to post by Seventh


Continued..

D. No mentioning of the gross incompetence on show that day from early warnings of this by those responsible in counter terrorism units - those responsible for home security - Norad.

Whether or not Norads response was incompetent or not is a completely different discussion. If they were, I am sure it will have consequenses for those in charge that day. And/or cause Norad to review their responses to terrorist acts.

You will find that for anything that the whole event would reveal if it was an inside job, there is evidence, no matter how trivial, there is no aspect whatsoever of 9/11 that has managed to be carpeted over without exposing the bumps underneath for everyone to see

As I said earlier on, twoofers have yet to present conclusive evidence that this was an inside job. There are many guesses, many assumptions, and many outrageous theories. But all these ammount to, is to feed the people suffering from conspiranoia. I mean come on; 'the president was reading a book in a schoolclass when he heard. That is conclusive evidence that he is up to no good'. It is simply ridiculous, and statements like that say so much more about the twoofers than any post I could make.

Peace

Originally posted by Urias

The twoofer movements have yet to point out to the general public any "obvious flaws" that have not allready been debunked.

I wouldn`t even know where to start pointing out how wrong you are with this comment.

USA does not impose media censurship. There were/are a multitude of independent newsagencies who covered the event. There is however something called journalistic integrity, and that would ensure that the most ridiculous and frivolous claims would not be aired.

Every single country who has troops in Iraq, Afghanistan are always shown clips depicting these places to look like burnt out hell holes, very rarely- especially as far as Iraq is concerned are you shown scenery or architecture of breathtaking beauty - media censureship in it`s broadest form, if you trawl around you will find as many if not more eye witnesses`s stating they saw events completely different to the hand picked main stream stereotypes we are force fed.

I have no idea what you are talking about there. Sorry.

I cannot remember the video where I got this from, i`ll have to locate it and post link.

Is your definition of a patsie witness someone who corroberates the OS? Would it not be equaly fair to claim the exact opposite? That all witnesses who do not corroberate the OS are patsies? It's an oppinionated argument.

I`ll agree to a certain extent here, but answered more fully in the explosions quote a few below.

Would you rather have none-experts, explain the collaps? Why is it unreasonable to ask experts to explain the collaps?

The expert I meant here was the supposed random witness (actor) whom knew already why the buildings collapsed something both NIST and FEMA have struggled with.

I don't think it was scarce. There just weren't a lot of wintesses saying that. Fact is, few as they may be, they are telling what they percieved as explosions openly and freely. The "government" aren't trying to suppress their story.

503 first responders not invited to the commission, a lot of these were injured by explosions as low as the basement, a link giving details and names of around 40 FR`s depicting explosions (have to scroll down the thread a bit)..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What possible relevans does it have if the president was taking a dump or bungee jumping when he heard the news? You are searching for things that just aren't there.

Let`s focus entirely what was happening in the back ground this day... a huge war game centred around an attack on main land America, surely the ultimate man of power should be heavily involved here yes?, but quaintly placed in a school reading a book to children.. cute.

To my knowledge the debris took many months to clear and was scattered all over the city. Claiming that "the government" could somehow remove/conceal/destroy evidence of this magnitude is non sensical.

Let`s pretend for one minute that an initial burst of heat lasting a few seconds, then some random inflammable office furniture (have to agree here that highly combustible items are forbidden in modern day offices due to fire risks), manages to do so much damage to thousands of tons of tempered steel which also has a heat retardant coating over it, that three towers collapse, then surely in the real world as much steel as possible would be highly examined and tested to find out how the laws of physics were completely bent, and not sent of to China the next day/days.

Err...that's kinda the whole purpose of a commision. So questions can be answered. Why is such a commision somehow suspicious? I would have thought it more suspicious if they hadn't.

The evidence that 503 first responders would give bears no significance then?, so easy to manipulate a trial to your favour huge eg here O.J. Simpson - murder - white - woman - mainly - black - jurors - not - guilty.

If the board had come to a different conclusion, you would not be suggesting that the adjudicator/board was "bought". It is only because their conclusion differs from your own that you make this leap into the paranoid.

Redo the whole commission this time use all evidence available from that day and not the selective content offered, then if it votes in favour of the OS, you will never hear another *truther* related statement from me again.

