Something to help our "truthers" movement

It is also not nice to group anyone who feels any part of the OS is true as sheeple, blind, government agents of MSM worshippers.

After 9/11, alot of us wanted answers. This is natural and part of the healing process. I started reading. Alot. Books on the history of the conflict, who is Al-Qeada, who is OBL and there was a rabbit hole of information.

There are coincidences as there can be in any everyday event. The problem is that a conspiracy is not an idea but an act of individuals. A conspiracy theory is now that could have occurred, not showing coincidence with no connection to the bigger picture.

The First Loose Change video gave spark to a plethora of 'experts' who feel that after watching a few you tube videos they are demo experts, knowledgeable of black ops and become very opinionated and delusional many times not being able to back up their own conspiracy thoughts. I myself was very intrigued until I picked up a book called 102 minutes and it then made it very personal to me. To realize that 3000 people died because of something that was out of the control of our government. I took them 8 years but they hit us again.

Stop, look and analyze your own thoughts before blindly following a thread or a horribly compressed video showing a blur that could be a UFO that was used in conjunction with the CIA and MOssad to bring down the towers, attack the pentagon and shoot down a plane.

Our government cannot hide ANYTHING so why do people believe that they could silence 1000's of people to cover up anything?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Yeah, and I have yet to meet any other 9/11 duhbunker who loves to use that phrase.

How's it going Mark (Roberts)? Enjoy your stay at ATS. It won't be pretty.

And while you're at it, you don't go around too much telling people the REAL truth about the 9/11 Commission and how over 50% said themselves that it was a sham, or something similar, now do you. And that includes Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kean, who said themselves they were set up to fail.

a) I have no idea who Mark Roberts is. I am Good Ol' Dave and I do not need to hide who I am..at the cost of many a person here.

b) You are quoting Lee Hamilton out of context. Yes, he said he was "set up to fail" but he *also* said that so far, the report his committee put out has more credibility than any of the alternative explanations put forth. Lee Hamilton ALSO specifically said his bunch looked into the possibility that the towwers were brought down by explosives and they found no evidence of that. Here's his statement in his own words-

Lee Hamilton interview

So the question is, if you're so right and in the know, why do you feel you need to resort to deliberate quote mining and taking statements out of context like this in order to get people to believe things which are obviously not true? I can answer that for you- you're getting all your information from these damned fool conspiracy websites and THEY are feeding you quote mining and statements out of context in order to get you to believe things which are obviously not true. You're just the victim in all of this so you didnt know.

If even a glimmer of a "hey, he's right- something doesn't wash with what those web sites are telling me" pops into your head, then I'll have done what I came here to do. BS artists are still BS artists, regardless of where they stand on the 9/11 conspiracy.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the majority of the rank and file of the conspiracy people are otherwise intelligent and articulate people who have been suckered by the rubbush these damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out.

That's blatant disinformation. Just because you don't accept or want to acknowledge what the evidence suggests, doesn't mean that the 9/11 conspiracies are "rubbish".

I don't believe what any website tells me. I do my own research to confirm or deny what someone claims. And most people in the 9/11 truth movement also do the same. There may be a few that don't, but I always research a claim before just accepting it as face value.

Since I do my own research, and the facts still prove 9/11 was an inside job, your claim is false.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You certainly aren't stupid, you're simply being suckered by a lot of internet nonsense and yellow journalism.

Yep, no suckering here. Good ol' research still proves 9/11 was an inside job. The only suckering would be from disinfo artists like you trying to tell people not to believe or read conspiracy websites. Is there some kind of truth you're trying to keep people from reading about? Or is your denial disorder keeping you from believing what the conspiracy websites say?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You all seem to think that just becuase it's on a web site somewhere and the web site tells you it's "secret information" that it just has to be true.

Nope. My own research reveals how true or false the information is that a person or website claims.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
you apparently imagine there's an impressive looking office building on the other end of that web site filled with lawyers, scholars, and investigative reporters, without knowing that it's really just a bunch of college kids creating internet videos in their dorm room.

More disinformation. AE911T has architects and engineers who are manually verified before their names are added to the list. Which also means their names, degrees, and areas of study are also public and anybody, even you, can verify that information yourself.

Same thing with Scholars for Truth and Justice. Scholars, scientists, etc. are all also verified and the names are all public. There are also some PhD's in there. Do you have a PhD, Dave?

