9/11 Loose Change Final Cut Released Online

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Vic
What I want to know is how I can make a full case for government incompetence, how government cannot (and did not) protect us from the terrorists, etc., how trying to cover up that weakness and incompetence has dictated the government response to 9/11, and then some CT dipshit can miraculously turn that around into me being deceived by the government to believe that it is infallible and my only hope for protection. Asshole, the biggest reason I can't believe in your conspiracies (besides the total lack of hard evidence) is because I think government is too stupid and incompetent to pull something like this off.

:roll:<^>

I saw the planes hit the buildings. I've read (and can understand) the NIST report. The buildings fell because the planes hit them. But for the terrorists flying the planes into the buildings, the buildings would not have fallen. The science and the evidence is completely sound. There were no explosives or intentional demolition (besides the planes).

If the CT'ers would like to supply us with evidence to the contrary, I would welcome that. But coincidences are NOT evidence.

maybe u can explain this. TLC just said sulfur from the drywall which is not sulfur but calcium sulfate. from a previous post-

u brought up that the drywall is the cause of the sulfur. well, drywall also contains calcium. if the steel was in direct contact with drywall, i was thinking that calcium might be in or on that sample. then i looked into the burning of drywall. it creates hydrogen sulfide. u say that the sulfur was from the drywall. how much hydrogen sulfide must be produced from the burning of drywall to create that destinctive of a sample from the fema report.
the sample once again showed-

A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion .

now from what ive read, when drywall burns, it makes a gas. Hydrogen sulfide is the chemical compound with the formula H2S. This colorless, toxic and flammable gas is responsible for the foul odour of rotten eggs and flatulence. damn thats some nasty shit!!!! hahaha. from what the fema report says, that agent was a liquid mixture containing iron, oxygen, and sulfur.
so tell me how hydrogen sulfide can do that much damage. how concentrated does that gas need to be to do that much damage. how is it going to convert to a liquid to enter that steel as the sample shows.
heres the fema report if anyone wants to read it:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7...ach_Summary12Dec06.pdf
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

the steel from wtc 7 was analyzed by fema man, not the nist. shit how many times do we have to go into this. u blame lack of communication??? and u still dont care if nist has steel to analyze from wtc 7??? that doesnt make sense to me.

as for steel samples to choose from-

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf

INVENTORY OF RECOVERED STEEL
A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers,
WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of
structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.
then in the same report-
STRUCTURAL STEEL IN WTC 7
No steel was recovered from WTC 7; however, construction-related documents describe the structural
steel as conventional 36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi steels.

now answer this. u say the sulfur is from the drywall. well thats just not "sulfur" but calcium sulphate.
1. did the steel undergo those changes before it fell do to what the nist report states as "fire and/or debris-induced structural damage". then u have to explain to me how concentrated the hydrogen sulfide (from the burning of drywall) would have to be to cause that much damage on that steel sample??
2. if u think this happened on the ground, then u are going to have to explain how calcium sulfide (pieces of the drywall) became sulfur to actually attack the steel like that.
now i point out again the stated goals of the nist-
goal of the study was threefold: Determine mechanical properties of WTC structural steel, Determine the quality of the steel and if design requirements were met, and Analyze the recovered steel to provide insight into failure mechanisms to guide and/or validate models of building performance.

now why dont u want the nist to eval the steel from wtc 7 themselves independant of the fema report??

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

You sound so noble. Delusions of grandeur often do come out in kooks.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

Being skeptical is good. Asking questions is good. Clutching to the belief that the government perpetrated 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is delusional.

When Einstein proposed specific relativity, it was met with a great deal of skepticism. As the evidence that the theory was correct mounted, the skepticism vanished. The same goes for 9/11, except that even as the evidence mounts and each conspiracy theory is torn to bits, people go on believing.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

You sound so noble. Delusions of grandeur often do come out in kooks.

I am but a grain of sand in a vast desert. There is no delusion of grandeur here, I know there isn't much that I myself can do, it will take a tireless effort of like minded individuals to right this ship. Where have you been Mr. Finance? I haven't seen you for awhile? I knew you were against the Gold Standard, I find it interesting that you are also against skepticism regarding 911.

As a skeptic one might wonder what exactly motivates you to be so against these things as to post about them. What drives you LK?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

maybe u can explain this. TLC just said sulfur from the drywall which is not sulfur but calcium sulfate.

