What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Wrong again. The Government had not done everything to protect us. We had over 40 years of Gov decisions for money savings....."civil" rights protection...and various other reasons that left us very vulnerable. The thing is, those decisions were made in good faith.....and arrogance.....but not criminal.

And you say that as fact every time. Are you one of the people who made some of the decisions in good faith ?

reply to post by smurfy

Master Bates

Lol, you go smurf yourself too.

reply to post by maxella1


Let's review.

you said....

Again you lie and say that the firefighters were expecting what happened to the WTC 7. but the truth is they only said that it was unstable and in danger of collapse. Not that the way it did collapse was normal and expected. Stop making things up !

That's lie number one. How did I know this was a lie? I didn't even have to search sources. Your post gave it away. You posted an unsourced statement about the state of mind of a large number of individuals. That sort of thing is impossible to know for sure... the closest you could get would be a large number of sourced statements.

So I took a risk and called you out on your first lie.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

THAT is a fabrication. Your story that the firefighters obviously expected some other type of collapse is just a made up story.

See, that's how you point our that truther's claims are lies and fabrications. This one was obvious though. Whenever someone claims to know the thoughts of another without citing any evidence, they're just blowing smoke 95% of the time.

edit on 5/20/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: formatting

Then, to my surprise, you responded with a quote and a link

Originally posted by maxella1

"I turned to Tommy and I said,Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse. In my opinion, I didn't think there was going to be a catastrophic collapse, but from the fire load, there was no way.”

FIREFIGHTER RICHARD CARLETTI

Try again.

Try again. Tough talk, and the quote appeared to support your story! But I didn't give up. Most people are sloppy, so I figured I'd check the context. Of course you'd clipped the quote so that it wasn't obvious that this firefighter was talking about another building, not building 7. Looks like you told a second lie to cover up lie #1.

So I called you out on lie #2.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

it was probably about 9:15 at this time, there was a good 20 floors of fire in the south tower. I mean, it was pushing red on at least 20 floors from what we could see. I turned to Tommy and I said, Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse.

He was clearly not talking about building 7, but the south tower. You dishonestly quoted the fireman to support your opinion on building 7. Just a flat out lie.

You passed it off as an innocent mistake, and offered another link.

Originally posted by maxella1
Yes you right, this firemen is not talking about WTC 7. I posted the wrong link. Tell you what.. If you go
HERE and read for yourself you will learn that none of the Firemen or EMS ever said that they expected the building to completely collapse. They knew that it was unstable and in danger of collapsing. Big difference there.

The link goes to a new york times page which is just full of links to over one hundred testimonies by new york firefighters... having looked at a few of them they're an average of 10 pages long, which means you basically told me to search through over 1000 pages of documents in search of evidence for YOUR CLAIM. Really? You think that passes muster? You might as well have linked to the google frontpage.

Then you called me a scumbag...

Originally posted by maxella1

Nice. Classic truther tactic... linking to a page of links of pdfs. Sure, the evidence is in there... SOMEWHERE... sheesh.
.
.
.
Got anything at all?

Classic SCUMBAG tactic... Accuse somebody of lying, but don't provide any proof that this person is actually lying. Even when a link is provided by the accused.

You lied and I proved it, beyond a reasonable doubt right here in this thread.

You haven't even provided evidence of one single firefighter who says he expected a partial collapse or any specific kind of collapse, so how can you be sure of your original claim. What a joke.

Originally posted by ANOK

Oh the irony, you should try reading some of the posts from your side of the argument.

First you lied, saying that firefighters didn't expect a "complete" collapse.

Please show evidence that anyone made the claim that any of the building would completely collapse.

Is this what it's come down to... claiming that yes, the firefighters expected WTC7 to come down due to visible fires and gradual structural deformation, but somehow, there must have been foul play, because the towers collapsed more or differently than some internet posters claim they should have?

What's the point? If the firefighters had said, "This building is sure to fall upwards and crash into the moon", and WTC7 had proceeded to smash the moon in half, you lot would just say "Well, they never expected the building to hit the moon anything like that hard, do a little reading, losers...."

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer


Okay, lets see..

Again you lie and say that the firefighters were expecting what happened to the WTC 7. but the truth is they only said that it was unstable and in danger of collapse. Not that the way it did collapse was normal and expected. Stop making things up !

