Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by spav5

 

I want some honesty from the Truthers.

I know too many people who believe this crap for no reason and it's detrimental to such much.

Nah, sorry, the onus is not on "Truthers." You should be asking for some honesty from government instead. They are the ones responsible for trotting out the story.

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

prove that 1/10 of something, can obliterate 9/10 of its remaining self. If you can do that, I will start a thread claiming you are the smartest, most vigilant member ever.

The Titanic? maybe

reply to post by axslinger

4. I can answer this. When a plan explodes, often the pieces with spin off the aircraft and "whirly-Bird" down basically in a flat spin. They will not designate on impact like 93 did. It was vaporized on impact. Aluminum is very light weigh and strong but it does rip itself apart when it hits something hard. Like concrete or dirt. Look at the PSA crash in San Louis Obispo, CA (1978?) where the disgruntled employee brought a gun on board, killed the VP then forced his way into the flight deck, killed the pilots so the plane crashed nose first at 600 miles per hour into the dirt. NOTHING bigger than a pack of cigarettes was dug out of that hole (although they did find the gun). Also, look at the slow motion video of the F-4 crashing into the block of concrete at like 600 MpH. NOTHING left.

reply to post by mutatismutandis

Though many different camera angles were on the pentagon all video was classified the exception of 3 frames showing absolutly nothing- true

False. Please provide some evidence that all the videos were classified.

The taxi driver that originally claimed he saw a plane hit the pentagon and one of the poles struck his vehicle admited he lied- true

False - the claim is made by a duo of amateurs who are actively selling their "evidence" of mass-murder.

Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel let alone one that's made to resist high temperatures- true

Irrelevant. No one said the steel melted.

No documented building on fire has ever collapsed in demolition style before or after this event- true

How about the undocumented buildings? This is silly, poorly worded and irrelevant. There is also no documented evidence that I ever died, ergo I never will die.

Building 7 didn't even receive significant damage to collapse- true

False.

Even yesterday on all the news chaneles as they replayed footage from those reporting on scene you still heard people talking about explosions heard at the base before the collapse- truth

False.

And we all know how well our government has gave us the "thruth" in the past- true

False - you mean when they told you other things you didn't want to know?

Finally, the fact that you have presented no evidence to back up any of your statements other than to insight an arguement- true

Well, for you thats true.

I could continue but its not worth the headache to argue with someone that quite obviously has not looked at any of the evidence you claim to support.

In other words, you will never listen to an answer.

What REALLY annoys me about the people who want to call "Truthers" a bunch of nuts -- is that they often site; "You have no evidence."

Well, you know, we CAN talk about things the officials said -- which are inconsistent. Or point to MISSING information. But there is the thing; the BUSH ADMINISTRATION is the source for almost all the "evidence." and MOST OF IT was redacted.

If 9/11 had been a bunch of terrorists on the CIA watchlist, and an FBI agent warned them 72 times and they ignored Richard Clarke, and of course they scheduled NORAD to be totally occupied with 3 simultaneous drills (as if they didn't take Osama seriously but they at the same time too Planes flying into buildings seriously) -- well, then we'd have TONS OF EVIDENCE.

19 guys with box cutters hitting the Pentagon, and taking down 3 WTC buildings with two planes -- Geez, that has got to be the easiest thing in the world to PROVE.

So where is my sample of steel from the buildings? Where's my videotape of the pentagon? Where are the records of the RADAR from the control towers? Where's the DNA from the hijackers? Where are the flight manifests? Where are the Credit Cards that the terrorists used that Bush told the FBI not to track? Where are they interviews of Cheney and Bush that we weren't allowed to see or put under oath? Where are the last 2 minutes of the Black Box flight recordings (which are EITHER all destroyed, or the most likely data to be destroyed is the OLDEST data based on how these black boxes are designed)?

And WHY would anyone not have the investigation for 4 years -- fly the FAMILY of the main suspect home on 9/12 without letting the FBI interview them, and of course, want to assign Henry Kissinger or Philip D. Zelikow to ANY sort of fact-finding mission? I'm surprised that Fox News and Blackwater weren't given a Billion Dollar contract to PROVE 9/11 was perpetrated by Greenpeace.


Anyone ELSE want to chime in? Please -- add all the things we would EXPECT TO SEE if this were NOT a conspiracy....

It's like JFK's brain went missing and we are supposed to think the "single shooter" took it. You know there is a conspiracy -- and anyone who says there was no conspiracy, didn't actually READ the OFFICIAL STORY.