Calcium sulfate can undergo chemical decomposition to produce sulfur in a number of ways, particularly in the conditions present at ground zero.

http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
maybe u can explain this. TLC just said sulfur from the drywall which is not sulfur but calcium sulfate. from a previous post-

u brought up that the drywall is the cause of the sulfur. well, drywall also contains calcium. if the steel was in direct contact with drywall, i was thinking that calcium might be in or on that sample. then i looked into the burning of drywall. it creates hydrogen sulfide. u say that the sulfur was from the drywall. how much hydrogen sulfide must be produced from the burning of drywall to create that destinctive of a sample from the fema report.
the sample once again showed-

A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion .

now from what ive read, when drywall burns, it makes a gas. Hydrogen sulfide is the chemical compound with the formula H2S. This colorless, toxic and flammable gas is responsible for the foul odour of rotten eggs and flatulence. damn thats some nasty shit!!!! hahaha. from what the fema report says, that agent was a liquid mixture containing iron, oxygen, and sulfur.
so tell me how hydrogen sulfide can do that much damage. how concentrated does that gas need to be to do that much damage. how is it going to convert to a liquid to enter that steel as the sample shows.
heres the fema report if anyone wants to read it:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7...ach_Summary12Dec06.pdf
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

the steel from wtc 7 was analyzed by fema man, not the nist. shit how many times do we have to go into this. u blame lack of communication??? and u still dont care if nist has steel to analyze from wtc 7??? that doesnt make sense to me.

as for steel samples to choose from-

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf

INVENTORY OF RECOVERED STEEL
A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers,
WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of
structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.
then in the same report-
STRUCTURAL STEEL IN WTC 7
No steel was recovered from WTC 7; however, construction-related documents describe the structural
steel as conventional 36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi steels.

now answer this. u say the sulfur is from the drywall. well thats just not "sulfur" but calcium sulphate.
1. did the steel undergo those changes before it fell do to what the nist report states as "fire and/or debris-induced structural damage". then u have to explain to me how concentrated the hydrogen sulfide (from the burning of drywall) would have to be to cause that much damage on that steel sample??
2. if u think this happened on the ground, then u are going to have to explain how calcium sulfide (pieces of the drywall) became sulfur to actually attack the steel like that.
now i point out again the stated goals of the nist-
goal of the study was threefold: Determine mechanical properties of WTC structural steel, Determine the quality of the steel and if design requirements were met, and Analyze the recovered steel to provide insight into failure mechanisms to guide and/or validate models of building performance.

now why dont u want the nist to eval the steel from wtc 7 themselves independant of the fema report??

Huh? When did I ever say anything about the drywall? In this thread or any other 9/11 thread?

Your post is so convoluted and poorly written that I'm sure what point you're trying to make, but drywall is made of gypsum. Gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate, CaSO4·2H2O. So the presence of calcium sulfate or hydrogen sulfate from burnt drywall would not be cause for suspicion.

 

[event8horizon]

tastes like chicken did. i said it was a repost.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: event8horizon
maybe u can explain this. TLC just said sulfur from the drywall which is not sulfur but calcium sulfate. from a previous post-

u brought up that the drywall is the cause of the sulfur. well, drywall also contains calcium. if the steel was in direct contact with drywall, i was thinking that calcium might be in or on that sample. then i looked into the burning of drywall. it creates hydrogen sulfide. u say that the sulfur was from the drywall. how much hydrogen sulfide must be produced from the burning of drywall to create that destinctive of a sample from the fema report.
the sample once again showed-

A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion .

now from what ive read, when drywall burns, it makes a gas. Hydrogen sulfide is the chemical compound with the formula H2S. This colorless, toxic and flammable gas is responsible for the foul odour of rotten eggs and flatulence. damn thats some nasty shit!!!! hahaha. from what the fema report says, that agent was a liquid mixture containing iron, oxygen, and sulfur.
so tell me how hydrogen sulfide can do that much damage. how concentrated does that gas need to be to do that much damage. how is it going to convert to a liquid to enter that steel as the sample shows.
heres the fema report if anyone wants to read it:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7...ach_Summary12Dec06.pdf
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

the steel from wtc 7 was analyzed by fema man, not the nist. shit how many times do we have to go into this. u blame lack of communication??? and u still dont care if nist has steel to analyze from wtc 7??? that doesnt make sense to me.

