911 OS Debate Facts, Bring sources, not Opinions

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by pteridine
What you call evidence others call speculation.

But i can show my evidence, others have a problem showing thiers.

I mean evidence that would hold up in court.

Like the "shoot down" NSA document?

Originally posted by hooper
Like the "shoot down" NSA document?

I have shown that it exist.

I have shown the FOIA request and the reponse.

i114.photobucket.com...

[edit on 1-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


You show something exist by showing the existing thing. Please show the thing. Otherwise you have no choice but to declare yourself.....well, you know.

Originally posted by hooper
You show something exist by showing the existing thing.

Thanks for admitting i have shown that the document exist.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You show something exist by showing the existing thing.

Thanks for admitting i have shown that the document exist.

No, you have shown that you have asked for the document, not that the document itself exist.

In fact, why don't you send an email to American Airlines and ask for the part numbers of the plane wreckage and an email to the FBI that ask for the numbers on the pieces they handled at the site. Then you can say you matched the two because you asked for them. There, conspiracy resolved.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
What you call evidence others call speculation.

Kind of like when there is evidence of numerous separate explosions through the morning, and you SPECULATE that it was all number of things other than actual explosives, right?

Or can you actually prove what was causing those explosions?


Nope, you are just speculating.

We've had proved to us, at extreme length, that anything that explodes is an explosive, including pressurised water.

So my answer is that explosives were present, and caused the explosions. But there weren't any bombs.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

So my answer is that explosives were present, and caused the explosions.

I agree

welcome to the truth

your my 2nd convert in 2 days

I've seen the light.

Now to indict Bush. And start knitting a noose for Swampfox.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I've seen the light.

Now to indict Bush. And start knitting a noose for Swampfox.

Swampy's aight, He's a patriot, who honor's country , flag over truth.

No need to string him for that , it's admirable.

I'm close to converting him too.

Hmm...threatening to kill me. Nice.

I was joking! I'm far from converted.

Apologies if you were offended.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by bsbray11
Or can you actually prove what was causing those explosions?


Nope, you are just speculating.

We've had proved to us, at extreme length, that anything that explodes is an explosive, including pressurised water.

So my answer is that explosives were present, and caused the explosions. But there weren't any bombs.

Wow, that really changes the entire argument.


So can you prove what exactly was causing the explosions?

Again, no.


Do you even have any proof that they WEREN'T bombs?

No.



See how you don't even like to admit this obvious fact, that we STILL don't know what was causing all of those explosions? No, I doubt you want to see your own shortcomings.

Do you understand the significance of being biased? I don't think so.

When enough people are aware of all of these unaddressed issues, as most people probably aren't even yet aware of all of the reports and other evidences of explosions in Manhattan that day (I see people claiming all the time 'there would have been explosions' ), this kind of stupidity will eventually have to come to an end. And by "this kind of stupidity" I explicitly mean pretending you know what was causing those explosions when you absolutely do not. A pre-schooler could understand the significance of such an issue. Psychological denial renders you back to being unable to step back and comprehend this situation objectively. I see this on a daily basis and it's more proof to me than anything that you lot really ARE in denial.

[edit on 1-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Back to the OP.


What evidence have ANY of you brought to the table to confirm any facet of the "official" account of events?


All I have seen this entire thread is defensive bickering like you are all backed into a corner and didn't have any substance for your case to begin with.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Sadly, its not the first time something like that has been posted on here. Although I think it is the first time it was meant as a joke.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Do you even have any proof that they WEREN'T bombs?

No.

Actually, there is proof that they weren't bombs.

Bombs, cutter charges, etc have characteristics, such as brissance, detonation velocities, and decibel levels, that are undeniable facts. These weren't in evidence on 9/11.

So they are ruled out positively by these facts.

And since these types of high explosives are needed to damage the buildings, and were absent, that is positive proof that there is no "inside job". And since it is a fact that anything else exploding, whether it be jet fuel deflagrations, or natural gas explosions, etc, could do zero damage to the steel, there is no need for further investigations either.

The only thing it would do is satisfy the curiousity about what they were, perhaps in the interest of public safety. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

Do you even have any proof that they WEREN'T bombs?

No.

Actually, there is proof that they weren't bombs.

Bombs, cutter charges, etc have characteristics, such as brissance, detonation velocities, and decibel levels, that are undeniable facts. These weren't in evidence on 9/11.

So they are ruled out positively by these facts.

And since these types of high explosives are needed to damage the buildings, and were absent, that is positive proof that there is no "inside job". And since it is a fact that anything else exploding, whether it be jet fuel deflagrations, or natural gas explosions, etc, could do zero damage to the steel, there is no need for further investigations either.

The only thing it would do is satisfy the curiousity about what they were, perhaps in the interest of public safety. Nothing more.

They haven't identified all the missing people yet , not enough DNA .

So what the hell are you talking about, evidence , lol.

Nice try , but please try harder , make it a challenge.

Originally posted by hooper
No, you have shown that you have asked for the document, not that the document itself exist.

If the document did not exist the NSA would not have repsonded stating they are sending it.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
No, you have shown that you have asked for the document, not that the document itself exist.

If the document did not exist the NSA would not have repsonded stating they are sending it.

They said they are sending materials "responsive to your request". They also said it going on two years ago. But since you made the claim without evidence in hand I have no other choice but to apply the REMISNE standard and declare you a......

Originally posted by hooper
They said they are sending materials "responsive to your request".

Yes, with the specific document i asked for.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
They said they are sending materials "responsive to your request".

Yes, with the specific document i asked for.

Again...

But since you made the claim without evidence in hand I have no other choice but to apply the REMISNE standard and declare you a......