Your goals for the 9/11-Truth Movement.

reply to post by mister.old.school


Study the frick'n material first!

Aside from the eyewitness testimonies and on the scene reports, what I gave you WAS physical evidence, some of which you can SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES!!!

What's wrong with you?

Quick question, and I don't mean here to imply a global conspiracy, but are you by chance a Mason?

reply to post by mister.old.school


I have already demonstrated twice that you have posted things which were illogical and not received a single response. In the first case you suggested to think it possible to sneak a bomb into a public building was "lunatic" even though just that happened at least twice in 1995 at OKC, and in the second case you demanded that which is not necessary to establish a case, another classic argumentative fallacy.

The problem is not whether or not there is evidence, but whether or not you want to see it.

Having at your disposal every logical fallacy, you could keep churning over posts like these indefinitely.

When you decide to take to sound arguments (in the technical sense, mind you), we could actually approach the heart of the issue, if you are even willing to do so. Until then, nothing will be resolved here. And so far you are 0-2 on using sound reasoning, just to let you know I've been keeping score.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Study the frick'n material first!

I have studied much more than shoddy Internet videos.

I gave you WAS physical evidence

You seem to misunderstand what exactly, "physical evidence", entails. It is, well, something physical you can hold in your hand such as undetonated demolitions or explosives residue. Internet videos speculating on what may have cause girders to eject up to 200 yards is not physic evidence.

One of the papers I gave you WAS regarding "undetonated demolitions or explosives residue" but nevermind..

No planer rebuttals, how nice..

I can see where you're coming from.

Btw, you never answered my question..?

Originally posted by bsbray11
In the first case you suggested to think it possible to sneak a bomb into a public building was "lunatic"

I did not.

I said doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results (other than consistent failure) is lunacy.

For a long-list of understandable reasons, the public and the media are not willing to accept the notion that the World Trade Center towers were wired for demolition. It's an exceedingly far-fetched concept that has not provided traction.

So why continue down a path that provides nothing but failure?

And so far you are 0-2 on using sound reasoning, just to let you know I've been keeping score.

My suggested strategy shift above is sound reasoning. Your emotional reaction to misunderstanding my prior post apparently clouded your judgement.

Moving over onto the War Games is a good idea I have to admit, and Able Danger revelations, but not some "limited hangout" either, as in they goofed and had an intelligence disconnect, that's bullshiit

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
One of the papers I gave you WAS regarding "undetonated demolitions or explosives residue" but nevermind..

It's my understanding that thermite is not necessarily an explosive or demolition material of sufficient energy to cause the sudden collapse of an entire building. And, that there can be thermitic residue remaining on steel girders as a result of the construction process (welding).

reply to post by mister.old.school


And the excessively high temperatures, what of that?

And what did you make of the north tower destruction video?

And the eyewitness tesimonies, as well as the first hand accounts at the scene?

Di you know the ground shook just before the south tower started it's plunge?

Also, what do you make of the fact that the buildings plummeted, in an erupting derbis fountain, from top to bottom to within a mere few seconds of the time of absolute free fall in nothing but air from the same height?

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by bsbray11
In the first case you suggested to think it possible to sneak a bomb into a public building was "lunatic"

I did not.

That is exactly what this implies:

Originally posted by mister.old.school
* bombs in the buildings
* and any other lunatic conjecture

Right there next to each other as the last two items, certainly the thought crossed my mind that by "any other" you were implying they are all "lunatic," but you know just as well as I that calling something "lunatic" is a cop-out of any real argument anyway.

And at any rate, bombs smuggled into at least one public building that was subsequently involved in a terrorist attack (whether foreign or domestic) is a historical fact.

For a long-list of understandable reasons, the public and the media are not willing to accept the notion that the World Trade Center towers were wired for demolition.

A few of them were very willing to entertain that very idea on the day of 9/11, including Dan Rather who started talking about what you would have to do, 'get to the underlying infrastructure' to paraphrase him, in order to rig these buildings with bombs/explosives. There were others who echoed his thoughts, but only for that day. And after that day, WTC7 collapsing would not be seen on mainstream television again, either, for months/years.

