What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
NIST.

I believe Eager gets several things wrong.

So, we can count on you to tell your buddy GoodOleDave that his hero Eager has been refuted. Correct?

Sure thing.

Dave, Eager is wrong.

Originally posted by Nutter
What you posted has nothing to do with what I asked.

Actually, it does.

The TM won't believe anything that's pointed out to them. You must learn for yourself.
.
But since you aparently lack intellectual curiousity, you'll never investigate why I said that.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


What does the building being 95% air have anything to do with a symmetrical collapse? What does a building being 95% air have anything to do columns buckling all at the same time?

reply to post by rush969

Originally posted by impressme

So, you do agree that means Bush & Cheney.

No, I don´t. It means WHOM EVER IS RESPONSIBLE.
Could they be the ones? That´s what you want me to say, right?
Well, I don´t think so. I think they might be responsible of negligence to a certain point, but I believe that would be very hard to proove.

What you are implying is Bush & Cheney are above all laws and they should not be investigated for a orchestrated a false flag operation because “you think” they are innocent.

Why don’t you just demonstrate why Bush and Cheney are innocent, this is going to be good because, I can show with creditable sources were they are guilty of many things. I asked you the question “first”.

Here you want to be funny, how many pilots do you need to tell you that commercial airliners practically fly on their own after a pilot programs the onboard computers in the cockpit.

This has nothing to do with our discussion.

On the contrary, it does because you open the door. What I am trying to show you is how ridiculous you sound by saying you need thousands of pilots to say something is true than just a handful. This has everything to do with the Topic and you made the statement, so please answer the question and stop evading and dodging the question, thank you.

And I´ll tell you something else, many pilots and other proffessionals are supporting those theories in ignorance, because as many of them find out more facts about the attacks they will tend to stop supporting them theories. That has been my experience. I have seen the numbers in P4T for example, dwindling down in time.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by rush969]

Why don’t you show me how many pilots support the OS fairytale give me some creditable sources show me some numbers? All you are given me is your “opinion” now give me some facts to back your claim? And remember I ask you first.

If you can’t back, your claims then let us know that this is your opinion. I see a lot of OS supporters spout off their “opinions” and claim them as facts, so let’s see some facts?

Originally posted by rush969
Sorry double post.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme

Sorry double post.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
"First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. "

Explained.

This is what happens when someone who doesn't know physics to begin with, reads the opinion of a professor proven to be wrong on multiple points, and just accepts what they say as dogma.

First, the buildings were not 95% air by mass. By volume, maybe, but unfortunately, volume is not what was holding the buildings up.

Second, it does not follow that simply because a building is mostly air by volume that they can therefore implode into themselves, or else everything single building on Earth would be able to do this. Obviously there is more information to be had that Eager is not providing.

But again, Eager has been proven wrong on a number of points, like I said, even by NIST. He gauged the amount of fuel wrong, his collapse mechanism doesn't make sense and even NIST contradicted it, and now this shown above also demonstrates his idiocy. If any of you "skeptics" are really looking for someone just trying to cash in on the 9/11 phenomena to make their name well-known, it would have been Eager.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Second, it does not follow that simply because a building is mostly air by volume that they can therefore implode into themselves,

Very telling that you have used a strawman to represent Eager.

As expected though.....

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Very telling that you have used a strawman to represent Eager.

As expected though.....

Very telling that you would not elaborate on my mistake after having demonstrated already that you didn't understand what Eager was asserting in the first place.

Let us assume, if only for the sake of argument, that 9-11 was not an inside job. What practical difference does that assumption make in the long run? If the Bush fascist junta did not kill three thousand Americans in order to establish a fascist police-state, then it was guilty of criminal negligence in leaving all sorts of clues on the scene that would lead an intelligent person to conclude that 9-11 was an inside job. Beyond that, the use of which it made 9-11 was a treasonous destruction of the Constitution, which even strict constitutionalists are now forced to view as nothing more than just another ragged piece of paper blowing down the street towards the gutter. Bottom line: even if the Bush fascist junta did not cause 9-11 (which is a matter of dispute), what it did with 9-11 (which is not a matter of dispute) was even worse.

But all of this is merely for the sake of argument. I have been convinced, ever since I saw the South Tower fall in controlled demolition fashion on 9-11, that the Bush fascist junta did cause 9-11. But we will never know the truth about 9-11, any more than we will ever know the truth about the JFK assassination or about UFOs. Indeed, the Federal Government is using 9-11, just as it is using the other two issues, to fragment and to pulverize American culture, to help to contribute to our decline and fall. Which it is doing quite effectively, I think…


[edit on 15-11-2009 by joequinn]

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by downunderET
I'd just like to see Bush and Cheney in chains.

Finally! We have a winner! I was wondering how long it was going to take to get down to the truth of this entire matter. This issue has never been about 9-11. It is about anti-government or anti-establishmentarism.

Hmmm... if you were wondering how long it would take to get to the 'truth of this entire matter', after all these years, it seems that what you're accusing others of thinking has clearly been at the back of YOUR mind for all this time. What, you've just sat and waited all this time for someone to finally say it, before you jump up and yell 'A-ha!'