as for steel samples to choose from-

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf

INVENTORY OF RECOVERED STEEL
A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers,
WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of
structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.
then in the same report-
STRUCTURAL STEEL IN WTC 7
No steel was recovered from WTC 7; however, construction-related documents describe the structural
steel as conventional 36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi steels.

now answer this. u say the sulfur is from the drywall. well thats just not "sulfur" but calcium sulphate.
1. did the steel undergo those changes before it fell do to what the nist report states as "fire and/or debris-induced structural damage". then u have to explain to me how concentrated the hydrogen sulfide (from the burning of drywall) would have to be to cause that much damage on that steel sample??
2. if u think this happened on the ground, then u are going to have to explain how calcium sulfide (pieces of the drywall) became sulfur to actually attack the steel like that.
now i point out again the stated goals of the nist-
goal of the study was threefold: Determine mechanical properties of WTC structural steel, Determine the quality of the steel and if design requirements were met, and Analyze the recovered steel to provide insight into failure mechanisms to guide and/or validate models of building performance.

now why dont u want the nist to eval the steel from wtc 7 themselves independant of the fema report??

Huh? When did I ever say anything about the drywall? In this thread or any other 9/11 thread?

Your post is so convoluted and poorly written that I'm sure what point you're trying to make, but drywall is made of gypsum. Gypsum is calcium sulfate dihydrate, CaSO4·2H2O. So the presence of calcium sulfate or hydrogen sulfate from burnt drywall would not be cause for suspicion.

thats all i wanted to know. thanks

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tastes like chicken did. i said it was a repost.

See my response above.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

Being skeptical is good. Asking questions is good. Clutching to the belief that the government perpetrated 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is delusional.

Clutching? One neither needs to believe that the government was responsible for 911 nor does one need to believe the full account of what the government has told us to believe regarding the subject. As far as evidence is concerned I think there is more evidence to the contrary regarding the Government's theories than that of the the "theorists". I have a better idea, lets throw out the theories and get down to what really happened.

When Einstein proposed specific relativity, it was met with a great deal of skepticism. As the evidence that the theory was correct mounted, the skepticism vanished. The same goes for 9/11, except that even as the evidence mounts and each conspiracy theory is torn to bits, people go on believing.

I'm not sure about that one, I think in the 1st Loose change they claimed that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon at all, in this latest version they seemed to back off now. In this version they seemed to present evidence that should have been investigated by the commission thoroughly. You know like who funded them.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

Being skeptical is good. Asking questions is good. Clutching to the belief that the government perpetrated 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is delusional.

Clutching? One neither needs to believe that the government was responsible for 911 nor does one need to believe the full account of what the government has told us to believe regarding the subject. As far as evidence is concerned I think there is more evidence to the contrary regarding the Government's theories than that of the the "theorists". I have a better idea, lets throw out the theories and get down to what really happened.

When Einstein proposed specific relativity, it was met with a great deal of skepticism. As the evidence that the theory was correct mounted, the skepticism vanished. The same goes for 9/11, except that even as the evidence mounts and each conspiracy theory is torn to bits, people go on believing.

I'm not sure about that one, I think in the 1st Loose change they claimed that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon at all, in this latest version they seemed to back off now. In this version they seemed to present evidence that should have been investigated by the commission thoroughly. You know like who funded them.

What really happened? Hijacked planes slammed into the WTC, bringing the towers crashing down to earth. I'm pretty sure that, at this point, is fact.

As for Loose Change, they keep changing what they say as each iteration of their BS gets dispelled. First, they claimed missiles hit the Pentagon and now they want to make a conspiracy about who did the 9/11 report? Seems to me like they're grasping at straws.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tastes like chicken did. i said it was a repost.

See my response above.

ill take a look at it

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

Being skeptical is good. Asking questions is good. Clutching to the belief that the government perpetrated 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is delusional.

Clutching? One neither needs to believe that the government was responsible for 911 nor does one need to believe the full account of what the government has told us to believe regarding the subject. As far as evidence is concerned I think there is more evidence to the contrary regarding the Government's theories than that of the the "theorists". I have a better idea, lets throw out the theories and get down to what really happened.

When Einstein proposed specific relativity, it was met with a great deal of skepticism. As the evidence that the theory was correct mounted, the skepticism vanished. The same goes for 9/11, except that even as the evidence mounts and each conspiracy theory is torn to bits, people go on believing.