Prove that this is a lie. Show me any firemen who said that the WTC 7 was in danger of a complete collapse, and I will apologize. Because I believe what firefighters who were on the scene are saying. I don't think any of them would lie about it.

Then, to my surprise, you responded with a quote and a link
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD CARLETTI
Try again. Tough talk, and the quote appeared to support your story! But I didn't give up. Most people are sloppy, so I figured I'd check the context. Of course you'd clipped the quote so that it wasn't obvious that this firefighter was talking about another building, not building 7. Looks like you told a second lie to cover up lie #1.

Kudos for not giving up..

You passed it off as an innocent mistake[/url], and offered another link.
Originally posted by maxella1
Yes you right, this firemen is not talking about WTC 7. I posted the wrong link. Tell you what.. If you go
HERE and read for yourself you will learn that none of the Firemen or EMS ever said that they expected the building to completely collapse. They knew that it was unstable and in danger of collapsing. Big difference there.

Did you notice that the first link came from the second link? You have in your possession a source of a lot of firefighters testimony, use it to prove that I’m lying when I say that firemen at ground zero were reporting that WTC 7 is unstable and in danger of collapse, but none of them expected a complete collapse.

There is a difference between a complete collapse and a partial collapse.
NY Fire Department's 9/11 Radio Dispatches
If you listen to FDNY Dispatches you will hear firemen report that “WTC 1 has partially collapsed” and then others key up and correct that by saying “It has completely collapsed”. None of the testimony that I was able to find states that a complete collapse was anticipated prior to building 7 actually collapsing. If you can find it, I will appreciate and apologize for calling you a scumbag.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by 4hero

 

Footprint,,,,isn't over 600 feet from the perimeter of the building. Symmetery isn't the cap of the building tipping over

what landed 600ft away, and which building are you referring to? Are you referring to debris from the towers? If so, what could have possibly blown that debris 600ft away? Where did the energy come from?

As I stated, most of the towers fell into their footprint, and more of WTC7 fell into it's footprint than the towers did because there was some extra unknown energy throwing debris great distances from the towers.

You totally ignored my exact wording about footprints and symmetry and deliberatly excluded my wording to suit your response. I said a close to symmetry as you can get from a controlled demolition, and as we can see WTC7 was almost perfect symmetry, and WTC1 & WTC2, had symmetry, then it went off symmetry for a second, and righted themselves back to symmetry.

If a collapse happened due to fire then you would not have had symmetry, and the top sections would have fell separately, and asymmetrically, leaving the rest of the towers still standing..

Can you explain why you chose to ignore my exact wording to tailor your response to suit yourself?

Are you saying you do not agree that these fell as close to symmetry as physically possible under the circumstances, similar to how a controlled demolition would.?

Please respond precisely this time, dont twist my questions to suit your response, these are simple questions, not difficult to answer exactly as they are asked. If you do again twist the question around, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

You have an opportunity to shime here, blow us away with your concise research, give us a reason to believe you....

Originally posted by maxella1
Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer


Okay, lets see..

Again you lie and say that the firefighters were expecting what happened to the WTC 7. but the truth is they only said that it was unstable and in danger of collapse. Not that the way it did collapse was normal and expected. Stop making things up !

Prove that this is a lie. Show me any firemen who said that the WTC 7 was in danger of a complete collapse, and I will apologize.

Why should I go searching through thousands of pages of testimony when we already have several firefighters testimony stating that they expected the buildings to collapse-- and you can't be bothered to show one single fireman saying he expected partial collapse, slow collapse, incomplete collapse, or whatever it is you currently claim to expect.

You lied, you refuse to back up your claim. You have not one single legitimate quote of a firefighter predicting anything excluding a complete collapse. I'm not your errand boy. do your own legwork, and find some evidence to back up your claim, and I will apologize for calling you a liar.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Again you lie and say that the firefighters were expecting what happened to the WTC 7. but the truth is they only said that it was unstable and in danger of collapse. Not that the way it did collapse was normal and expected. Stop making things up !

I see what is happening, you are confused, or acting confused.

When we say that they could not have predicted a 'complete' collapse, we are not saying that is what they claimed.