Seems like it might be the product of your imagination, not just that of others, no?

Rewey

I don't fully agree with or comprehend the OS story, but I'm not the type of an individual to just say that what transpired on 9/11 was an act conducted by our own government as I don't know if that's really true. After the towers fell, the government went ahead and encouraged everyone to go ahead and search under the rubble for any bodies or any clues by stating that the air was safe to breath. So volunteers, firefighters, police offices, etc... went ahead and did so. After wards, some of these people ended up with many respiratory issues, some even died. Now if the government would lie to us about the unsafe air, now this makes me ponder what else could they have lied to us about.

Originally posted by Nutter
What does the building being 95% air have anything to do with a symmetrical collapse?

Why do you claim that the building collapsed symmetrically?

As I recall, the TM "asks questions" about the conservation of angular momentum of the top part during 2's collapse.

That question implies that it wasn't symmetrical.

So please prove your claim.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
What exactly are 90,000 L gallons? Is it litres or gallons? It cannot be both.

In this sentence, you ask what the "L" is in 90,000 L. Not one paragraph Later, you say the max Load for a 767 is 90,000 liters . There's no flipping way you're going to tell me you can't figure out this is in liters. You certainly aren't stupid.

Dave, I think he's asking why the report says "90,000 L gallons", as in 90,000 litres gallons... Why does it use both metric and imperial together, particularly when they're so vastly different...

Rew

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Finally! We have a winner! I was wondering how long it was going to take to get down to the truth of this entire matter. This issue has never been about 9-11. It is about anti-government or anti-establishmentarism.

Anti-government is called "anarchism."

Punishing government officials who knowingly lied to us about this kind of event is pro-government, insofar as it is upholding common law.

I would wager you MEANT to say anti-Bush/Cheney. Ie try to turn this into a political partisan, "liberal" issue. Which it definitely is not. Though it is always refreshing to see pro-Bush sentiments here, just as it is pro-Obama sentiments. Makes me feel like I'm right in the heart of Nazi Germany. Nowhere else could people have such blind devotion to such atrocious leaders. Well, besides America, and the Soviet Union, and, communist China... and Imperial Japan... and... people never learn to stand up to their own "leaders," do they?

[edit on 15-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why do you claim that the building collapsed symmetrically?

As I recall, the TM "asks questions" about the conservation of angular momentum of the top part during 2's collapse.

That question implies that it wasn't symmetrical.

I can clarify the issue.

WTC1's upper block of structure that just started falling straight down through the lower building, didn't tilt outward, it just started dropping.

WTC2, on the other hand, being impacted lower down and having a larger structure above the impact point, first began tilting outward with an angular momentum. It reached a certain angle, and then a floor below this tilting suddenly blew out on all sides, the angular momentum momentarily came to a halt, and a vertical collapse ensued that was symmetrical insofar as it spewed debris radially, in all directions, just as WTC1's entire collapse did. So essentially there was one event that separated WTC2's initiation from WTC1's, and that's the significant tilting that WTC2 experienced before its vertical collapse began.

Originally posted by bsbray11
the angular momentum momentarily came to a halt,

Well, that's a new one. Never heard that before.

and a vertical collapse ensued that was symmetrical insofar as it spewed debris radially, in all directions,

So what's the beef then?

The top part falls asymmetrically, due to asymmetrical damage.

The bottom part - the collapse progression part - falls symmetrically, since it wasn't.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Well, that's a new one. Never heard that before.

So what's the beef then?

The top part falls asymmetrically, due to asymmetrical damage.

The bottom part - the collapse progression part - falls symmetrically, since it wasn't.

If you want to be that simplistic, be my guest. The top of WTC2 that was tilting, though, did not continue rotating outwards, as I said, it hesitated and then just sank straight down into the enormous dust/debris cloud that was WTC2 "collapsing."

Considering you fell for the 95% air bull just because Eager said it, there's no way in hell I'm going to try to argue anything more complicated than that with you. And it would take a really coordinated system of events to achieve and maintain the symmetry observed. Symmetry is a characteristic of order in physical systems, which is why I also find the claim that the global collapses too chaotic to model total BS. They just haven't found the right theory to produce those observations yet. But whatever, like I said, you can believe what you want, friend. You think you know it all already anyway.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by ReAlIzAtIoN
After the towers fell, the government went ahead and encouraged everyone to go ahead and search under the rubble for any bodies or any clues by stating that the air was safe to breath.

Actually, this is only true up to the point where the silver and gold was recovered. After that, they (whoever made the decision....Guilliani) went into a "scoop and dump" mode.

Just goes to show that the gold was much more valuable than finding the remains of the fallen.

A thread, aimed at sceptics, has resulted in truthers hijacking and posting ridiculous amounts of links.

my problem wasn't the theory, but the believers of it - most are extremely hostile and label you "one of them" for even contradicting the inside job conspiracy (which majority is based on pseudo-science)