I'm not sure about that one, I think in the 1st Loose change they claimed that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon at all, in this latest version they seemed to back off now. In this version they seemed to present evidence that should have been investigated by the commission thoroughly. You know like who funded them.

What really happened? Hijacked planes slammed into the WTC, bringing the towers crashing down to earth. I'm pretty sure that, at this point, is fact.

That's where I disagree, I don't see enough evidence to point to the planes and fire as being the only cause for the collapse of especially WTC7. I also would really like to know what all of those explosions were.

As for Loose Change, they keep changing what they say as each iteration of their BS gets dispelled. First, they claimed missiles hit the Pentagon and now they want to make a conspiracy about who did the 9/11 report? Seems to me like they're grasping at straws.

Well actually they change it as they get more and more evidence. It's still not the best documentary on the subject, 911 Press for Truth is still the best one.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

Being skeptical is good. Asking questions is good. Clutching to the belief that the government perpetrated 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is delusional.

Clutching? One neither needs to believe that the government was responsible for 911 nor does one need to believe the full account of what the government has told us to believe regarding the subject. As far as evidence is concerned I think there is more evidence to the contrary regarding the Government's theories than that of the the "theorists". I have a better idea, lets throw out the theories and get down to what really happened.

When Einstein proposed specific relativity, it was met with a great deal of skepticism. As the evidence that the theory was correct mounted, the skepticism vanished. The same goes for 9/11, except that even as the evidence mounts and each conspiracy theory is torn to bits, people go on believing.

I'm not sure about that one, I think in the 1st Loose change they claimed that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon at all, in this latest version they seemed to back off now. In this version they seemed to present evidence that should have been investigated by the commission thoroughly. You know like who funded them.

What really happened? Hijacked planes slammed into the WTC, bringing the towers crashing down to earth. I'm pretty sure that, at this point, is fact.

That's where I disagree, I don't see enough evidence to point to the planes and fire as being the only cause for the collapse of especially WTC7. I also would really like to know what all of those explosions were.

As for Loose Change, they keep changing what they say as each iteration of their BS gets dispelled. First, they claimed missiles hit the Pentagon and now they want to make a conspiracy about who did the 9/11 report? Seems to me like they're grasping at straws.

Well actually they change it as they get more and more evidence. It's still not the best documentary on the subject, 911 Press for Truth is still the best one.

That's where I'm going to claim your twisting the facts - they ARE changing it as they get more and more evidence because the evidence points to all of their initial theories being horribly wrong.

Again, find any credible source (not youtube) that claims explosions were heard or seen. Find any shred of evidence that people saw explosions. Tell me how, and why, and who planted explosives in the WTC. TEll me when they then had planes hijacked and flown into the buildings? Tell me this conspiracy, which must have involved hundreds of people, exists and yet not a single person has stepped forward to say "I was part of it."

The NIST report accounts for all the visual evidence seen by observers regarding the towers - I see no holes, inconsistencies, or anything with their scientific explanation of how and why the buildings collapsed.

But, see, we're at the same impasse. You won't accept the NIST report, or other evidence I present and I think your collection of youtube videos and truther sites are full of shit.

Evidently neither of us is going to convince the other.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

You sound so noble. Delusions of grandeur often do come out in kooks.

I am but a grain of sand in a vast desert. There is no delusion of grandeur here, I know there isn't much that I myself can do, it will take a tireless effort of like minded individuals to right this ship. Where have you been Mr. Finance? I haven't seen you for awhile? I knew you were against the Gold Standard, I find it interesting that you are also against skepticism regarding 911.

As a skeptic one might wonder what exactly motivates you to be so against these things as to post about them. What drives you LK?

A gain of sand in a vast desert? Please sparky, don't wax poetic when your stupidity abounds in every thread I read of yours.

I don't have any skepticism of 9/11. I think our government is inept, but I also know that fighting terrorists is extremely difficult, as they have the initiative in that they know where they will strike and we do not. It's impossible for us to guard against all possibilities. Thus, we are bound to fail.

I know people who were in the towers. I live in NYC. There was no conspiracy.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

Being skeptical is good. Asking questions is good. Clutching to the belief that the government perpetrated 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is delusional.