No doubt the witnesses credibility and story has been crosschecked prior to giving public statements. A defense lawyer would not call a witness to the stand if he knew the witness would entertain the court with bird-calls and tin-foil hat folding for beginners.

Covered my whole perception of the commission ^^.

To outline the purpose of a scientific investigation is perfectly normal and propper. Any scientist will tell you that. They were not told to specificaly look for evidence of explosives, no. But they were not told to ignore it either. Your claim in that is completely unfounded and simply not true.

If there were witnesses involved in such abundance (503) that were allowed to air their statements do you think the commission would have neglected tests for explosives?.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Excellent analysis. Kudos!!!

Originally posted by Urias
That never before has a high-rise building been hit by a massive commercial airliner.

There sure has been. El Al Flight 1862, a Boeing 747-200 crashed into a highrise apartment building while attempting an emergency landing:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3b8dea60db2a.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5dc9bde43deb.jpg[/atsimg]

Crash, fire, buildings still standing.

Not to mention the fact that the towers were designed specifically to sustain the imapacts of large jetliners.

Originally posted by Urias
That never before has a high-rise building been subjected to thousands of liters of burning aviation fuel.

The towers were designed to withstand fully loaded jetliners. "Fully loaded" also means fully fueled. The engineers also specifically said that if a jetliner were to crash into the towers, there would be major fuel fires, but after all is said and done, the structure would still be there.

And it doesn't matter if it was jet fuel (kerosene), or simple office fires, the temperature would still not exceed 1500-1800 degrees F.

Originally posted by Urias
That never before has a high-rise building-fire, been allowed to burn unchecked and unbattled for many hours.

Oh, you mean like the Windsor hotel fire in Madrid, Spain that burned for over 20 hours:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e9d0c897b366.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/959cf0934619.jpg[/atsimg]

20 hours of a building being fully engulfed in flames. A raging inferno. There was a partial collapse of the smaller outer columns near the top, but the main structure stayed. And you, as an experienced firefighter, would have us believe the total and complete destruction of the WTC due to fire on a few floors and only burning for 56 minutes? Not gonna happen.

Originally posted by Urias
The displacement of many cubic meters of heated air will travel through the passage of least resistance.

There would be no "heated air" some 50-60 floors below the fire, absolutely no where near the fire. Further, since the fire was near the top, there still wouldn't be "heated air" popping out at even intervals down the towers, still no where near the fires. Your logic is flawed, but nice try.

Originally posted by Urias
But why is it so much easier for you to explain the plumes by way of secret government agents igniting thousands of kg's of explosives at the exact moment of collapse, than that of a commonplace corridor-blast?

Probably because the plumes added in with all of the other available evidence suggests controlled demolition. Your "corridor-blast" scenario is only relevant near the fire, not some 50-60 floors below a fire, or at "timed" intervals going down the tower as it's collapsing, again no where near any fires.

Originally posted by Urias
As for the flashes that you go on to describe...can again be plausibly explained by the above mentioned corridor-blast.

False again. Your scenario again is only relevant near the fire. The first responders specifically said the flashes were near the second floor and near the middle. That's some 60-70 floors below, no where near any fires. Not to mention, the first responders also said that they heard popping or exploding sounds with each flash, again like you would see and hear in a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by Urias
A falling floor or a collapsing support beam can sound very much like an explosion.

That is true, however, you won't hear a collapsing support beam 2 miles away. That's where "9/11 Eyewitness" comes in. First responders heard a series of explosions (and even numbered how many) before either tower collapsed. Those number of explosions are heard in "9/11 Eyewitness". The video and the first responders corroborate each other. And with "9/11 Eyewitness" being recorded 2 miles away, there's no mistaking exploding sounds for steel beams breaking or crashing.

Originally posted by Urias
People, and myself, are disputing your interpretations of those facts.

You can dispute the interpretations all you like, but all you would be doing is "theorizing" so as to explain away the facts so that you don't have to believe the conspiracy. There's no interpretation of "flashes going up, down and around the building" with popping or exploding sounds identical to the video of a controlled demolition that I posted. There's no interpretation of a series of explosions right before each tower collapses, as those series of explosions can be corroborated by the "9/11 Eyewitness" video. There's no interpretation of the plumes as they have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and nowhere else, period. Just because you don't want to believe the conspiracy, doesn't mean that there needs to be an alternate interpretation for you to keep believing in the official lie.

