Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?

reply to post by bsbray11


I really don't know what the big deal is. There is well over 100,000,000 Americans who want the truth and want Justice. If the official story is so air tight, so solid, so un-debunkable, whats there to be afraid of?

It will once and for all settle the questions and lead to the truth.

Cheers-
Phil

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
I really don't know what the big deal is. There is well over 100,000,000 Americans who want the truth and want Justice. If the official story is so air tight, so solid, so un-debunkable, whats there to be afraid of?

It will once and for all settle the questions and lead to the truth.

Exactly, why can't we get information through even filing FOIA requests? If there is nothing wrong with the information we should be able to have acess to it.

Originally posted by superluminal11
Like I said in an earlier post. Your individualism will continue to defeat you while the power in the colective and brotherly harmony will elude you daily.

Its so sad how people want to live in a fantasy world and jsut believe what thay are told and never question what is going on around them.

Why would poeple disgrace those that died that day by spreading the lies of the media and not caring enough to find the truth?

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

I have read it Mr. Thomas, and some parts I've read quite a few times. But the simple act of me reading the NIST report has nothing to do with your unsupported claim that "NIST showed how" it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable. I really am interested in how and why you can claim "NIST showed how"? I believe this is a perfectly reasonable request.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by NIcon]

So you are saying NIST decided it could not conclude how and why the towers collapsed.

That's an interesting take.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by NIcon

 

I would be interested to see jthomas back up his claim as well.

What claim would that be?



[edit on 7-4-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
reply to post by bsbray11

 

I really don't know what the big deal is. There is well over 100,000,000 Americans who want the truth and want Justice.

That is not justification for a new investigation.

If the official story is so air tight, so solid, so un-debunkable, whats there to be afraid of?

Afraid? Since the investigations have not been debunked, why on earth would there be a need for another one?

It will once and for all settle the questions and lead to the truth.

For that to happen, you need to establish that your "questions" are indeed valid questions, that you can factually refute the evidence, methodology, and investigations already done, and that you can demonstrate that we do not already have the truth.

Despite protestations to the contrary, the burden is on your shoulders to do that. The notion that claiming you have questions, that you don't have the "truth", that "9/11 was an inside job", and that you demand to have your way will never cut the mustard.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

I have read it Mr. Thomas, and some parts I've read quite a few times. But the simple act of me reading the NIST report has nothing to do with your unsupported claim that "NIST showed how" it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable. I really am interested in how and why you can claim "NIST showed how"? I believe this is a perfectly reasonable request.

So you are saying NIST decided it could not conclude how and why the towers collapsed.

No.

He is asking you to demonstrate your claim that "NIST showed how" the collapses were possible.

Everyone here knows you will never be able to do it though. You never are. Your next post will bring the proof of this.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by jthomas

No, Mr. Thomas, I'm not saying anything at all, I'm just asking for you to support claims you make. But I will expand on my last post and say I have read the report and did not see a section labeled "Supporting Evidence for ATS member jthomas' future claim of 'NIST showed how'"

Since you made the unsupported claim that "NIST showed how" it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable, and when I asked you to support that claim, you told me to read the report. I could only conclude that perhaps there may be a section in the NIST report with the above heading. I didn't see it when I read the report, did they perchance release a new report at your request to include this section? Is that why you told me to read the report?

But anyway if you could please show the evidence of your still unsupported claim of "NIST showed how," we can move along and discuss your actual supporting information and if it is either strong enough to not warrant a new investigation or if it is weak enough to warrant a new investigation.



[edit on 7-4-2010 by NIcon]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas

So you are saying NIST decided it could not conclude how and why the towers collapsed.

No.

He is asking you to demonstrate your claim that "NIST showed how" the collapses were possible.

I see nothing to invalidate the investigations. You refuse to tell us.

What did NIST demonstrate? You have the report. Tell us how its evidence and conclusions are wrong. How do you expect to convince anyone if you keep refusing to tell us?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
He is asking you to demonstrate your claim that "NIST showed how" the collapses were possible.

I see nothing to invalidate the investigations. You refuse to tell us.

