How do the people you know feel about 911

reply to post by exponent

I'm sure you'll back out and say you're just here to post, but you seem to be confused whether you're debating or not.

You are right I am going to back out because it's pointless to try and convince you of something that you have no intention to be convinced about.

You have been shown to be wrong time after time by multiple people here but you refuse accept it. You probably want regular people to somehow get to the bottom of this crime with confessions from the criminals and all. I lost interest to try to convince people like you. I started posting because I wanted to find out what it is that Debunkers know and I don't, and I found out that it's pretty much nothing.. I got no more questions ... I'm going back to posting for fun not for convincing anybody.

Most people I know in the UK think it was a false flag...

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Two known members of Al Qaeda held Iraqi diplomatic passports. Just one more connection that has been overlooked by many.

That means nothing. Were they backing Sadam, were they against sadam or were they just 2 alquaeda terrorists with passports sitting around. Alciada was reported to have been in Lybia fighting against Ghadaffi and now in Syria fighting against Assad.

reply to post by Cassius666


You are quite, uninformed, if you think Saddam did not know there were terrorists carrying around passports as members of his government. Then there was the whole Abu Nidal issue....

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by maxella1

 

If you answered the questions put to you I'd stop calling you a fool. It's the same with all conspiracy theorists. They start by claiming to be balanced, then they begin insisting that certain stories are true despite there being no evidence to support it. Then they begin ridiculing or ignoring criticism. Then they simply completely ignore the subject and hope it will go away.

I haven't seen criticism from you, all you do is deny anything that you don't like.
And I answered all your questions multiple times you just don't like the answers. And what the hell do you mean by "claiming to be balanced"?

Six to twelve months later, they post the whole thing over again.

Reality don't change just because you don't want to accept it. It will always be the same, get used to it !

You're in stage 2 here, claiming that things are true and moving into stage 3, ignoring criticism.

Wow you got this down to imaginary science... Stage 2 moving to stage 3..lol. Sure whatever...

If you want to prove you're not a fool, don't follow this model.

Now why would I want to prove anything to you? If I tell you what I think about you, you'll go complaining to the mods and remove my post. You make up a model that doesn't exist and then pretend that somebody actually follows that model. That is pretty funny, I'm not mad at you, and I won't report you.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Show me evidence that the government of Saudi Arabia did that. Not that I'm a fan of them. I would much rather drill for our own oil and gas and tell the countries of the Middle East to toss off.

Here you go again with show me evidence... Where can I possibly get that evidence if it hasnt been investigated by our government? Here's Why I think there's a connection between Saudi government and 9/11....

Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued,” Mr. Kerrey said.

Saudi Arabia May Be Tied to 9/11, 2 Ex-Senators Say

Two known members of Al Qaeda held Iraqi diplomatic passports. Just one more connection that has been overlooked by many.

You right I haven't heard this before, can you post a link?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Cassius666

 

You are quite, uninformed, if you think Saddam did not know there were terrorists carrying around passports as members of his government. Then there was the whole Abu Nidal issue....

How is this statement any different from when I say that Bush's friend would try to help him by not allowing somethings to be released in the final NIST report?

Do you have evidence that Saddam knew about these terrorists?

Originally posted by Cassius666

This makes me wonder, how do the people you know feel about 911?

My first post in this thread as I want to answer your OP.

Most people I talk too, assume the US Gov had prior knowledge, it's sad they think this, and just continue with their lives.

Apathy.

reply to post by maxella1


Read this and then get back to me.

www.mefacts.com...

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by maxella1

 

Read this and then get back to me.

www.mefacts.com...

Thanks, I didn't know about it..

What is your opinion regarding This, This, This,
And this ?

Originally posted by maxella1


The difference is obvious to anybody with a brain. I can explain it over and over again but will still pretend not to get it, or maybe you really don't get it. Oh well anyway.. You irritate the crap out of me so I don't want to explain anything at all to you.
Honestly I'm getting sick of debating with you people. It's pointless anyway.

That's just a rubbish piece of evasion. How does a collapse differ from a collapse? Are you saying the building didn't collapse?

Firefighters say they fear building would collapse; it collapses. How is that different from what they forecast?

