Is there anything we can agree on in regards to 9/11?

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia

 

No I would not expect an explosion right before the tower collapses if it is indeed a collapse where explosives were not involved. That does not even make sense.

I think you have a serious misconception of the therm rational explanation. To you it is unthinkable the American goverment along with its allies would stage a false flag operation. Therefore anything that points away from the OS is an "irrational thought" in your mind ANNYTHING. So in your mind the official conspiracy theory is rational, because it has been delivered by unca sam and anything that points away from it is just crazy.

However the laws of physics do not change for anyone. The OS is the fantastic tale trying to explain never before never again events without revealing the tricks involved. But gradually eliminating the impossible you dig deeper to what might be the truth.

I gave you audio of explosions whitnesses of explosions, explained why we see a controlled demolition and not a collapse due to chance. Make of it what you want.

edit on 16-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Stop attacking ME. You have no idea how I came to my conclusions or what I believe. If you are really interested, I think the government is very much capable of committing 9/11, but I don't think they did it. They exploited it, definitely, but they didn't do it.

I explained all my points and you decided to hang onto a fringe idea that a rumbling when a building is collapsing must be evidence of a bomb. I do not appreciate your insinuations and assumptions about my ideas and character, and I am done with this thread.

reply to post by Varemia


Except the rumbling was an instant before the collapse and no rumbling during the collapse. Weeeeird. Yes you did and I explained why a controlled demolition by chance belongs in the realm of the fantastic. As many people did before me.

Can you see how you are grasping at straws? Are you realizing you are grasping at straws to make your weak argument? Do you understand how unlikely it is, that what you think occoured indeed occoured?

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia

Do you understand how unlikely it is, that what you think occurred indeed occurred?

but Steven Jones needs to be peer reveiwed...
ooooook!

I think that there is a third angle to this whole thing. Lets say that it WAS terrorists, however, perhaps they (the true terrorists) were FAR more organised than once previously thought, have MANY members and have collected a wide range of dangerous biological and possibly nuclear weapons. That is, they had people on the inside that planted explosives, dressed up as renovators etc.

reply to post by SystemResistor


Sure there is that possibility. The question would be the motive, other than "they hate our freedoms".

Originally posted by Danbones
Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia

 

Do you understand how unlikely it is, that what you think occurred indeed occurred?

but Steven Jones needs to be peer reveiwed...
ooooook!

edit on 16-12-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

Of course he needs to be peer reviewed and he was peer reviewed. The problem is with the whacky theories that have not been peer reviewed, such as the NIST report.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by budaruskie


The only way a controlled demolition is similar to 9/11 is because a building collapses. EVERY controlled demolition I have seen has serious differences: noise, speed, rubble spread, dust cloud, etc. They only look similar if you're a gullible idiot, truly.

if the gov wanted to demo the buildings and get away with it there not going to it in abvious way were theycould easily be caught out. They have technology we dont know about and wont know about it from years to come. So they are not goig to be exactly the same as other demolitions imo

reply to post by kaya82


But see, that's the problem with these theories. They rely on faith that the government secretly performed the acts completely under our noses. In other words, with no evidence at all to show that they were involved. So how is anything being posted here able to be considered evidence of CD? If it was so well covered up, then there should be no evidence at all, right? I mean, if I wanted to CD a building whilst trying to make it look like an accident, I'd probably use normal office material to create a completely innocent bomb and then take out only part of the building, coincidentally destroying any documents that I wanted erased. The straws that conspiracy theorists (*cough*, I mean truthers) grasp on about 9/11 are huge.

As opposed to relying on faith that events unfolded that have an insignificantly low degree of probability to have occoured? One of those events to have occoured borders on an (anti)miracle, several of those occoured.

I do not think you fully grasp what it means to believe in the OS. The use of explosives is a plausible possibility, at least many many times more likely than the version fed to us in the 911 report and the NIST report. On top of that mossad agents riding a van full of boom have been apprehendet.