What we are saying is you are wrong thinking collapse means a 'complete' collapse, because you seem to fail to understand that there is a huge difference between a collapse and a 'complete' collapse.

Yes they said they thought it might collapse, but they could not have been thinking complete collapse, because there was no precedence for them to make that claim. All predictions are based on known facts from previous events, a professional would not make such an extraordinary claim.

So your argument that they said it would collapse does not equate to what actually happened, 'complete' collapse in a way only ever seen before with controlled demolitions.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

Is this what it's come down to... claiming that yes, the firefighters expected WTC7 to come down due to visible fires and gradual structural deformation, but somehow, there must have been foul play, because the towers collapsed more or differently than some internet posters claim they should have? What's the point? If the firefighters had said, "This building is sure to fall upwards and crash into the moon", and WTC7 had proceeded to smash the moon in half, you lot would just say "Well, they never expected the building to hit the moon anything like that hard, do a little reading, losers...."

Look bugs bunny, you need to read more about the subject we're talking about and it's not the moon by the way.

Partial and complete collapse is not the same thing. If you think I’m wrong prove it.

Originally posted by ANOK
.
.
.

Yes they said they thought it might collapse, but they could not have been thinking complete collapse, because there was no precedent for them to make that claim. All predictions are based on known facts from previous events, a professional would not make such an extraordinary claim.
.
.
.

We're talking about building 7, specifically. The two tallest buildings in the city had just fallen down hours ago. That's a precedent, I'd say. LOL.

Originally posted by maxella1

Look bugs bunny, you need read more about the subject we're talking about and it's not the moon by the way.

Partial and complete collapse is not the same thing. If you think I’m wrong prove it.

Look, Chief #ting-Bull. I never claimed they were the same. Both "partial collapse", and "complete collapse" are included in the more general term "collapse". Since we have plenty of firefighters expecting "collapse" generally, we have no reason to exclude the idea that at least some of them expected a range of possiblities that included a complete collapse. Indeed you never provided evidence that a single firefighter expected partial collapse or any such thing.

But you'd rather just lie and obfuscate.

LOL....A classic "truther vs. debunker" thread in which the debunkers are out in force, trying to create a juggernaut of the OS, armed with subtle sarcasm and intimations that those who do not believe the OS are somehow deluded, ignorant, and just psychotically determined to look for conspiracies in an event such as 9/11.

I KNOW the Official Story is a load of bull bowel evacuation, and the arguments of the debunkers are incredibly weak, and seem to rely on the idea that people are certain ways and so why would they lie or why would they say such a thing, etc.

My favorite one is: "There is no way the entire government could keep a secret." LMAO. Who says the entire government was actually in on it? Besides, you can get people to do one single task, especially if they are military, and they don't often know the real reason they're doing it. They don't question, they just do. Get a bunch like that, all doing little tasks, and the ones in higher office can easily claim plausible deniability.

I suppose it is the OP's right to push the OS in his thread, but when I see people doing that on a CONSPIRACY web site, I have to wonder why.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by maxella1

Look bugs bunny, you need read more about the subject we're talking about and it's not the moon by the way.

Partial and complete collapse is not the same thing. If you think I’m wrong prove it.

Look, Chief #ting-Bull. I never claimed they were the same. Both "partial collapse", and "complete collapse" are included in the more general term "collapse". Since we have plenty of firefighters expecting "collapse" generally, we have no reason to exclude the idea that at least some of them expected a range of possiblities that included a complete collapse. Indeed you never provided evidence that a single firefighter expected partial collapse or any such thing.

But you'd rather just lie and obfuscate.

edit on 5/21/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)

I'm beginning to like you, you started showing some emotion. You might actually be a human-being. A star for you Bugs.

reply to post by FissionSurplus

I suppose it is the OP's right to push the OS in his thread, but when I see people doing that on a CONSPIRACY web site, I have to wonder why.

The OP is not pushing the OS. lol

Originally posted by FissionSurplus

I suppose it is the OP's right to push the OS in his thread, but when I see people doing that on a CONSPIRACY web site, I have to wonder why.

I think you mean BS, not OS.

Which brings me to my next favorite tactic of debunking...

Pointing out that the meaning attached to many facts by truthers is spurious. This occurs primarily when truthers read, but misunderstand sources. by far the most common source to be misunderstood is the science textbook, but it's very often not even read.

