Why is it deniers are only looking to debunk certain theories?

reply to post by backinblack

Right you are Black. Because this is so important to me I read every word of every post concerning 9/11. I don't want to waste any more time or space confusing the issue any more. It's so incriminating when said poster brings up the 'cocka-mamie' theories that no one but him brings up. He is doing nothing to advance the pursuit of truth. Cass, I believe you have helped identify the purpose of this group of jackals. The muddier the water gets the more they like it. Oh, one more thing. Does anyone else find it curious that Weed seems to have an awful lot of resources at his fingertips, or is it just me?

I am starting to ask this question myself after hearing what John Lear had to say.

Originally posted by drkid
I am starting to ask this question myself after hearing what John Lear had to say.

John Lear? Are you talking about the John Lear of cities on the moon inhabited by millions of aliens?

another sorry pointless comment deleted..

reply to post by dillweed

Oh, one more thing. Does anyone else find it curious that Weed seems to have an awful lot of resources at his fingertips, or is it just me?

Many seem to have resources but what they quote isn't always relevant..

I also like their excessive use of the phrase "optical illusion"..It's classic..

Like, yes you did see it but no, you didn't...

Let's play a game..It's called "Spot The Plane"..

Here is a pic just after the Pentagon was supposidly hit by a 127' wide Boeing 757..
Now, "Spot The Plane"
www.twf.org...

According to the report the entire plane, wings included, went into the building..
BTW, according to Weedwhackers resources, the wings did not fold..

These are the questions the OP refers to as being heavily questioned but you know what?
They never really answer them...
Some say the wings sort of liquified and passed through the walls leaving little damage..
They must think we are all fools is all I can say..

I want to know what you think about this video.



The only response I've ever gotten from a OS supporter about it is that it is a "red herring". It seems to me that the video was taken before WTC 1&2 came down because I don't see a massive amount of debris everywhere. Also, it shows very clearly that WTC 7 has fires on 1-2 floors, the windows appear to be blown out not in, and cars on the street outside are melted to steel. This could very well refute the entire OS of what happened with WTC 7 in less than 2 minutes. Anyway, what do you think?

Originally posted by budaruskie
I want to know what you think about this video.

The only response I've ever gotten from a OS supporter about it is that it is a "red herring". It seems to me that the video was taken before WTC 1&2 came down because I don't see a massive amount of debris everywhere. Also, it shows very clearly that WTC 7 has fires on 1-2 floors, the windows appear to be blown out not in, and cars on the street outside are melted to steel. This could very well refute the entire OS of what happened with WTC 7 in less than 2 minutes. Anyway, what do you think?

edit on 12/19/2010 by budaruskie because: uh huh

You make a lot of good points, but I am not so sure abbout the assertion that it was taken before WTC 1 and 2 came down. An before after pic would help for reference. Also the guy is referring to the area as ground zero, which makes me think either of the buildings collapsed already. There are not many debries, but WTC 1 and 2 were a good distance away from 7, the reason there was no "heavy damage" due to the towers collapse. However I miss the huge plume of pulverized concrete too.

This isnt like looking for intelligent life in outer space. I would be really curious if the clip was taken before or after the collapse. If you found it out let me know.

What I find far more distrurbing is the way those magic debries defenestrated WTC 7 and caused fires. You have 2 rows of a floor almost completely defenstrated, then you look up and all the windows are there, then again 2 rows of windows defenestrated with fires raging inside. If the damage was caused by falling debries I expect it to be more random. I am no statistician, but I would guess the cance for random debries to defenstrate the windows in the fashion we see it on the video ammounts to winning the lottery several times in a row.

Why do people always say that 9/11 was such a tragic day? Was it really that bad? I mean we probably killed 50,000 people in the first day we attacked Iraq. We've killed 10,000 times as many people as "terrorists" will ever kill. By the time we are done, we will have killed 1,000,000 times as many people as them.

reply to post by Ghost374

the answer to my question is that our media is used for solely propaganda purposes, and is not used to inform. Propaganda uses emotion to influence people, rather than facts. The media has perfected the art of manipulating people's emotions, as the 9/11 coverage proves(I hate using the word prove, but what they did does prove it).

reply to post by Cassius666


At 1:31 he says, "we're at the corner of West Broadway and Barclay" so I looked at google maps and found it to be on the North side of the WTC complex. I'm not from NY and am not familiar with the streets, but I'm pretty sure that is what the map shows (I wish I knew how to put it in this post). It is possible that the video was taken after the collapse of either or both of the first two buildings, but that enormous cloud of dust is not, like you said, anywhere to be seen. Obviously, the damage to WTC 7 is suspicious but the cars on the street are the most interesting part to me and here is why. Either a bomb went off in the immediate vicinity or something extremely hot (thermite?) doused those vehicles from above. The reporter says, "this must have been ground zero where this thing BLEW UP". If there are any other possible explanations for the condition of those cars, I'd like to know what it is.