Clutching? One neither needs to believe that the government was responsible for 911 nor does one need to believe the full account of what the government has told us to believe regarding the subject. As far as evidence is concerned I think there is more evidence to the contrary regarding the Government's theories than that of the the "theorists". I have a better idea, lets throw out the theories and get down to what really happened.

When Einstein proposed specific relativity, it was met with a great deal of skepticism. As the evidence that the theory was correct mounted, the skepticism vanished. The same goes for 9/11, except that even as the evidence mounts and each conspiracy theory is torn to bits, people go on believing.

I'm not sure about that one, I think in the 1st Loose change they claimed that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon at all, in this latest version they seemed to back off now. In this version they seemed to present evidence that should have been investigated by the commission thoroughly. You know like who funded them.

What really happened? Hijacked planes slammed into the WTC, bringing the towers crashing down to earth. I'm pretty sure that, at this point, is fact.

That's where I disagree, I don't see enough evidence to point to the planes and fire as being the only cause for the collapse of especially WTC7. I also would really like to know what all of those explosions were.

As for Loose Change, they keep changing what they say as each iteration of their BS gets dispelled. First, they claimed missiles hit the Pentagon and now they want to make a conspiracy about who did the 9/11 report? Seems to me like they're grasping at straws.

Well actually they change it as they get more and more evidence. It's still not the best documentary on the subject, 911 Press for Truth is still the best one.

That's where I'm going to claim your twisting the facts - they ARE changing it as they get more and more evidence because the evidence points to all of their initial theories being horribly wrong.

Again, find any credible source (not youtube) that claims explosions were heard or seen. Find any shred of evidence that people saw explosions. Tell me how, and why, and who planted explosives in the WTC. TEll me when they then had planes hijacked and flown into the buildings? Tell me this conspiracy, which must have involved hundreds of people, exists and yet not a single person has stepped forward to say "I was part of it."

100's of eyewitness reports claimed secondary explosions, if you do look on youtube you can watch video and hear the explosions yourself, even though you don't believe this a credible source. It's clear there were explosions. http://st12.startlogic.com/~xe...rground_explosions.htm

Well if you were part of a conspiracy to kill thousands of people would you come forward?

The NIST report accounts for all the visual evidence seen by observers regarding the towers - I see no holes, inconsistencies, or anything with their scientific explanation of how and why the buildings collapsed.

Well except for all the explosions they said they heard.

But, see, we're at the same impasse. You won't accept the NIST report, or other evidence I present and I think your collection of youtube videos and truther sites are full of shit.

Evidently neither of us is going to convince the other.

I have accepted the NIST report. I just happen to think it's incomplete.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Yes LK you have proven how incredible you are by throwing insults around saying how stupid everyone else is. I mean gosh I'm so stupid look how you've shown everyone in this thread you claimed I created. Yes your ability to sling around insults has clearly proven how incredible you are! WOW!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

Being skeptical is good. Asking questions is good. Clutching to the belief that the government perpetrated 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is delusional.

Clutching? One neither needs to believe that the government was responsible for 911 nor does one need to believe the full account of what the government has told us to believe regarding the subject. As far as evidence is concerned I think there is more evidence to the contrary regarding the Government's theories than that of the the "theorists". I have a better idea, lets throw out the theories and get down to what really happened.

When Einstein proposed specific relativity, it was met with a great deal of skepticism. As the evidence that the theory was correct mounted, the skepticism vanished. The same goes for 9/11, except that even as the evidence mounts and each conspiracy theory is torn to bits, people go on believing.

I'm not sure about that one, I think in the 1st Loose change they claimed that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon at all, in this latest version they seemed to back off now. In this version they seemed to present evidence that should have been investigated by the commission thoroughly. You know like who funded them.

What really happened? Hijacked planes slammed into the WTC, bringing the towers crashing down to earth. I'm pretty sure that, at this point, is fact.

That's where I disagree, I don't see enough evidence to point to the planes and fire as being the only cause for the collapse of especially WTC7. I also would really like to know what all of those explosions were.

As for Loose Change, they keep changing what they say as each iteration of their BS gets dispelled. First, they claimed missiles hit the Pentagon and now they want to make a conspiracy about who did the 9/11 report? Seems to me like they're grasping at straws.

Well actually they change it as they get more and more evidence. It's still not the best documentary on the subject, 911 Press for Truth is still the best one.