Originally posted by scully222
Read the whole post again slowly. The point I was making (and you obviously missed) was that without the baggage of the Official Story most people would agree these buildings were brought down with explosives. I am talking about the 3 collapses themselves, no other "facts" involved. Any person watching these collapses on video would assume explosives. Tell these same people that admitting explosives were in these buildings would implicate their government in a horrible crime and suddenly the explosives become "impossible". People just refuse to even consider the fact that their government could do such a thing. They will believe any story to make it not true. My whole point concerns perception. Someones perception of the exact same event can vary so drastically based on preconceived notions and beliefs. It really amazes me that people can lose the use of their critical thinking skills so easily. Anyway, your post is way off base and a little offensive. Try to tone it down with the name calling and start with presenting some of these facts you claim to possess. How's that sound?

I think you might be wrong there. The events were fairly straightforward to every person that day.

Plane+Tower = Fire+Damage, Fire+Damage = Collapse.

In other words, most people think that the planes brought down the towers. If you bring up WTC 7, sometimes people get confused for a while, because conspiracy folk never tell the whole story. I fell for the "must be a controlled demolition" for almost a whole week. Then, I did more research on it and learned I was wrong. The penthouse collapse, the pictures of damage and fire I've seen, and the testimony of firefighters who were there. It all adds up to the conclusion that explosives were not necessary.

Plus, the lack of sound that these explosives made tips me off to there not being any. Every single demolition video has explosions just before the collapse. 9/11 had dozens of cameras pointed at every building before they collapsed. No explosive sounds occurred before they collapsed. None. No one ever explains this to me. The answer might as well be "government magic."

That all conspiracist's or however you spell it are bat **** crazy. That all they do is make up stuff so this has to be a fabrication of lies.

reply to post by Varemia

Plane+Tower = Fire+Damage, Fire+Damage = Collapse.

More like

terrorists under surveillance of the CIA and the FBI + flight school report suspicious subjects taking flight lessons + able danger gets Intel on AL-Qaeda, but ignored by the government + memo to the President that Bin Laden planning an attack within the US, but ignored by the government + the Bin Laden unit of the CIA worn the White House of the planned attacks, but ignored by the government + terrorists hijack commercial jets + FAA call NORAD asking for help + fighter jets sent in the wrong direction + Plane+Tower + secondary explosions = Fire+Damage, Fire+Damage = Collapse + cover up + wars + loss of civil liberties of US citizens = thousands dead + more cover up.

Originally posted by NormalBates

And even if it did survive, what are the odds of the hyjacker's passport being found so quickly and in such perfect condition? Of all people?

prolly about the same as a hand written suicide note written on an air sick bag surviving a jet plane crash?

en.wikipedia.org...

After boarding the plane, Burke wrote a message on an airsickness bag which read:
Hi Ray. I think it's sort of ironical that we ended up like this. I asked for some leniency for my family. Remember? Well, I got none and you'll get none.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Varemia

 

Plane+Tower = Fire+Damage, Fire+Damage = Collapse.

More like

terrorists under surveillance of the CIA and the FBI + flight school report suspicious subjects taking flight lessons + able danger gets Intel on AL-Qaeda, but ignored by the government + memo to the President that Bin Laden planning an attack within the US, but ignored by the government + the Bin Laden unit of the CIA worn the White House of the planned attacks, but ignored by the government + terrorists hijack commercial jets + FAA call NORAD asking for help + fighter jets sent in the wrong direction + Plane+Tower + secondary explosions = Fire+Damage, Fire+Damage = Collapse + cover up + wars + loss of civil liberties of US citizens = thousands dead + more cover up.

I was saying what most people think, not what the detailed official story is. I ask people when the subject comes up. Usually the response is, "A plane hit them, duh." And if WTC 7 comes up, and they wonder about it not being hit by a plane, I say "A building collapsed on it, duh," and that's usually plenty. Only people who have subscribed to the conspiracy regardless of evidence will deny that these events happened.

I have repeatedly said on this site that I think a conspiracy is possible, but the one toted here is just too elaborate and far-reaching. It's much simpler for any entity in the government to simply aide the "terrorists" in evading suspicion and succeeding in acquiring planes for their plan.