Here's a great diatribe using the Official Story to debunk the Official Story; You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 Story

Again, any takers for a good explanation as to WHY Building 7 might have been demoed by the 9 11 Cabal? Without a good reason for actually taking the risk of doing it, it would seem more plausible that it was just accidental collateral damage from the collapse of 1 and 2.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Thanks for sharing the information but you didn't provide one link to the facts to support what your saying. Just saying something is BS is not enough.

I am not a 9/11 truther btw, I do like to keep an open mind though. Doesn't mean everything is a hue conspiracy.

You would do well to provide your facts for your statements.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Just one question. Where is your proof that you are right and they are wrong?

reply to post by hooper


Everything you just said is "you just saying it."

Everything you said is WRONG.

There -- I said it!

Why can the FBI NOT release videotapes if all they are going to show is a plane hitting the building -- or nothing at all because they were didn't pick it up? LINK

Of course, this is a link to another truther site -- but it has names, dates, Gas Station attendants -- REAL people that you can track down or find on Facebook perhaps. People who had someone show up and request their videotapes from the ATM machine, from the hotel -- all that.

Whether a plane hit the Pentagon or not, doesn't mean that the Bush administration wasn't allowing it to happen or what-- it's just kind of curious that they cannot PROVE a plane hit the building, if such a thing were so dang obvious.

and PLEASE, don't try to convince anyone that the Pentagon or 84 tapes that were confiscated didn't capture the incident on Video -- WHY would you NOT release videos that proved your case? Is this more National Security?

the cult of the truther

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


What is it about people seeking truth that you hate so much to call them a cult?

I always thought truth was a good thing.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

So how do you explain the reports of people actually overhearing talks about building 7 being demolished?
Why was it reported that it had collapsed long before it actually did?

I am personally not sure what exactly to believe, but there is surely something very fishy about the official story and plenty of first responders agree. There are also architects and engineers that also disagree with the official version.

Edit: I believe there is also a video out there somewhere where you can hear people saying run, the building is going to be demolished and then soon after you hear a bang and see building 7 come down.

reply to post by hooper


Then show us the proof since you obviously have more evidence than anyone else on here to make these statements. I didn't create this post, my credibility is not what's on the line. Everything I've stated takes a simple google search to find. Not to mention common sense...

Originally posted by KnightFire
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

Just one question. Where is your proof that you are right and they are wrong?

The BURDEN OF PROOF should be with the Government.

They once said that WTC 7 didn't fall at freefall speed -- until a video was found showing it accelerating to free fall speed.

WE wouldn't need to debate everything, because there would be EVIDENCE, the Pentagon, the field where one flight disintegrated, and the WTC would have been treated as a crime scene investigation. The Investigation into who caused it, would have happened immediately -- and not just a GOVERNMENT PRONOUNCEMENT on the day of 9/11 -- right after they failed to catch the culprits for months.

>> Seriously -- how can you KNOW that Al Qaeda did it, and at the same time excuse the Bush administration for NOT stopping the event if they have such perfect evidence the FIRST DAY? If it came as such a surprise -- how did they get 100% certainty about the hijacker names -- they weren't LISTED, how did they know they find the van with the "flight instruction manuals"? How did they get all their PROOF and not be able to share it with the public?

The Bush administration got caught lying on EVERYTHING -- and yet, we give them the benefit of the doubt for 9/11? Who is the sucker here?

I don't get some of this,
If 'people believe this crap' where does the dishonesty come in? believing in something is not being dishonest.

As far calling dishonest people out, you need to prove that they are dishonest, so how do you think you can accomplish that, shouting from the top of a skyscraper? so far with what you have offered, (which is Zilch) you wouldn't get your nose into a courtroom. You seem to forget also the both the 9/11 commission report and the NIST's don't know EXACTLY how the towers fell, (the 9/11 commission report was flawed anyway) what they came up with was the best possible scenario they could think of with the evidence they had, (that did not include possible evidence, that was not considered or looked for) including the circumstances that led up to the collapse, the rest is conjecture, not definitive.

reply to post by wrkn4livn


Flight 93 was shot out of the sky by the order of Dick Head (of Defense at the time) Cheney and he admitted it.

Not one of the buildings shown in the OP was completely made of steel with the advanced construction techniques used at WTC. It was a modern marvel in engineering and was designed to withstand wind pressures greater then the impact of a jumbo jet. So PLEASE explain how the closest building in construction to WTC (the empire state building) which is at least half as advanced in engineering withstood a direct hit from a plane and had jet fuel burning yet never collapsed? How could JET FUEL burn for MONTHS after the buildings collapsed?

