911, Non-Believers of OS Can We Agree?

Originally posted by REMISNE
I have shown facts and evidence that show resonable doubt in the official story. This evidence would hold up in court.

That may be true for other threads, I don't know. All I know is that the facts you're posting in THIS thread do not contradict anything I've posted here. What I posted here is a floor by floor list of all tenants in the towers, showing WTC 1 and 2 were in fact heavily occupied and chock full of eyewitnesses. If your "evidence to doubt the official story" can't get past that, then it can't go anywhere.

Also please be mature enough to read my post, i never stated anything about explosives.

This is a really poor excuse you're using to extract yourself out of a losing argument, dude. You sided in with a poster who said (and I quote) "They had the time and the access" to plant controlled demolitions. If you genuinely had no idea you were siding in with the controlled demolitions bunch then you have a heck of a lot of gall to be chiding others for not reading your posts, when the faux pas is really the other way around.

I think this thread has unfortunately as so often these 911 threads do descended into a mish mash of arguments and has strayed far from what the OP desired ? A coming together of like minds to agree on a course united in finding the exact truth of what really happened that day ! I hope the OP doesnt mind me interjecting at this point to try and get the thread back on track ? Can we please get back on topic guys ? Thanks for reading. Peace and respects !

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This is a really poor excuse you're using to extract yourself out of a losing argument, dude. You sided in with a poster who said (and I quote) "They had the time and the access" to plant controlled demolitions.

So wrong again, all i did was post evidence of empty floors. Evidence that you refuse to accept or admit to which is very immature.

I never stated anything about explosives, people like you like to put words in peoples mouths to make themsleves look better, but it only makes you look very immature.

Lets look at some facts again. Please be mature enough to accept and admit to the facts shown.

www.usatoday.com...
Many floors in the two 110-floor buildings were not occupied. Twelve floors in each tower were dedicated to mechanical equipment and a giant lobby.

In addition, dozens of Asian investment firms in the World Trade Center had closed their offices or cut employment sharply because of the recession in Asia. Other offices were leased but empty or under renovation. The Atlantic Bank of New York had moved out of the 106th floor of the south tower in July but was still paying rent.






[edit on 4-2-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by impressme


I think you're on the right track here, Impressme..... in the attempt to coalesce those that disbelieve the OS into some sort of organization. For a brief period, in one of the NPT threads, you and I and others were on the same page, and I think the upshot of that was a general agreement amongst people on both "sides" that Lear's hologram notions were not supported by the majority of people on either side.

To get just some basic ideas mostly locked in amongst those you share ideas with (dangit, I'm dancing around trying to avoid the label "truther") would go a long way toward presenting a manner of filtering the most extreme and/or implausible ideas, and, as you noted, to hopefullly end up with more credible information.

Good luck.. Hope the effort is successful.

Originally posted by REMISNE

So wrong again, all i did was post evidence of empty floors. Evidence that you refuse to accept or admit to which is very immature.

I never stated anything about explosives, people like you like to put words in peoples mouths to make themsleves look better, but it only makes you look very immature.

You're one of those characters who likes to argue simply for the sake of arguing, aren't you? YOU...yes, YOU...responded to a question which did in fact involve controlled demolitions, becuase that's what *I* was responding to when I said there wasn't any time and there wasn't any access to plant them. If you didn't know this was the topic of the conversation you were butting into, then the fault is yours, not mine, my maturity level notwithstanding.

If all this bickering and bantering on your part has absolutely nothing to do with controlled demolitions, then what the flip is your point behind posting whether or not there were floors with no tenants? Do you even have a point?

Originally posted by REMISNE
I have shown facts and evidence that show resonable doubt in the official story. This evidence would hold up in court.

No you have not actually, and your "evidence" and so called "facts" would very quickly be laughed out of every court

I don't like using the word "believe" at all.

As far as I am concerned it means to accept something as true or false without sufficient evidence. Therefore belief is stupid by definition.

We KNOW that skyscrapers must hold themselves up. So we know that every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above therefore we know the designers had to figure out how much steel and how much concrete was to go on every level.

I have considered it to be IMPOSSIBLE for a normal airliner to have destroyed one of those buildings in that little time from since two weeks after 9/11. But my opinion is based on how the steel had to be distributed for the building to support itself and withstand the wind. I don't talk about what did destroy them only what could not have destroyed them.

But we need the distribution of mass, especially the steel, to analyze what would happen from the impact on. I went to one of Richard Gage's seminars in May of 2008. I asked him about the distribution of steel and concrete. He got a surprised look on his face and gave me a LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints. The Empire State Building was completed in 1931 and gravity has not changed since then. How much computing power should Gage and his buddies have at their disposal compared to 1931 or 1961?

When the plane hit the south tower at 550 mph the building deflected less than 16 inches. There had to be A LOT OF MASS to make that possible. So I find it really peculiar that lots of people are not demanding accurate distribution of steel and concrete information on those buildings but there are endless arguments about trivia. Like the amount of energy required to pulverize the concrete. We don't even have accurate info on the amount of concrete.

Try finding the total weight of a floor assembly, concrete plus pans plus trusses.

I showed a collapse would stop.

www.youtube.com...

I am still doing a sound track and combining it with Ryan Mackey's #3 Hardfire program where he talked about a model and got it wrong and yet had constantly geven me a hard time about demanding accurate data. My model isn't scaled but it can't be scaled without accurate data on the building.

www.youtube.com...

psik

Originally posted by dereks
No you have not actually, and your "evidence" and so called "facts" would very quickly be laughed out of every court

SO funny, if anything would be laughed out of court it would be the official story.

I have and will be getting government documets that would hold up in court.