Originally posted by Urias
You claim that no one has been able to debunk your points. I feel I have now debunked the sailient points of your post and do not feel the need to debunk it in further detail.

As I've shown, you not only have debunked nothing, you have made yourself look foolish.

Originally posted by Urias
I am fully aware that you will discredit my response with your usual flair for ridicule, and deftly avoiding the points and the logic that I have applied.

As I've also shown, your logic is seriously flawed. Care to try again?


When I started reading your posts, I had some respect for you and your experience as a firefighter. After your use of the word "Twoofers", that respect was quickly extinguished.

And then you wonder why we would "ridicule" your response. You discredited yourself. And it seems you are the only one using ridicule with your childish use of the word "Twoofers".

reply to post by _BoneZ_

There sure has been. El Al Flight 1862, a Boeing 747-200 crashed into a highrise apartment building while attempting an emergency landing:

It is an undeniable fact that the plane crashed into the hotel. You pounce on this and gleefully announce that this is proof that there is presidence of planes crashing into a highrise building. But it is equaly undeniable that the circumstances are completely different. You have, as per usual, left these important factors out. The structure of the hotel and that of WTC are completely different (WTC was quite unique also compared to other high rise buildings). You conveniently ignore the fact that the hotel is only about 10 stories high, and approximately 5 times as wide as it's own height. The major part of the hotel is thus not influenced by the collapsed 10% or so in the middle. I'm not even going to go into the differences between a crash-landing plane, and a fullspeed frontal crash on purpose.

Same applies for the hotel in Madrid. Completely different structure, no mechanical damage to the structure prior to the fire, and no aeroplane. Your comparison is appauling, but sadly not uncommon for twoofers.

These are classic and perfect examples of what I call "twoofer proof". That is to say, take a carefully selected piece of fact that in itself is irefutable, remove it completely out of context and original premise, and transfer it as imediately comparable to an entirely different situation.

Instead of understanding how a corridor blast works, you attack a single word in the sentence...heated air, and start rambling about how close it is to the fire. This is a moot point. The distance to the firecore is irrelevant with regards to where the displacement will manifest itself. It is true that the further away the blast occurs from the firecore, the colder the air will be. This is completely logical. But the blast is not temperature dependant. It is displacement dependent. In textbooks the situations is likened to that of a bicycle pump. The plunger goes in at the top, and the air is pushed out through the bottom. If you make a hole in the middle of the pump, then thats where "blast" will occur. If, say, the 60'th floor was "closed" for further airtravel, then that is where the blast would take place. Easy to comprehend, yet you manage to muddle the issue with "heated air". So no, the logic is not flawed. It is a recognized, easily replicable and predictable occurance, when a roof/floor collapses. Any fireman will tell you that.

*snip*...Not to mention, the first responders also said that they heard popping or exploding sounds with each flash, again like you would see and hear in a controlled demolition.

Or like in a corridor blast. Or an exploding gas canister, or a redundant gas/diesel tank, or...or...or.

Your adolescent choice of words like "nice try, wanna try again" as if you were in an argument in the schoolyard, indicates the lvl at which you intend to discuss this. Previous posts by you give ample indication that this is not a one time thing either.

And as I predicted in my first post, you deftly avoided the issue of motive or even a reason for any explosives in WTC. Instead, like a real twoofer, you bog everything down by a pointless discussion of (ironicaly) "hot air" which has little or no relevance. But it takes up both time and space, and allows you, at least for a moment, to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Have fun with your religion. Because that's what this discussion has become about. It is quite ironic that you in your signature indicate delusional denial for those who are not true believers and blind followers of your religion.

Peace

reply to post by Seventh

Redo the whole commission this time use all evidence available from that day and not the selective content offered, then if it votes in favour of the OS, you will never hear another *truther* related statement from me again.

You and I both know that regardless of the findings of whatever commission or board, it will not be accepted by twoofers if it does not come to a conspiracy conclusion. Each and every commission or board that does not support the conspiracy theory, will by twoofers be regarded as payed off, inconclusive, or outright incompetent. Just like currently. Which is also the reason why I have not bothered to reply further.