That's where I'm going to claim your twisting the facts - they ARE changing it as they get more and more evidence because the evidence points to all of their initial theories being horribly wrong.

Again, find any credible source (not youtube) that claims explosions were heard or seen. Find any shred of evidence that people saw explosions. Tell me how, and why, and who planted explosives in the WTC. TEll me when they then had planes hijacked and flown into the buildings? Tell me this conspiracy, which must have involved hundreds of people, exists and yet not a single person has stepped forward to say "I was part of it."

100's of eyewitness reports claimed secondary explosions, if you do look on youtube you can watch video and hear the explosions yourself, even though you don't believe this a credible source. It's clear there were explosions. http://st12.startlogic.com/~xe...rground_explosions.htm

Well if you were part of a conspiracy to kill thousands of people would you come forward?

The NIST report accounts for all the visual evidence seen by observers regarding the towers - I see no holes, inconsistencies, or anything with their scientific explanation of how and why the buildings collapsed.

Well except for all the explosions they said they heard.

But, see, we're at the same impasse. You won't accept the NIST report, or other evidence I present and I think your collection of youtube videos and truther sites are full of shit.

Evidently neither of us is going to convince the other.

I have accepted the NIST report. I just happen to think it's incomplete.

According to the link you published, the 'explosion' evidence on the ground floor was caused by jet fuel coming down the elevator shaft. The site you link to claims that "the lobby shows none of the soot or fuel residue we would expect from such an explosion", but I have no idea who wrote that so I have no idea if that person knows what the hell they're talking about.

I have not seen a single source beyond youtube that claims there were 'explosions'. The videos I've watched show no evidence of explosions. The first-hand reports I've read don't mention it. Anecdote: Even two friends I know who were at ground zero never heard explosions.

Truthers are grasping at straws here. If there were explosions, why don't they appear on the seismograph? If there were explosions, who planted the explosives? Who planted these explosives? Why?

Why wouldn't anyone come forward? Well, if I realized that I had been part of a plot to kill 3,000 Americans, I would say something and, on the scale that this "conspiracy" must have existed on, SOMEBODY would have said something. What truthers propose is a conspiracy that involves multiple federal agencies and hundreds upon hundreds of people. Look at Watergate - far fewer people involved and the 'government' couldn't even that covered up. Look at Operation Northwoods - couldn't keep that a secret either. Look at the Bay of Pigs - no secrets there. Thus far, we have nothing.

Like I said though, we aren't going to convince each otherwise and here's why:
You believe in this conspiracy and there is no way I can disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That isn't because this conspiracy has any validity whatsoever, it's because, by their very nature, conspiracy theories are impossible to disprove.

You won't convince me because you can't find any real evidence of what you claim. Hence, impasse.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Yes LK you have proven how incredible you are by throwing insults around saying how stupid everyone else is. I mean gosh I'm so stupid look how you've shown everyone in this thread you claimed I created. Yes your ability to sling around insults has clearly proven how incredible you are! WOW!

Thank you.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

Being skeptical is good. Asking questions is good. Clutching to the belief that the government perpetrated 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is delusional.

Clutching? One neither needs to believe that the government was responsible for 911 nor does one need to believe the full account of what the government has told us to believe regarding the subject. As far as evidence is concerned I think there is more evidence to the contrary regarding the Government's theories than that of the the "theorists". I have a better idea, lets throw out the theories and get down to what really happened.

When Einstein proposed specific relativity, it was met with a great deal of skepticism. As the evidence that the theory was correct mounted, the skepticism vanished. The same goes for 9/11, except that even as the evidence mounts and each conspiracy theory is torn to bits, people go on believing.

I'm not sure about that one, I think in the 1st Loose change they claimed that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon at all, in this latest version they seemed to back off now. In this version they seemed to present evidence that should have been investigated by the commission thoroughly. You know like who funded them.

What really happened? Hijacked planes slammed into the WTC, bringing the towers crashing down to earth. I'm pretty sure that, at this point, is fact.

That's where I disagree, I don't see enough evidence to point to the planes and fire as being the only cause for the collapse of especially WTC7. I also would really like to know what all of those explosions were.

As for Loose Change, they keep changing what they say as each iteration of their BS gets dispelled. First, they claimed missiles hit the Pentagon and now they want to make a conspiracy about who did the 9/11 report? Seems to me like they're grasping at straws.