Your denial disorder is keeping you from accepting the thousands of professionals in the 9/11 truth movement because you don't want to accept what a 9/11 conspiracy suggests. Just because you don't want to accept the evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, doesn't make any architect, engineer, scientist, or PhD, any less credible.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Most of these no planers do little more than rant on these discussion boards, but people like Dr. Judy Woods actually went through the trouble of suing NIST in court on the grounds that the towers were destroyed by energy weapons from outer space. Does this mean Dr. Woods's claims of energy weapons from outer space are reality?

You say the above, and then you say the following before it:

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
My point is this- if you conspiracy theorists were to ever actually hold up the rubbish coming out of these conspiracy web sites with the exact same stringent level of critical analysis that you do the generally accepted account, you wouldn't be conspiracy theorists, for very long.

We do critically analyze what people claim. Most of the 9/11 truth movement does not subscribe to energy weapons, nukes, and most especially the no-planes disinfo. For you to keep associating those with the 9/11 truth movement shows that you are unresearched and just stereotyping.

Why don't we accept "no-planes", space beams, and the like? Because we critically analyze and research every claim for truthfulness.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's the same reason why flames from burning jet fuel comign from the ninety somethingth floor was able to be seen down at the lobby, as witnesses reported in the Naudet brother's film.

There was more than one explosion that happened in the lobby and basement levels that destroyed the lobby and basement levels, and well after the first and second plane had already impacted. Which means, not from jet fuel, even though jet fuel is not an explosive anyway.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
after talkign to many many MANY conspiracy theorists throughout the years, I have discovered that up until now, to a man/woman, they always subscribe to a bunch of *other* conspiracies

Still spreading the same disinformation around, even though I've already proven you wrong here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
the point is that they've subscribed to other conspiracies before 9/11 happened

I've never subscribed to any conspiracy before or after 9/11.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The obvious concern therefore is that you're not really seeing evidence of any conspiracy.

Only obvious to someone with denial disorder. Since I've never subscribed to any conspiracy before 9/11, that means the evidence is what suggests a 9/11 conspiracy.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The concern is that you have a pre-existing anti-establishment outlook so you're naturally going to percieve conspiracies within the 9/11 attack where no conspiracies actually exist.

Since I've never subscribed to any conspiracies, then there is no "natural" perception of conspiracies as far as 9/11 is concerned and no pre-existing anti-establishment outlook, what-so-ever.

It's all about the evidence that you keep denying.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Here's is your solid gold chance to prove I am wrong and I'm making unfounded presumptions about your movement.

I think I've done a good enough job of proving you wrong, time and time again.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
My question is, are these 9/11 conspiracies the only conspiracy theory YOU subscribe to?

Yep. Made that clear enough above.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If even a glimmer of a "hey, he's right- something doesn't wash with what those web sites are telling me" pops into your head, then I'll have done what I came here to do.

That will never happen as real research along with the evidence and witness testimony, have already proven you and the official story wrong.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
BS artists are still BS artists, regardless of where they stand on the 9/11 conspiracy.

You are absolutely correct. You would appear to be one of the biggest BS artists as of late, only next to the no-plane disinfo artists. Your purposeful disinformation and blatant lies are already quite obvious to most.

When you try to tell people not to read or believe what conspiracy websites tell them, then you're trying to hide or deny something, and that's BS artistry.

You act as though every webpage on the internet is a hoax. In reality, most pages on the internet are factual and accurate. Just because you don't want to believe the conspiracy, doesn't mean a conspiracy website is not factual or accurate. You do your own research to determine whether something is factual and accurate or not. And you're clearly far from being researched on anything you type onto your screen.

Furthermore, when you try to claim that every person that believes a 9/11 conspiracy also believes in other conspiracies, even after I've already proven you wrong in a different thread, shows your BS artistry.

It shows that even after you've been proven wrong and that no matter how wrong you are, you still peddle the same lies and disinformation.

I even proved you wrong on evidence in another thread, and instead of admitting you were wrong, you twisted my words around and purposely lied about what I said, even when people can read what I said just a couple posts above.

That's BS artistry and you've proven time and time again that you don't care about truth or accuracy.

Care to type some more characters onto your screen and dig your hole deeper?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I don't believe what any website tells me. I do my own research to confirm or deny what someone claims. And most people in the 9/11 truth movement also do the same. There may be a few that don't, but I always research a claim before just accepting it as face value.

All right then, does that mean you *have* read the 9/11 commission report? Good, so you'll be able to answer this question- when NYPD helicopters flying eye level to the impact areas of the WTC reported seeing the support beams glowing red fromthe fires and looked as if they were about to collapse, it clearly contradicts your claims the fires weren't hoit enough to damage the building supports, so how is this false?