I believe that when someone says look theres an explosion or look it fell right into its own footprint those are very material things that people can see and therefore you can say no thats something else. When you say that there was a laserbeam or a holograph theres no way to SEE those things to even say yea i guess it could be that its just a wild theory like if i were to say a ghost actually toppled the towers. Its hard to debunk things that arent evident like saying its hard to debunk god you know because we cant PROVE hes there to begin with we cant PROVE that hes not there.

reply to post by backinblack
Wow! That picture is all that's needed. If we had to pick one piece of evidence for our side in this argument about an airliner hitting the pentagon, this should be it. To the "group of dupes" that shout about all the wreckage at the pentagon, how can you guys keep a straight face defending the OS? Look at that picture and tell me where is the airplane?.

I would stay away from any country involved, but certainly intel agencies must of known, not saying which ones.

But on debunking plenty of people are just too arrogant to want to know about any truths, and its how alot of secrets are kept in front of peoples eyes.

Like how they can say that there was no conspiracy in jfk killing, when any logical thought put into the thing would come up with some sort of conspiracy, to at least cover up. But debunkers want everything to be random, so they can say there lifes are free, and they make there own choices which i doubt anyone does really in uk or usa today.

Debunking is ok, aslong as they look critically at something which most times are just useless anti conspiracy arguments.

Originally posted by Cassius666
When the talk of explosives or the apprehended mossad agents comes up, then deniers are all over the thread.

However when a few people make posts of laserbeam satellites or no plane theories the deniers are absent. It is usually the people of the truther demografic who call those wild theories into question.

The 911 deniers mention them only when the talk turns to explosives again or eyewhitness accounts. Then they remind us that they read something about laserbeams somewhere and by that logic the NIST report is right and everybody else wrong.

edit on 18-12-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

No - it is the explosives, freefall, dancing Israelis, cruise missile nonesense that we de-bunk, the real conspiracy was to look the other way whilst this went down, with the possibility that they may have actually helped it on its way by weakening a few key points beforhand.

All the rest is transparent nonesense designed to throw a smpkescreen of looniness over the whole subject - I note that you have deliberately misrepresented what happens!

reply to post by Cassius666

What I find far more distrurbing is the way those magic debries defenestrated WTC 7 and caused fires. You have 2 rows of a floor almost completely defenstrated, then you look up and all the windows are there, then again 2 rows of windows defenestrated with fires raging inside. If the damage was caused by falling debries I expect it to be more random. I am no statistician, but I would guess the cance for random debries to defenstrate the windows in the fashion we see it on the video ammounts to winning the lottery several times in a row.

I have answered this in another thread - notice you have ignored it

Fires were started on several floors. As fires broke out the windows the flames/heat would emerge out the
windows . Would begin to heat the windows above until they failed (heat raises dont you know). Flame/sparks/
heat would enter broken out windows and kindle new fiews on floor above

Its called autoexposure - same thing happened to other high raise buildings (1 Meridian Plaza 1990)

From Vincent Dunn - FDNY expert on fire behaviour

Auto-exposure, the vertical spread of flames from windows below to windows above, is another way fire spreads throughout a type I building. Flames erupting out of a heat-shattered window can melt and break the glass window directly above. Once the window above is broken and falls away, flames can enter and ignite ceiling tile, curtains or furnishings. Even if the windows do not melt or break from heat, a small-concealed space between the exterior wall and the end of the floor slab can allow vertical spread of fire and smoke from floor to floor above and near a window.

Note progression of fires in these clips - specific clips 9, 10, 11

www.911myths.com...

Originally posted by amfirst
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Because most people are tired of debunking most conspiracy. It just goes in one ear and out of the other. Pointless talking to someone who will only believe what they want to believe and everyone else is a disinfo agent.

No thats the thing. They never get tired. They never get tired to chime in when the talk turns to explosives or thermite. They think we are all crazy fools, yet when the talk turns to explosives and thermite they are all over the thread with a lot of effort and energy and ANGRY so very very ANGRY