Well actually they change it as they get more and more evidence. It's still not the best documentary on the subject, 911 Press for Truth is still the best one.

That's where I'm going to claim your twisting the facts - they ARE changing it as they get more and more evidence because the evidence points to all of their initial theories being horribly wrong.

Again, find any credible source (not youtube) that claims explosions were heard or seen. Find any shred of evidence that people saw explosions. Tell me how, and why, and who planted explosives in the WTC. TEll me when they then had planes hijacked and flown into the buildings? Tell me this conspiracy, which must have involved hundreds of people, exists and yet not a single person has stepped forward to say "I was part of it."

100's of eyewitness reports claimed secondary explosions, if you do look on youtube you can watch video and hear the explosions yourself, even though you don't believe this a credible source. It's clear there were explosions. http://st12.startlogic.com/~xe...rground_explosions.htm

Well if you were part of a conspiracy to kill thousands of people would you come forward?

The NIST report accounts for all the visual evidence seen by observers regarding the towers - I see no holes, inconsistencies, or anything with their scientific explanation of how and why the buildings collapsed.

Well except for all the explosions they said they heard.

But, see, we're at the same impasse. You won't accept the NIST report, or other evidence I present and I think your collection of youtube videos and truther sites are full of shit.

Evidently neither of us is going to convince the other.

I have accepted the NIST report. I just happen to think it's incomplete.

According to the link you published, the 'explosion' evidence on the ground floor was caused by jet fuel coming down the elevator shaft. The site you link to claims that "the lobby shows none of the soot or fuel residue we would expect from such an explosion", but I have no idea who wrote that so I have no idea if that person knows what the hell they're talking about.

I have not seen a single source beyond youtube that claims there were 'explosions'. The videos I've watched show no evidence of explosions. The first-hand reports I've read don't mention it. Anecdote: Even two friends I know who were at ground zero never heard explosions.

Truthers are grasping at straws here. If there were explosions, why don't they appear on the seismograph? If there were explosions, who planted the explosives? Who planted these explosives? Why?

Why wouldn't anyone come forward? Well, if I realized that I had been part of a plot to kill 3,000 Americans, I would say something and, on the scale that this "conspiracy" must have existed on, SOMEBODY would have said something. What truthers propose is a conspiracy that involves multiple federal agencies and hundreds upon hundreds of people. Look at Watergate - far fewer people involved and the 'government' couldn't even that covered up. Look at Operation Northwoods - couldn't keep that a secret either. Look at the Bay of Pigs - no secrets there. Thus far, we have nothing.

Like I said though, we aren't going to convince each otherwise and here's why:
You believe in this conspiracy and there is no way I can disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That isn't because this conspiracy has any validity whatsoever, it's because, by their very nature, conspiracy theories are impossible to disprove.

You won't convince me because you can't find any real evidence of what you claim. Hence, impasse.

Northwoods didn't come out until the 90's! The CIA's operations in Iran in 1953, the 70's! We didn't know about the SR-71 until the 80's! Can you say Manhattan project? As far as explosions are concerned I don't know what to tell you. Many documentaries have shown the lobby literally in ruins from explosions. No these aren't "truther" documentaries.

No explosions? Explain this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5HG8jzkEzg

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

Being skeptical is good. Asking questions is good. Clutching to the belief that the government perpetrated 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is delusional.

Clutching? One neither needs to believe that the government was responsible for 911 nor does one need to believe the full account of what the government has told us to believe regarding the subject. As far as evidence is concerned I think there is more evidence to the contrary regarding the Government's theories than that of the the "theorists". I have a better idea, lets throw out the theories and get down to what really happened.

When Einstein proposed specific relativity, it was met with a great deal of skepticism. As the evidence that the theory was correct mounted, the skepticism vanished. The same goes for 9/11, except that even as the evidence mounts and each conspiracy theory is torn to bits, people go on believing.

I'm not sure about that one, I think in the 1st Loose change they claimed that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon at all, in this latest version they seemed to back off now. In this version they seemed to present evidence that should have been investigated by the commission thoroughly. You know like who funded them.

What really happened? Hijacked planes slammed into the WTC, bringing the towers crashing down to earth. I'm pretty sure that, at this point, is fact.

That's where I disagree, I don't see enough evidence to point to the planes and fire as being the only cause for the collapse of especially WTC7. I also would really like to know what all of those explosions were.