You see, it's like trying to convince a priest that God does not excist. Not only is it impossible by impirical evidence to actually prove this, the priest is completely blinded by his own faith that such a discussion is futile.

The religious priest will consider it an act of God, when an apple falls from a tree. The scientist will call it gravity, but concede that he cannot prove that it wasn't the hand of God. The priest will with arms raised walk away from such an argument, believing "I won...I've just proved that God excists because the scientist has no rebuttle to my compelling arguments".

I'm quite content to let such a priest revel in such a meaningless "victory". Which is why I'll let you guys continue with the conspiranoia, and happily concede that I cannot prove it wasn't a conspiracy any more than you can prove that it was.

Peace

reply to post by Urias


I find your logic waning at the very least, this whole point really is hard to get over to you OS is gospel posse......

THE-F.B.I-HAVE-NOT-INDICTED-BIN-LADEN-FOR-9/11-AS-THERE-IS-NO-EVIDENCE-LINKING-HIM-TO-THE-ATTACKS.

Now what part of this is hard to understand?.

What this *FACT* actually entails i`ll leave you to work out, but it`s suffice to say that the twoofers have fuel for what they think happened, or did not happen that day, the main ingredient being evidence therefore known as lack of.

Now as long as guys like you come here with ridiculing nicks for people whose main aim is the truth, whilst blatantly backing the illegal war/wars going on atm through denial of facts as to why these wars are being fought, then the more governments will perform these acts.

At the very least go research the fundamental laws of physics/ gravity/ science, then and only then no matter what proof of who done it there is, it proves someone did, plain and simple, not knowing who does not mean it didn`t happen.

Originally posted by Urias
It is an undeniable fact that the plane crashed into the hotel. You pounce on this and gleefully announce that this is proof that there is presidence of planes crashing into a highrise building.

Well, there was the B-25 bomber that crashed into the Empire State building in 1945 causing fires to burn for 2 hours and causing structural damage. Still no collapse there either.

Originally posted by Urias
The structure of the hotel and that of WTC are completely different

The WTC, the hotel and the ESB are all steel structures. They all had plane crashes and fires. The only buildings that were over-built to withstand those plane crashes were destroyed to dust. That alone should turn a light bulb on inside your head.

Originally posted by Urias
Completely different structure, no mechanical damage to the structure prior to the fire, and no aeroplane.

There was mechanical damage to the Madrid tower and it happened during the fire and the fires still burned for hours more after the partial collapsing, yet the main structure still stayed. The "plane" part is irrelevant. Structural damage is structural damage.

Originally posted by Urias
It is a recognized, easily replicable and predictable occurance, when a roof/floor collapses. Any fireman will tell you that.

With all of the videos of structural fires that have been recorded throughout history, there has to be at least one with the characteristics you're describing. Please post a link to a fire with the characteristics you're describing, or you must concede, thanks.

Originally posted by Urias
Or like in a corridor blast. Or an exploding gas canister, or a redundant gas/diesel tank, or...or...or.

Sorry, but exploding gas canisters, gas tanks/ diesel tanks, etc. (although none of which were in the towers) would only be exploding in the area of the fire. Not on the lower and middle levels going up, down and around the buildings and nowhere near any fires to cause them to explode! You've totally twisted the facts into your fictitious Twilight Zone reality in an attempt to explain away the facts, which you cannot.




[edit on 24-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]

great thread! i enjoyed reading this one, i believe people see what they want to and often want answers and will accept the ones the government gives us without question. either way sick to know that so many human lives were taken....thats what people should be concerned about....humans killing humans. for the record i have no doubt that this was indeed an inside job.
peace

Originally posted by Urias
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

There sure has been. El Al Flight 1862, a Boeing 747-200 crashed into a highrise apartment building while attempting an emergency landing:

It is an undeniable fact that the plane crashed into the hotel. You pounce on this and gleefully announce that this is proof that there is presidence of planes crashing into a highrise building. But it is equaly undeniable that the circumstances are completely different. You have, as per usual, left these important factors out. The structure of the hotel and that of WTC are completely different (WTC was quite unique also compared to other high rise buildings). You conveniently ignore the fact that the hotel is only about 10 stories high, and approximately 5 times as wide as it's own height. The major part of the hotel is thus not influenced by the collapsed 10% or so in the middle. I'm not even going to go into the differences between a crash-landing plane, and a fullspeed frontal crash on purpose.