Yep, no suckering here. Good ol' research still proves 9/11 was an inside job. The only suckering would be from disinfo artists like you trying to tell people not to believe or read conspiracy websites. Is there some kind of truth you're trying to keep people from reading about? Or is your denial disorder keeping you from believing what the conspiracy websites say?

Not in the least. My goal is to get people to look at *both* sides of the discussion, to get people to make up their own minds who has the better credibility. For example, when, "Loose Change" says that mysterious security people were carrying some object covered up by a tarp from the Pentagon ruins, and then we learn from another source that it wasn't a covered up object being taken out at all, but a triage tent being brought in, we know right away it's the conspiracy theorist's credibility that is suspect.

More disinformation. AE911T has architects and engineers who are manually verified before their names are added to the list. Which also means their names, degrees, and areas of study are also public and anybody, even you, can verify that information yourself.

Yes, I did look at their names in this list, in addition to a quick blurb they left in their profiles. I can see right away that you're only proving I'm right- these people ARE getting all their information from these damned fool web sites. Witness the following-


"Too many questions unanswered. Why did eye witnesses say they saw a cargo plane? " -Andus H. Brandt

"It is impossible for the lightest 'upper' part of a building to plow through the strongest 'lower' section through the force of gravity alone." -John C. Link

"This has always seemed strange to me, along with the Pentagon attack where no photographs actually show penetration by an airplane." -Michael B. Coleman

Now, how is it that *I* know that a c-130 cargo plane was ordered to follow AA77 and report what it was doing, and these people didn't? How is it that *I* knew the floors in the WTC were held up by the inner core and the outer perimeter so there is no "lightest upper part" or "stronger lower part"- all the floors were exactly the same as all the other floors- and these people didn't? Oh, and why are these people supporting the "it wasn't a jet liner that hit the Pentagon" conspiracy theory when *you* yourself said this was nonsense?

I'll tell you why- these people are NOT basing their opinion on any professional experience, but on the conspiracy rubbish that others are feeding them. I can see right away this is what's happening becuase a good 25% of them repeat the exact same slogans these conspiracy web sites do I.E. "symmetric collapse" and "near freefall speeds", so unless all these separate people have some sort of hive mind and can communicate with each other telepathically, they're all just repeating the exact same material they all read.

Your denial disorder is keeping you from accepting the thousands of professionals in the 9/11 truth movement because you don't want to accept what a 9/11 conspiracy suggests. Just because you don't want to accept the evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, doesn't make any architect, engineer, scientist, or PhD, any less credible.

It doesn't make them any MORE credible either, if all they're doing is reading the exact same conspiracy web site rubbish that everyone else is reading, and more to the point, if they're able to be fooled by the rubbish these conspiracy web sites are putting out I.E. a cruise missile hit the Pentagon.

There is NO tangible evidence of any conspiracy. All you have is "witnesses heard explosions" innuendo, "traces of thermite" junk science, "we were set up to fail" quotations deliberately taken out of context, and a never ending chain of "it's all a coverup" circular logic, and I've seen nothing from you that says anything to the contrary.

Why don't we accept "no-planes", space beams, and the like? Because we critically analyze and research every claim for truthfulness.

But that doesn't make any sense becuase Judy Wood *did* critically analyze the evidence to arrive at her "energy beams from outer space" claims, and she doesn't simply have a PHD, she has a doctorate. Why then are you refuting her claims since, if I understand you correctly" we need to assume that claims coming from people with higher degrees have more credibility than their opponents?

You know the answer to that and so do I- a bone headed claim is still a boneheaded claim, regardless of the credentials of the person making the boneheaded claim. Saying that an occupied building can have CDs extensively planted in it withotu any of the occupants noticing anything is boneheaded indeed.

There was more than one explosion that happened in the lobby and basement levels that destroyed the lobby and basement levels, and well after the first and second plane had already impacted. Which means, not from jet fuel, even though jet fuel is not an explosive anyway.

THANK YOU! That reminds me of another point. The conspiracy theorists seem to cling to these tales of Thermite as the reason for the buildings collapse, but the problem for you is that thermite isn't an explosive either! It's just a compound that burns really really hot, and would *not* have caused these explosions the witnesses heard. I'm sure you've seen the same videos I've seen of thermite in action.