I am fairly positive Dan Rather and the rest did not actually carry out an investigation in the studio to determine whether or not their initial gut feelings that explosives/bombs were involved were justified. And if you are trying to tell me the media in this country is truly independent and concerned about the American people, instead of their corporate leaders and chasing stories that have money or some other vested interest/agenda behind them, I'm not sure who's leg you think you are pulling.

My suggested strategy shift above is sound reasoning. Your emotional reaction to misunderstanding my prior post apparently clouded your judgement.

My judgment has been "clouded" by something other than emotions, but I guess we'll see whether or not we get that far. I hope you won't start associating me with no-planers, too.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
...excessively high temperatures...
...north tower destruction video...
...eyewitness tesimonies...
...ground shook just before the south tower started..
...within a mere few seconds of the time of absolute free fall...

All points, among a myriad of others, that have failed to gain traction during the nearly seven years of the highly-fractured "9/11 Truth" movement.

Failure. Total failure.

You, we, they may repeat these points at the top of your lungs until your face is blue and your fingers go numb from oxygen deprivation, but it won't change the sorry fact that it has made no difference.

It may be true that demolitions assisted the fall of the buildings, but you/we/they have failed to prove it. For those who vehemently believe that there was a conspiracy behind the events, as do I, it is time to move beyond these foundering points and adopt a new strategy.

You're misunderstanding my rationale. I'm arguing against the effectiveness of the theories that have been used, not the potential actuality.

reply to post by mister.old.school


This is what you posted

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by talisman
Do you want a new investigation?

I want all of the "fringe" imbecilic theories removed from "9/11 Truth," along with the very clear rebuke that such mendacity should never have been allowed within the confines of a "9/11 Truth" movement or organization. This includes:
* nuclear devices
* space weapons
* pods on planes
* no planes
* TV fakery
* aliens
* bombs in the buildings
* and any other lunatic conjecture requiring the knowledge of more than 50 people.

I think what you're trying to say is that unless we can mount a full and complete investigation, that there is no hope in altering the public perception or the power of the myth in history, and I think that's false.

I also get the sense that you are angling for something which would set the stage for a "limited hangout". In short I don't think you are really WITH us, in pursuit of truth and the cause of justice.

You are something else I percieve, perhaps something very sinister.

reply to post by mister.old.school


And 20% of the American populace I wouldn't describe as "total failure".

Groups like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are now making HUGE progress as their number grows to and exceeds 1000 professional members.

But there should be more attention on War Games and why the military brass lied to the 9/11 Commission, why Zelikow was appointed to lead the work of the Commission, etc. etc.

So I kind of agree with you, but am leary about where you seem to be coming from both at the same time.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
And 20% of the American populace I wouldn't describe as "total failure".

The lack of accountability, such as someone in jail or hanged for treason, is what I call failure.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
All points, among a myriad of others, that have failed to gain traction during the nearly seven years of the highly-fractured "9/11 Truth" movement.

First of all, "we" would makes more sense to you if realized we are really a lot of un-organized individuals, not any type of organization, or at least Iam not a group or even part of one, adjust my views to fit with a certain group, etc. I think most of us here that you will argue with about this are the exact same in this regard, meaning we also disagree with each other on points, so to lump us all together and stereotype us so quickly is idiotic. We are individuals with individual questions.

Secondly, in the 7 years since 9/11, this has caught on more. So you're wrong on saying that it hasn't. You can just follow the polls through the years, unless scientific Zogby polls don't count, and you can go read what the specific questions were for yourself. The general trend is people are more and more unsatisfied with answers they've received as time goes on.

Hell, NIST's final WTC7 report didn't actually come out until last year, wasn't it? The Towers' report somewhere around 2005. So you know, we disorganized citizenry aren't too far behind the federal "experts" in figuring out what we know and what we don't for ourselves.

I can tell you right now that I do have questions that you can't answer, simply because you've only seen the same limited data I have, and just assume all good things happened in lack of the additional questions raised by some of that data, but no one ever gave me any money or access to any extra data or evidence to figure a damned thing out for myself. So you know you're barking up the wrong tree if you expect me to prove anything to the American people or anyone else; I am an American, and so are most of the rest of us, and just check the polls again if you're in doubt about our growing legitimacy. It was the federal government that got the money and evidence to do a report. They failed. And so here we are now. And you can either try to defend them, make up some answers of your own (if you have what it takes to support them), or just accept the fact that we both need more information for a definitive answer.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by bsbray11]