Same applies for the hotel in Madrid. Completely different structure, no mechanical damage to the structure prior to the fire, and no aeroplane. Your comparison is appauling, but sadly not uncommon for twoofers.

These are classic and perfect examples of what I call "twoofer proof". That is to say, take a carefully selected piece of fact that in itself is irefutable, remove it completely out of context and original premise, and transfer it as imediately comparable to an entirely different situation.

Instead of understanding how a corridor blast works, you attack a single word in the sentence...heated air, and start rambling about how close it is to the fire. This is a moot point. The distance to the firecore is irrelevant with regards to where the displacement will manifest itself. It is true that the further away the blast occurs from the firecore, the colder the air will be. This is completely logical. But the blast is not temperature dependant. It is displacement dependent. In textbooks the situations is likened to that of a bicycle pump. The plunger goes in at the top, and the air is pushed out through the bottom. If you make a hole in the middle of the pump, then thats where "blast" will occur. If, say, the 60'th floor was "closed" for further airtravel, then that is where the blast would take place. Easy to comprehend, yet you manage to muddle the issue with "heated air". So no, the logic is not flawed. It is a recognized, easily replicable and predictable occurance, when a roof/floor collapses. Any fireman will tell you that.

*snip*...Not to mention, the first responders also said that they heard popping or exploding sounds with each flash, again like you would see and hear in a controlled demolition.

Or like in a corridor blast. Or an exploding gas canister, or a redundant gas/diesel tank, or...or...or.

Your adolescent choice of words like "nice try, wanna try again" as if you were in an argument in the schoolyard, indicates the lvl at which you intend to discuss this. Previous posts by you give ample indication that this is not a one time thing either.

And as I predicted in my first post, you deftly avoided the issue of motive or even a reason for any explosives in WTC. Instead, like a real twoofer, you bog everything down by a pointless discussion of (ironicaly) "hot air" which has little or no relevance. But it takes up both time and space, and allows you, at least for a moment, to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Have fun with your religion. Because that's what this discussion has become about. It is quite ironic that you in your signature indicate delusional denial for those who are not true believers and blind followers of your religion.

Peace

Fantastic post! This should be mandatory reading for anyone who frequents the 9/11 board.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


More truthers lies

Well, there was the B-25 bomber that crashed into the Empire State building in 1945 causing fires to burn for 2 hours and causing structural damage. Still no collapse there either.

The fires were almost out by time FDNY could reach the impact siite

Checking specs for B25 find that MAXIMUM fuel load is 974 gal, a long
range ferry tank of 585 gal could be installed in bomb bay - this gives
total fuel load of some 1569 gal.

The 767s which struck buildings had over 9,000 gal each at time of impact

Also consider that this plane had been converted to personnel transport
and was on short hop with no where near full fuel capacity

In 1945 the fire load of office building was much less than today - rows
of steel desks, no floor covering (and those that were made of cloth not
synthethics), manual typewriters - all metal. No rows of computer equipment with plastic cases and circuit boards which burn, no cubicle
dividers and sound deadening of highly flammable stuff like urethene, steel
back chairs - no flammable cushions

Come on Bonez - thought you were smarter than this, been hanging
around clowns too long

Originally posted by thedman
More truthers lies
The fires were almost out by time FDNY could reach the impact siite

It's amazing how you jump so quickly to call somebody a liar without even doing any research:

The 4-alarm fire brought every available piece of fire-fighting apparatus to the scene. As the building was evacuated, firemen spent about an hour extinguishing the flames.

Source

Almost an hour for the fire apparatus to reach the building and for them to climb to the top. Then another hour to extinguish the fire.

So, shall we say "more debunker lies".

Stop trying to be so quick to attack truthers. In the end, you will never win. The evidence will always overrule you.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Urias
It is an undeniable fact that the plane crashed into the hotel. You pounce on this and gleefully announce that this is proof that there is presidence of planes crashing into a highrise building.

Well, there was the B-25 bomber that crashed into the Empire State building in 1945 causing fires to burn for 2 hours and causing structural damage. Still no collapse there either.

I trust you understand the difference between the Empire State Building being hit by a B-25 and the WTC towers being hit by 767s.

I am correct in assuming you understand that difference, BoneZ, am I not?