Still, at least you're not one of these truthers who tries to cast the firemen's testimony as part of general suspicious "foreknowledge". That always strikes me as being a bit like blaming the doctor who diagnoses your cancer for killing you.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


The difference is obvious to anybody with a brain. I can explain it over and over again but will still pretend not to get it, or maybe you really don't get it. Oh well anyway.. You irritate the crap out of me so I don't want to explain anything at all to you.
Honestly I'm getting sick of debating with you people. It's pointless anyway.

That's just a rubbish piece of evasion. How does a collapse differ from a collapse? Are you saying the building didn't collapse?

Firefighters say they fear building would collapse; it collapses. How is that different from what they forecast?

Still, at least you're not one of these truthers who tries to cast the firemen's testimony as part of general suspicious "foreknowledge". That always strikes me as being a bit like blaming the doctor who diagnoses your cancer for killing you.

Why are you still asking the same questions? I answered them a bunch of times already. You won't understand, I'm convinced of that by now..

Originally posted by maxella1

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by maxella1


The difference is obvious to anybody with a brain. I can explain it over and over again but will still pretend not to get it, or maybe you really don't get it. Oh well anyway.. You irritate the crap out of me so I don't want to explain anything at all to you.
Honestly I'm getting sick of debating with you people. It's pointless anyway.

That's just a rubbish piece of evasion. How does a collapse differ from a collapse? Are you saying the building didn't collapse?

Firefighters say they fear building would collapse; it collapses. How is that different from what they forecast?

Still, at least you're not one of these truthers who tries to cast the firemen's testimony as part of general suspicious "foreknowledge". That always strikes me as being a bit like blaming the doctor who diagnoses your cancer for killing you.

Why are you still asking the same questions? I answered them a bunch of times already. You won't understand, I'm convinced of that by now..

edit on 10-7-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)

You haven't answered them, at least not to my knowledge. Bung up a link to your answer if you have.

At any rate you could easily have answered them again briefly with much the same effort as it took to post what you wrote. The fact that you didn't suggests that you're struggling. Again.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Here you go, but if you still don't understand the difference i don't know how else to explain it. So don't ask.

From the start, FDNY commanders focused operations on rescuing trapped occupants and assisting in the evacuation. Officers and firefighters alike were well aware of the stairwell evacuations in 1993 and the staffing required to accomplish them. They knew this incident was far worse, but they didn't know by how much. There was no precedent for a total collapse of a high-rise building.

Some chief officers on the scene warned about the possibility of collapse. Most talk among the chiefs focused on the possibility of localized or partial collapse. No one had any idea at what point that might occur. Again, there was no precedent for the unthinkable. It was for too many a losing race against time. But few on the scene knew it until it was too late.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Here you go, but if you still don't understand the difference i don't know how else to explain it. So don't ask.

From the start, FDNY commanders focused operations on rescuing trapped occupants and assisting in the evacuation. Officers and firefighters alike were well aware of the stairwell evacuations in 1993 and the staffing required to accomplish them. They knew this incident was far worse, but they didn't know by how much. There was no precedent for a total collapse of a high-rise building.

Some chief officers on the scene warned about the possibility of collapse. Most talk among the chiefs focused on the possibility of localized or partial collapse. No one had any idea at what point that might occur. Again, there was no precedent for the unthinkable. It was for too many a losing race against time. But few on the scene knew it until it was too late.

You know what else there is no precedent for? Damage and uncontrolled fire of a high-rise. The damage is the key point in my eyes, as every example of burning buildings that remain standing were undamaged. Only a building that has been damaged seems to be capable of sudden complete collapse.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Here you go, but if you still don't understand the difference i don't know how else to explain it. So don't ask.

From the start, FDNY commanders focused operations on rescuing trapped occupants and assisting in the evacuation. Officers and firefighters alike were well aware of the stairwell evacuations in 1993 and the staffing required to accomplish them. They knew this incident was far worse, but they didn't know by how much. There was no precedent for a total collapse of a high-rise building.

Some chief officers on the scene warned about the possibility of collapse. Most talk among the chiefs focused on the possibility of localized or partial collapse. No one had any idea at what point that might occur. Again, there was no precedent for the unthinkable. It was for too many a losing race against time. But few on the scene knew it until it was too late.