Once you realize the likelyhood of the events to have unfolded the way they did in the NIST report, you will realize that giving it any credibility is an act of faith. You not only believe an (anti)miracle occoured, you believe several miracles occoured. You might as well believe Allah came down from the heavens and smashed the towers.

And I do not get what you mean by they cant hide it. How long has it been that people demand an indipendent investigation of 911? Not enemies of America, not Iranians, Americans and their allies.

reply to post by Cassius666


I agree that it is a possibility. The likelihood, however, is an opinion.

No it is not an opinion. Believing the NIST report or any version of it ammounts to an act of faith. I think you do not yet grasp what you are putting your money on.

Originally posted by Cassius666
No it is not an opinion. Believing the NIST report or any version of it ammounts to an act of faith. I think you do not yet grasp what you are putting your money on.

edit on 17-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

And perhaps you do not realize that it is a leap of faith as well to believe in absolutely unproven demolitions theories. It is opinion about which is more accurate. I don't take it on faith, I take it on logic and sense, and the official story makes the most sense to me. That's my opinion. Your opinion is that I'm wrong, and at this point we can simply agree to disagree without further frustrations.

Residues of explosives have been found, not by the NIST commission which did not test for it. What we have seen can be achieved with explosives. Random damage and fire as the trigger belongs in the realm of the impossible. Explosives are a plausible theory backed by eyewhitness accounts even captured on video. The version of the NIST report is so unlikely to have been occoured it cant be taken seriously.

reply to post by Cassius666


It could be a kind of government-coo - like a "fifth column" faction within the government/millitary/corporate world.

reply to post by Varemia


"and the official story makes the most sense to me" Those are your words, exactly. I'm just trying to get all you ducks in a row. So one last time for the record, you suppert the OS?

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia

 

"and the official story makes the most sense to me" Those are your words, exactly. I'm just trying to get all you ducks in a row. So one last time for the record, you suppert the OS?

Only in regards to the tower collapses. I don't believe that the 9/11 Commission's report on who dunnit is very reliable. There's enough information on that to say we knew about it or even played a hand. The thing is, I believe that the tower collapses were not conspiracies to bring them down through ulterior means such as demolitions.

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by budaruskie


The only way a controlled demolition is similar to 9/11 is because a building collapses. EVERY controlled demolition I have seen has serious differences: noise, speed, rubble spread, dust cloud, etc. They only look similar if you're a gullible idiot, truly.

if the gov wanted to demo the buildings and get away with it there not going to it in abvious way were theycould easily be caught out. They have technology we dont know about and wont know about it from years to come. So they are not goig to be exactly the same as other demolitions imo

I am very curious as to how I was named as a poster in the quote above, yet I didn't write any of it. Strange indeed.

I have video showing tower 2 exploding with no plane in sight. I have posted this several times. Another video shows a missile of sorts, not a plane. This was filmed by a chopper, played one time on the TV then buried. So I don't agree with the plane story. Possibly the planes were herded out to sea. Many pilots testified that the supposed flight paths were verging on impossible even by a skilled pilot, let alone by the alleged terrorists. Moreover, there's no plane in Shanksville.

Of note, the event did take place exactly three months to the minute after patsy McVeigh was executed. Possibly someone got their hands on missile programs and it was known about by zionists in control of Washington DC. A look at the building in Oklahoma is suspect in that the government had to cover the crater with plywood, so large was the hole there. Most likely, the same scenario was enacted. They found out through electronic means, or even instigated the action, beforehand, and trebled the explosive charges in order to make it more exciting for them in their worldquest.

There are no secrets anymore, just a bunch of globalists bent on using technology, to change laws, to make private exchanges punishable offenses.

reply to post by Varemia
So basically, you like to listen to yourself? A few posts ago you said "I'm done with this thread" and then continued to post. You my friend are also a waste of skin. You do nothing to sharpen the focus on investigation but rather, you ramble on about the percentages of which theories you believe. What in God's name is your purpose? Do you want the truth, or what?