Since your own elaborate explanation still doesn't fully explain what happened, what did?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right then, does that mean you *have* read the 9/11 commission report? Good, so you'll be able to answer this question- when NYPD helicopters flying eye level to the impact areas of the WTC reported seeing the support beams glowing red fromthe fires and looked as if they were about to collapse, it clearly contradicts your claims the fires weren't hoit enough to damage the building supports, so how is this false?

This is why these things get all muddled. What temperatures are the fires recorded of both reaching and sustaining for any length of time? How hot does that steel need to be in order to glow red hot and become weak?

. I can see right away this is what's happening becuase a good 25% of them repeat the exact same slogans these conspiracy web sites do I.E. "symmetric collapse" and "near freefall speeds",

Give me at least two other ways to express "symmetric collapse" and "near free fall speed." If they are just overused slogans, there should be a ton of good ways to express them right?

Did it ever occur to you that the problem with your having so much difficulty convincing anyone of anything isn't with us, but rather, the problem is actually with you?

oh god "the problem is you, we're correct" answer is stupid

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
THANK YOU! That reminds me of another point. The conspiracy theorists seem to cling to these tales of Thermite as the reason for the buildings collapse, but the problem for you is that thermite isn't an explosive either!

I don't have time to respond to your entire post at this time, but wanted to comment on the above quote.

It's not a problem for me because I know that thermite isn't an explosive. It's an incendiary. I've also said time and time again that the towers were not brought down with thermite and that conventional explosives were used. I've also said that anyone claiming that thermite only was used to bring the towers down, doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

If thermite was used, in my opinion it would've only been used in the impact areas to simulate the collapse initiation from intense fires.

reply to post by rygi23


I think I see what you're saying. Many people have so much trouble entertaining the idea because they think we are talking about the same people that obsessed over Bill Clinton getting oral, and not our top echelons of military and intelligence business, which obsess over war, death, and making money off of it, right?


reply to post by GoodOlDave


Your first post on this thread consisted of constructing a straw-man out of your favorite "truther" stereotypes and then spending 4 paragraphs or so ranting about this stereotype that does not actually fit most (if any) of us here. If I asked you whether or not you believed in sticking to logical discussion here, what would you say?

[edit on 21-9-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Lillydale
This is why these things get all muddled. What temperatures are the fires recorded of both reaching and sustaining for any length of time? How hot does that steel need to be in order to glow red hot and become weak?

According to MIT materials engineer thomas Eagar, structural steel begins to soften around 800F and loses half its strength at 1200F. I doubt there was any actual measurements of the temperatures of the WTC fire, but it is known that typical residential fires are around 800F and above, depending on the material burning. Aluminum for example burns at around 7000F

. Give me at least two other ways to express "symmetric collapse" and "near free fall speed." If they are just overused slogans, there should be a ton of good ways to express them right?

1) fell straight down, and

2) collapsed abnormally fast

Not that it matters, since all of these people are posting on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 site, so it's blatantly obvious they're all just mindlessly repeating the material they got from that site, rather than from any professional analysis on their own.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

It's not a problem for me because I know that thermite isn't an explosive. It's an incendiary. I've also said time and time again that the towers were not brought down with thermite and that conventional explosives were used. I've also said that anyone claiming that thermite only was used to bring the towers down, doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

If thermite was used, in my opinion it would've only been used in the impact areas to simulate the collapse initiation from intense fires.

So if that's the case you're only swapping one set of insurmountable obstacles for another. Since you claim you've done your research, you'll no doubt know just how much work goes into controlled demolitions- cutting the steel beams 90% so that the explosives will break the remaining 10%, wiring the explosives and linkign them together so that they'll go off in a carefully controlled pattern, and so on.

Presuming one hour of work per column, 39 columns per floor, 110 floors, with two towers, that comes out to some 8600 man hours to do. It would take anywhere between 8600 people all descending on the two towers at once and setting it up in one hour, to one person doing everything in about a year, both of which would have been immediately/eventually noticed by the tens of thousands of tenants, security guards, inspectors, etc in the buildings. That doesn't even count how many tons of explosives it would require to even do this, nor even how they managed to get so many tons of explosives on location without anyone noticing (particularly the full time complement of bomb dogs they had) to begin with. The logistics simply don't add up.

You still can't get past the fact these were occupied buildings, and if you can't get past that, you have nothing.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Your first post on this thread consisted of constructing a straw-man out of your favorite "truther" stereotypes and then spending 4 paragraphs or so ranting about this stereotype that does not actually fit most (if any) of us here. If I asked you whether or not you believed in sticking to logical discussion here, what would you say?

