911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

Originally posted by bsbray11
911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

I am asking you where your evidence is that these explosions were caused by anything other than explosives/bombs,

This thread is about the OS, not stupid conspiracy theories about explosives or bombs, which there is zero evidence for!

How about supplying your "evidence" that there were bombs or explosives? Not your opinion, but evidence as per the thread title!

But all the "truthers" have is opinions, not facts!

[edit on 8/2/10 by dereks]

Originally posted by dereks
This thread is about the OS, not stupid conspiracy theories about explosives or bombs, which there is zero evidence for!

It's about PROVING the "official story," not just general chit-chat about it.

That's why I'm asking you to put up or shut up with your convictions about what these explosions could or could not have been.

How about supplying your "evidence" that there were bombs or explosives? Not your opinion, but evidence as per the thread title!

I take you don't comprehend at all what the OP is actually about.

It's okay, I realize how hard it must be for you to turn your criticism to your own beliefs.

I have asked twice in this thread alone for people to point out the explosions at where the collapse started.

None of you are blind. You ALL see the collapse starting. NONE of you see any type of detonation. Admit it.

reply to post by ImAPepper


I will admit the explosives are inside the building, not on the outside.

Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Sean48


I will admit the explosives are inside the building, not on the outside.

Prove me wrong.

Watch the video again. Why do you not see any explosion where the collapse initiates from?

Oh, and read the OP title again. I am not here to prove a negative, YOU are here to state facts. Now hurry along....prove there were bombs "in" the buildings.

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Oh, and read the OP title again. I am not here to prove a negative, YOU are here to state facts. Now hurry along....prove there were bombs "in" the buildings.

I dont hurry for my wife, you stand no chance of that happening.

It is your question, I answered it . Case closed. Explosion's inside.

Originally posted by ImAPepper
I have asked twice in this thread alone for people to point out the explosions at where the collapse started.

So you're answering my question with another (completely unrelated) question?

If you can't answer my question just say so, and admit you don't know what was causing these explosions. Then we can talk about what you're asking.

What caused this explosion, for example? And what is your evidence for that?

None of you are blind. You ALL see the collapse starting. NONE of you see any type of detonation. Admit it.

What I see is a loss of structural integrity (caused by the core structure being first destroyed, which would naturally cause the exterior columns to begin folding in on themselves) followed by the building beginning to explode outwards in all directions. I don't understand how you could miss such blatant expulsions of material in every direction, which was literally what the "collapses" consisted of. I would love to talk about this more but first I want you to address the question I've been asking for several pages now.


If you aren't going to answer my question, when it's relevant to the OP, and yours aren't, why should I answer any of yours?

[edit on 8-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by ImAPepper
I asked YOU to point out the explosions at the onset of collapse. That is why I posted the video. Don't feel bad, you are not alone. Not a soul has been able to.

Sorry but i have to believe the first responders and not you or the media.

reply to post by REMISNE

Sorry but i have to believe the first responders and not you or the media.

No wait a minute - you "believe" the first responders? I thought they needed "proof" otherwise they are lying, correct? That's your standard, right? Don't they need to show you their reports to prove they were there, how about timecards?

Love these shifting standards.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

You know this thread is about you proving YOUR beliefs about what happened on 9/11, right?

The thread is about the "911 OS debate" not about proving things to your satisfaction. In case you missed it, debates are usually more than one sided.
You've been threatening to bring your evidence forward. I'm sure it is a load of facts that you have been sitting on all this time, so why don't you show us the compelling evidence?

reply to post by Sean48


Explosions and controlled demolitions are not the same. Case reopened.

Originally posted by hooper
No wait a minute - you "believe" the first responders? I thought they needed "proof" otherwise they are lying, correct? That's your standard, right? Don't they need to show you their reports to prove they were there, how about timecards?

I have seen thier reports. I have not seen any reports to debate them or suport the official story.



[edit on 9-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
No wait a minute - you "believe" the first responders? I thought they needed "proof" otherwise they are lying, correct? That's your standard, right? Don't they need to show you their reports to prove they were there, how about timecards?

I have seen thier reports. I have not seen any reports to debate them or suport the official story.



[edit on 9-2-2010 by REMISNE]

Really? You've seen the written reports of all the first responders? Where did you get them? Can you post the copies?

Originally posted by hooper
Really? You've seen the written reports of all the first responders? Where did you get them? Can you post the copies?

I have seen the reports on several different sources.

911reports.wordpress.com... -breathe%E2%80%9D/

Thier are interviews on youtube and other sites.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by REMISNE


No written reports from firefighters. Youtube videos??? I thought that unless there was a written report to back it up (Shanksville and the FDR) it was lies???

Originally posted by hooper
No written reports from firefighters. Youtube videos??? I thought that unless there was a written report to back it up (Shanksville and the FDR) it was lies???

Thanks again for proving you will not admit or accept facts and evidence shown.

reply to post by REMISNE


Soon as you show them - written reports, proper sources, etc. Not 911 conspiracy websites.

C'mon, again you've been caught making absolute statements without anything to back them up and then later you will throw around all your self-righteous incredulity when someone asks YOU to look at a youtube video as "proof".

Originally posted by bsbray11

You're telling me that you CAN prove a negative, that you KNOW they WEREN'T explosives. So put up or shut up! If you can't prove the negative then STOP SAYING YOU CAN.

I have listened to all available videos. None have the telltales that explosives used in demolitions have. I have seen zero effort on the part of the TM to try and prove this, other than faked audio and personal incredulity.

It is a fact that these telltales would be heard by everyone there, due to their unique characteristics, without exception. This isn't the case.

It is a fact that out of all the professionals working the piles and at Fresh Kills, including the firefighters that lost family on 9/11, none have come forward to state that they saw steel that looked to have been cut by thermxte or cutter charges.

After a preponderance of multiple lines of evidence (more than just the cited above), it becomes clear to any rational person that there were zero explosives capable of cutting steel used on 9/11.

Only the irrational question this by using irrational levels of evidence standards. It is a psychological defense mechanism used by the mentally weak.

Where do you stand?

Do you agree that the multiple lines of evidence point to zero explosives, or are your standards irrational, but are unable to recognize it as such due to impairment?

Originally posted by pteridine
The thread is about the "911 OS debate" not about proving things to your satisfaction. In case you missed it, debates are usually more than one sided.

Fine, you STILL have no excuse for constantly ignoring my question while giving me tons of your own.

Do you know what was causing the explosions? Yes or no?

You already said "no" but you sure as hell didn't act like you meant it. Prove what was causing them or FACE THE FACT that you don't know, you have no evidence, you are relying on nothing but gut feelings.

When you realize and admit you can't debunk the idea that they were actually caused by explosives/bombs, then maybe we can move on.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I have listened to all available videos. None have the telltales that explosives used in demolitions have.

This must be the third time you've asserted this opinion but you still have yet to justify it with something objective.

Still waiting.

If you're going to claim it couldn't have been an explosive/bomb then I want you to PROVE IT, no different of a standard than you would require of me. If through all these discussions you think I actually give a damn what your personal opinion is then you need to deflate your ego a little more.

Do you agree that the multiple lines of evidence point to zero explosives, or are your standards irrational

That's not a loaded question at all.

If you have more than one piece of evidence they weren't caused by explosives, then you would actually be able to post at least ONE of them wouldn't you?

Not just opinions and bickering?

Do you know the difference?