You seem to have a comprehension problem with what it means to demonstrate your claims.

Demonstrating your claims does not mean I have to prove anything to you.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Phil Jayhan
I really don't know what the big deal is. There is well over 100,000,000 Americans who want the truth and want Justice.

That is not justification for a new investigation.

jthomas, an internet nobody, thinks he can tell 100,000,000 Americans, about 1/3 of the entire population, that they aren't entitled to a new investigation.

Tell us how an why. Surely, you can tell us that, can't you?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
He is asking you to demonstrate your claim that "NIST showed how" the collapses were possible.

I see nothing to invalidate the investigations. You refuse to tell us.

Demonstrating your claims does not mean I have to prove anything to you.

No you don't have to prove anything to me or anybody. All the more reason for you not to make claims you refuse to support.

Originally posted by jthomas
No you don't have to prove anything to me or anybody. All the more reason for you not to make claims you refuse to support.

You were the one who claimed NIST proved the collapses were possible, and two of us are asking you to demonstrate this. Anyone following these posts back up will be able to show this.

You have been unable to support your claim.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
jthomas, an internet nobody, thinks he can tell 100,000,000 Americans, about 1/3 of the entire population, that they aren't entitled to a new investigation.

Tell us how an why. Surely, you can tell us that, can't you?

Tell us how and why you can think that? Nobody knows the answer to that but you man.

I would say it's probably because you are not American and don't understand this country.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by bsbray11]

Mod Note:

Y'know the thread was going so well for the first few pages... Then you all, and I said all decided to let the personalities into it again.

Let's all take a deep breathe and start discussing the issue, with out the personal asides.

You did it for several pages, so I know you can do it now, too.

Originally posted by jthomas

So you are saying NIST decided it could not conclude how and why the towers collapsed.

That's an interesting take.

Regardless of what they "decided" they have not scientifically or even logically explained how the collapses were possible without explosives or some other unknown variable.

As of now there is no reason (based on evidence) to think that it is physically possible for what was observed to have happened without some other factor.

Science is not based on opinion, claims must be supported by concrete evidence.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

No, Mr. Thomas, I'm not saying anything at all, ...

Incorrect. You do not believe, "...it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable."

Since you made the unsupported claim that "NIST showed how" it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable, and when I asked you to support that claim, you told me to read the report.

It is only your claim that the towers could not come down "without explosives or some other variable."

I could only conclude that perhaps there may be a section in the NIST report with the above heading. I didn't see it when I read the report, did they perchance release a new report at your request to include this section? Is that why you told me to read the report?

Why should anything be included based on your claim about explosives? Support your contention.

But anyway if you could please show the evidence of your still unsupported claim of "NIST showed how," we can move along and discuss your actual supporting information and if it is either strong enough to not warrant a new investigation or if it is weak enough to warrant a new investigation.

I am satisfied that the collapse mechanism as explained by NIST of all three towers is valid, not refuted, and does not require explosives to explain it.

If you can explain why "explosives" need to be included, let us know.



[edit on 7-4-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by WWu777
Hi all,
Last week, one of my friends who knows a lot about conspiracies said that since those behind 9/11 own the system, you can never use the system to beat them. Therefore a new 9/11 investigation panel cannot accomplish anything. So, he said, it's best to just enjoy your life and forget about this.

Could he be right?

I mean, back in 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations reopened the JFK case and concluded that "President Kennedy was probably killed by a conspiracy" yet they could do nothing about it.

Wouldn't a reopening of 9/11 result in the same?

Also, when it was discovered and admitted that the Gulf of Tonkin incident that started the Vietnam War was a fraud, no one was arrested or prosecuted for it, even though it led to the deaths of 60,000 American troops and millions of Vietnamese. Why?

Any thoughts?

So if you had a 'real report' (governmental oxymoron I know) showing that your own government killed thousands of innocent people in NY, then hit their own building with a missile to allow the same said terrorists to go on and kill 1,000,000+ Iraq’s etc etc etc . You think that it wouldn't serve any real purpose to show that the only 'terrorists' are the USA army/government in this context? Way to go US brainwashing system - it works!