What the heck do you mean, "strawman argument"? Are you actually denying that the truthers are all but getting into fightfights with each other over what the "real" conspiracy actually is (I.E. thermite vs controlled demolitions vs lasers from outer space, etc)? Are you actually denying that the truther movement is attracting a lot of crackpots (I.E. the planes hitting the towers were really holograms?) Are you actually denying that most of the claims don't even make a lick of sense to begin with (I.E. they created a fake crash site in Shanksville to fool us and then turned around and covered up the fake crash site in order to fool us)?

You really ought to be reading what your fellow truthers are posting, here, friend. Once you do, you'll notice that I'm not the one you need to be asking to stick to logical discussions, here.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
What the heck do you mean, "strawman argument"? Are you actually denying that the truthers are all but getting into fightfights with each other over what the "real" conspiracy actually is (I.E. thermite vs controlled demolitions vs lasers from outer space, etc)?

Yes, because the one who seems most obsessed with lasers from space here is you, unless I am missing someone else who is posting about it, but that STILL isn't all of us!

A stereotype is a stereotype is a gross and inaccurate generalization. If every time you responded to someone, you kept it to what they were specifically saying themselves, ie an individual thing, and did not feel the need to lump us all together into some kind of mass degenerative group, that one be one thing. But constantly trying to lump us all together to dismiss us at once based on your favorite things to insult, that is intellectually dishonest.

I have no "fellow truthers" because I'm not a "truther" myself. "Truther" is just an easy handle for simple-minded people who can't rationalize why so many INDIVIDUALS would have INDIVIDUAL concerns. Look around you at who is calling us truthers; is it me, or is it you? Why can't you address us individually, without having to evoke illogical stereotypes to pad your posts?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Yes, because the one who seems most obsessed with lasers from space here is you, unless I am missing someone else who is posting about it, but that STILL isn't all of us!

I'm not obsessed with it, I'm merely using it as a sterling example for how supposedly solid research by people with impeccable credentials can still lead others down rat holes. Do a Google search on Dr. judy Wood, the person who concocted the "energy beams from outer space" claim to begin with. She's so much in love with this idea, she actually sued NIST on the grounds their report was a ruse to cover up energy beams from outer space. Now THAT is an obsession.

I learned that very information from the people posting here, thus, it is not a stereotype to mention that people on these boards do in fact subscribe to it.

A stereotype is a stereotype is a gross and inaccurate generalization. If every time you responded to someone, you kept it to what they were specifically saying themselves, ie an individual thing, and did not feel the need to lump us all together into some kind of mass degenerative group, that one be one thing. But constantly trying to lump us all together to dismiss us at once based on your favorite things to insult, that is intellectually dishonest.

But then that's the problem, isn't it? You're all but admitting you can't be lumped together becuase you all can't even agree amongst yourselves as to what the conspiracy actually is. Just as I got finished arguing with one guy who swears on a stack of bibles the collapse was thermite, another guy comes along and swears on a stack of bibles that the Thermite people don't know what they're talkign about and that the towers were brought down by explosives. Then, someone else comes along and accuses me of being a goosestepping lacky for not understnding that it wasn't even jet liners that hit the towers, but air force bombers painted to look like jet liners. The only thing that can be said that everyone does is that everyoen says they're right, and everyone else is wrong. Of course.

How then, can you expect to convince us of anything when your side can't even be convinced of any particular alternative scenario yourselves? I don't have to tell you that you all can't be right. For one thing. the Jewish World Order would be miffed to learn that the Masons are horning in on their turf, and for another, the people planting those controlled demolitions would run for their lives once they found out someone was bringing in a nuke into the basement.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I'm not obsessed with it, I'm merely using it as a sterling example for how supposedly solid research by people with impeccable credentials can still lead others down rat holes. Do a Google search on Dr. judy Wood, the person who concocted the "energy beams from outer space" claim to begin with. She's so much in love with this idea, she actually sued NIST on the grounds their report was a ruse to cover up energy beams from outer space. Now THAT is an obsession.

And it also has absolutely nothing to do with anything I personally believe or am posting about, but you are posting about it. You see? This is where the illogical part comes in. You are bringing something to the discussion that is totally irrelevant.

Associating me, with Judy Wood, is a fallacy. And intellectually dishonest.

Associating me with any other people with questions about 9/11 is a fallacy. Since I don't consider myself as part of some organization, I don't give a rat's ass what anybody else thinks.

Must you really be this thick-headed?

Originally posted by bsbray11
And it also has absolutely nothing to do with anything I personally believe or am posting about, but you are posting about it. You see? This is where the illogical part comes in. You are bringing something to the discussion that is totally irrelevant.