Nice try at debunking the construction but this proves nothing short of no comparison! Get a video with a building constructed like WTC and then we can see if apples are apples.

Again: How could JET FUEL burn for MONTHS after the buildings collapsed?

Originally posted by spav5
And what is it that you wish to accomplish?

Peace

i think he's trying to accomplish what alot of us are trying to accomplish: some rational conversation. i'm sorry to break it everybody, but the WTC was bought down by a determined bunch of thugs with lots of money.

once upon a time, this ATS site used to be a place where you could get some rational conversation. those days, like the days of innocence before 9/11, are gone.

long gone...never to return.

Originally posted by nfflhome

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

prove that 1/10 of something, can obliterate 9/10 of its remaining self. If you can do that, I will start a thread claiming you are the smartest, most vigilant member ever.

The Titanic? maybe

in the years following the Titanic...it was the same thing. same exact thing, actually. the governement did it. the government was mad and let it sink...blah....blah....blah.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


It's nice to see that you've made a thread of your own. I constantly see you in threads attempting trying to back up the official story, so now it's my turn to take a whack at what you've put together.

1. No other building ever collapsed from fire - A BS argument:

But nonetheless a true argument, that is if you replace building with skyscraper.

- No other buildings have been built like the Twin Towers
- No other sky scrapers have been hit full speed by planes that size
- The only two buildings built like the towers, hit by planes, both behave EXACTLY the same way

So there's not anything you're forgetting here? Nothing?

Building 7! Come on dude, that's why the fact that fire doesn't bring down skyscrapers is usually brought up, to show how the collapse of WTC7 is impossible.

2 .The building looked like demos/ There's no other explanation a rational, intelligent person can reach - NOT TRUE:

I disagree.

- No one saw or heard hundreds of timed explosions

We both know that's a lie:

- The French use a demo technique, that doesn't use explosives, but does use the weight of upper floors to crush the lower floors. And guess what, a building destroyed this way looks EXACTLY like the Twin Towers.

What you're failing to understand about this demolition technique is how exactly the building is destroyed. The equal and opposite law is used here, the top section destroys the bottom section, and the bottom section destroys the top section. Try setting off the explosives at the top 15% of the building rather than at the halfway point and lets see how smoothly this gravity-driven collapse works.

3. Top down demolition with no visible or audible explosions , in which the timing of the collapse gradually increases to the speed of free fall is a rational explanation. - NOT TRUE.

Top down demo has never been used for skyscrapers, for pretty obvious reason.

Uh...what's your source for this information, NIST? Because, not suprisingly, it's false:

4. Building 7 only had a few fires - NOT TRUE

That depends on your definition of "a few", and it would have been nice if you elaborated instead of rage-typing your opinion in ALL CAPS.

We've got lots of smoke here: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ad6527f938ab.jpg[/atsimg] And some raging fires engulfing the entire building, just kidding: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65c0b16d96f1.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/608e789dc4ba.jpg[/atsimg] WTC7 only had a few fires.

5. No one saw a plane at the Pentagon - NOT TRUE

I agree with you here.

6. 1/10th or 1% of active engineers in America is a meaningful amount. - NOT TRUE

- In most polls you see, the margin of error is between 1-3%, the Truthers can't even get a 10th of that number of ACTIVE AMERICAN ENGINEERS on their side. If you include retired Engineers (a significant number of their signees are retired) the number drops to something like 1/100 of 1%, add Architects and it's like 1/1000%. Make that a worldwide number (they do btw) and it's like 1/10000 of 1%. So, 1 in 100,000 of all Architects and Engineers worldwide have signed this thing. Not so impressive. In fact, I'd rather trust the 99,999/1000,000 who haven't.

What percentage of those engineers do you think have researched the subject as much as or greater than the members of AE911Truth?

7. A reputable journal of science tested something and found nano-thermite - NOT TRUE

Oh, so I guess this isn't a paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal that confirms the existence of active thermitic material in the WTC dust using a variety of methods: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

8. Richard Gage is an honest guy - NOT TRUE

- Richard Gage has been busted falsifying evidence. And he's repeatedly lied and exaggerated to convert people to his belief. He's not some super honest guy.

Can you elaborate? What evidence has he falsified? And also, can you explain to us the difference between unknowingly being incorrect and intentionally misleading people?

9. The Pentagon had a missile defense system - NOT TRUE

I don't know about this subject, but dude you really have got to provide some evidence to back up your claims. People reading some angry guy typing things in ALL CAPS with no evidence isn't too convincing.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Witnesses to Explosions with a quick search...