As for Loose Change, they keep changing what they say as each iteration of their BS gets dispelled. First, they claimed missiles hit the Pentagon and now they want to make a conspiracy about who did the 9/11 report? Seems to me like they're grasping at straws.

Well actually they change it as they get more and more evidence. It's still not the best documentary on the subject, 911 Press for Truth is still the best one.

That's where I'm going to claim your twisting the facts - they ARE changing it as they get more and more evidence because the evidence points to all of their initial theories being horribly wrong.

Again, find any credible source (not youtube) that claims explosions were heard or seen. Find any shred of evidence that people saw explosions. Tell me how, and why, and who planted explosives in the WTC. TEll me when they then had planes hijacked and flown into the buildings? Tell me this conspiracy, which must have involved hundreds of people, exists and yet not a single person has stepped forward to say "I was part of it."

100's of eyewitness reports claimed secondary explosions, if you do look on youtube you can watch video and hear the explosions yourself, even though you don't believe this a credible source. It's clear there were explosions. http://st12.startlogic.com/~xe...rground_explosions.htm

Well if you were part of a conspiracy to kill thousands of people would you come forward?

The NIST report accounts for all the visual evidence seen by observers regarding the towers - I see no holes, inconsistencies, or anything with their scientific explanation of how and why the buildings collapsed.

Well except for all the explosions they said they heard.

But, see, we're at the same impasse. You won't accept the NIST report, or other evidence I present and I think your collection of youtube videos and truther sites are full of shit.

Evidently neither of us is going to convince the other.

I have accepted the NIST report. I just happen to think it's incomplete.

According to the link you published, the 'explosion' evidence on the ground floor was caused by jet fuel coming down the elevator shaft. The site you link to claims that "the lobby shows none of the soot or fuel residue we would expect from such an explosion", but I have no idea who wrote that so I have no idea if that person knows what the hell they're talking about.

I'm sorry it didn't say that anywhere, do you actually believe the explosions in the basement were caused by jet fuel? If you believe that then holy shit as Carlin would say.

I have not seen a single source beyond youtube that claims there were 'explosions'. The videos I've watched show no evidence of explosions. The first-hand reports I've read don't mention it. Anecdote: Even two friends I know who were at ground zero never heard explosions.

Truthers are grasping at straws here. If there were explosions, why don't they appear on the seismograph? If there were explosions, who planted the explosives? Who planted these explosives? Why?

They did appear on a seismograph.

Why wouldn't anyone come forward? Well, if I realized that I had been part of a plot to kill 3,000 Americans, I would say something and, on the scale that this "conspiracy" must have existed on, SOMEBODY would have said something. What truthers propose is a conspiracy that involves multiple federal agencies and hundreds upon hundreds of people. Look at Watergate - far fewer people involved and the 'government' couldn't even that covered up. Look at Operation Northwoods - couldn't keep that a secret either. Look at the Bay of Pigs - no secrets there. Thus far, we have nothing.

Like I said though, we aren't going to convince each otherwise and here's why:
You believe in this conspiracy and there is no way I can disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That isn't because this conspiracy has any validity whatsoever, it's because, by their very nature, conspiracy theories are impossible to disprove.

You won't convince me because you can't find any real evidence of what you claim. Hence, impasse.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

No explosions? Explain this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5HG8jzkEzg

Thats an interesting video. Evidence? Of course not. The jet fuel obviously trickled down and pooled into some container, sealed itself, and was heated until it exploded. Damn idiot truthers! Fucking use some damned common sense I tell ya. Common sense! :|

 

[Vic]

Buildings are not monolithic structures. WTC7 was suffering all kinds of structural failures prior to its collapse. It had a 20 story gash with pieces of WTC1 in it FFS.

Here's a question. It's kind of beef I've had with the "Truther" bit every since it moved to the explosives and missiles nonsense. If the building were brought down by explosives, then why the planes at all? "They" could have just said the terrorists used bombs a la '93. And don't say "to finish the job" because the damage from the planes alone, even if the buildings hadn't fallen, most likely would have been sufficient to have them condemned.

 

[SSSnail]

Shock & Awe + Insurance.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
No explosions? Explain this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5HG8jzkEzg

Explain what? A loud noise while two guys were filmed talking on the phone? How is that proof of any explosion, let alone explosives in WTC 7?