You know what else there is no precedent for? Damage and uncontrolled fire of a high-rise. The damage is the key point in my eyes, as every example of burning buildings that remain standing were undamaged. Only a building that has been damaged seems to be capable of sudden complete collapse.

But that's not what your buddy TrickoftheShade wanted to know... He had trouble understanding that there's a difference between a complete and partial collapse....

That's just a rubbish piece of evasion. How does a collapse differ from a collapse? Are you saying the building didn't collapse? Firefighters say they fear building would collapse; it collapses. How is that different from what they forecast?

I tried to explain it but he just don't get it. I really don't know how else to make him understand.. Maybe now that he can see that firefighters use those terms he'll stop pretending that there is no difference.

reply to post by Varemia

You know what else there is no precedent for? Damage and uncontrolled fire of a high-rise. The damage is the key point in my eyes, as every example of burning buildings that remain standing were undamaged. Only a building that has been damaged seems to be capable of sudden complete collapse

The only buildings capable of sudden complete collapse are the buildings that had sudden complete damage.

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Varemia

 

You know what else there is no precedent for? Damage and uncontrolled fire of a high-rise. The damage is the key point in my eyes, as every example of burning buildings that remain standing were undamaged. Only a building that has been damaged seems to be capable of sudden complete collapse

The only buildings capable of sudden complete collapse are the buildings that had sudden complete damage.

What the hell is sudden complete damage? That makes no sense.

The buildings were freaking damaged, man. That's a fact you can't deny (though people sure try to). That means that the fireproofing was damaged. That means the fire had more effect. The uneven loading of supports caused by the damage means that a collapse will be more likely. The tower designs excluded the possibility of a partial collapse, since they require the entire system to remain standing.

As for building 7, it was built on a Consolidated Edison power plant, so the supports were in unusual locations, barely within the limits of older building codes, and outside the recommended areas. The building DID encounter a partial collapse, but it was all internal, and the collapse took out other internal supports, causing the rest of the building to come down and weakening the global structure to the point of complete collapse.

I think you simply want to believe that it's impossible, and that's all your conspiracy rests on, is this BELIEF. You have no evidence. Your evidence is literally a lack of evidence for your theory. That makes no sense.

reply to post by Varemia

What the hell is sudden complete damage? That makes no sense.

Of course that doesn't make sense.. That's what everybody is trying tell you... Buildings don't suddenly and completely collapse unless ALL support is suddenly damaged.

The tower designs excluded the possibility of a partial collapse, since they require the entire system to remain standing.

First I want to congratulate you ! You finally admit that there's a difference between a partial and complete collapse. Even though you just made up that the designs excluded the possibility of a partial collapse I'm still proud of you.

The building DID encounter a partial collapse, but it was all internal, and the collapse took out other internal supports, causing the rest of the building to come down and weakening the global structure to the point of complete collapse.

How severe do you think the enteral collapse was? Was it all the way to the ground level and as wide as the whole building ? Because I can't tell by looking at the video of the penthouse collapsing six seconds before the entire 47 story steel reinforced skyscraper completely collapse in a very similar way as a controlled demolition buildings collapse.

I think you simply want to believe that it's impossible, and that's all your conspiracy rests on, is this BELIEF. You have no evidence. Your evidence is literally a lack of evidence for your theory. That makes no sense.

Now that's just beautiful... You got me all figured out .. My life is too boring without a good conspiracy theory to believe in. Lol

reply to post by maxella1


I'm going from what they actually said. You're producing a secondary source. A source which even says "most" discussion focused on a partial collapse, so by that definition some discussion must have focused on a full collapse.

But if you actually read their testimony you'll see that they thought a total collapse eminently possible, and one article published later - that doesn't even entirely disagree with the notion of a full collapse being on the cards - is hardly as good as the words that they themselves spoke.

However, let's pretend that you're right for a moment. Why is a partial collapse possible from fire, but a full collapse impossible? And why did some of the firefighters discuss a full collapse? Why are fire chiefs who were on the scene not surprised now by what happened, or members of the conspiracy community? Why do they not agree with you that it was "impossible"?