..to which I will say...again...that you conspiracy people DON'T believe in any single explanation, but rather, you all believe in your own individual explanations, for the 9/11 attack. Some people think it's controlled demolitions, others think it's energy beams from outer space, still others think it's the Jewish World order, etc etc etc. If I'm assuming you're believing in one scenario or another that you really don't, my apologies, but you do have to understand that to keep track of what all the people posting here individually believe, I'm going to start needing a score card.

Without meaning to you actually wound up illustrating something very profound- it seems to be less of a case that there's any actual conspiracy, otherwise there'd be blatant evidence definitively pointing in one specific direction which noone among the conspiracy movement could deny, and more of a case that these conspiracies are akin to a Rorschach test, where people are perceiving the 9/11 attack through their own personal angsts. Thus, people with a beef against the Jews are going to think it's the work of the Jewish World order, anti-establishment mentalities with a beef against the gov't will see it being the work of the military industrial complex, and the fringe wackos who take the Da Vinci Code too seriously will insist it's the work of secret Satan worshipping cults...and no, I'm NOT making that last one up. I actually swapped posts with two of those people.

So let me get my notebook out and create a new entry for you- which specific conspiracy scenario is it that you subscribe to, exactly?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
According to MIT materials engineer thomas Eagar, structural steel begins to soften around 800F and loses half its strength at 1200F. I doubt there was any actual measurements of the temperatures of the WTC fire, but it is known that typical residential fires are around 800F and above, depending on the material burning. Aluminum for example burns at around 7000F

Well, actually there WAS a temperature reading done with a FLIR camera, and the fires measured around 220 degrees F. Let us not forget this thread:

9/11 FLIR Infrared Camera proves NIST and 9/11 Commission Lies

So yes there is evidence that those fires were not anywhere near hot enough to weaken the steel on their own.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
..to which I will say...again...that you conspiracy people DON'T believe in any single explanation, but rather, you all believe in your own individual explanations

No, you are still trying to mis-characterize me as a group. My view is that the government reports do not make a lot of sense to me, and don't answer all my questions, and I still have many unanswered questions that have yet to be addressed. And those are based on technical principles that I would love to discuss, and not about gut feelings or trusting Alex Jones. I don't just "believe in my own explanation," because I don't have a good explanation for everything that happened, none of us here do, and that is my only point!

Some think this, some think that, what are you talking about? Why is it impossible for you to understand that I am an individual? THAT'S WHY EVERYONE THINKS SOMETHING DIFFERENT!

So let me get my notebook out and create a new entry for you- which specific conspiracy scenario is it that you subscribe to, exactly?

I don't have any subscriptions, sorry. I just have a bucket of questions that nobody, including you, can answer, and I just happen to be one of many different and diverse people who are unsatisfied with the investigations so far.

Your attitude is the intellectual equivalent of racism or some other kind of bigotry, because you can't help but automatically slap anyone who doesn't agree with you with a prejudiced label. You cannot make a fair logical analysis of anything I say so long as you are thinking in the back of your head that I'm the same as Judy Wood. When I am not. How many times will you make me repeat this until you allow it to sink into your gray matter?

[edit on 22-9-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by Seventh


That's all true.

reply to post by Seventh


That's all true.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
According to MIT materials engineer thomas Eagar, structural steel begins to soften around 800F and loses half its strength at 1200F. I doubt there was any actual measurements of the temperatures of the WTC fire, but it is known that typical residential fires are around 800F and above, depending on the material burning. Aluminum for example burns at around 7000F

No. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that these conditions existed nowhere inside the building. Not according to fire fighters, not according to FLIR cam, and not according to the people standing in the hole waving.

. Give me at least two other ways to express "symmetric collapse" and "near free fall speed." If they are just overused slogans, there should be a ton of good ways to express them right?

1) fell straight down, and

2) collapsed abnormally fast

Not an English major are you? Neither one of those works, sorry. Go look up symmetry and then come back and see if you can try again. Until then you pretty must just admitted that you think truthers have talking points because they all keep using one word you do not know because there really are no other words for it and it is essentially what is wrong with all of the collapses. Get a friend to help.

Not that it matters, since all of these people are posting on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 site, so it's blatantly obvious they're all just mindlessly repeating the material they got from that site, rather than from any professional analysis on their own.

Uh huh. More of your opinion with nothing to base it on. Just because you think things, does not mean they are. You cannot wish the bad people into the cornfield anymore. Sorry.