COMMENTS:
In my experience conspiracy theorists dont live in the world of evidence. They live in the world of stories and narratives. The difference between the two is that I could read a novel such as "The Da Vinci" code and know that it was full of distortions and inconsistencies and generally fanciful ideas and I would find it entertaining but I would know that it isnt real. Conspiracy theorists like David Icke tell a good tale, I will give them credit for that but the closer you look at his stories the more nonsensical they are. So I guess the answer is no. No evidence will ever convince those who wish to believe in fantasies about reality. Of course Im a shill who works for PNAC, Big Oil, and the NSA. I triple bill for every comment so I would say all of this.
trust Searchlight for another personal attack LOL
Can you cite some facts, Searchlight or only insults?
The facts have been stated again and again. I cant be bothered with another cut and paste "debate". We are not going to convince each other of anything ever so why bother?
Well since you think I'm Searchlight, which I'm not, I might as well ask this. What personal attack is there in her comment ColdCircuit? Could you please select that particular part of her comment and post it in a comment so we can see just what part of her comment is a personal attack?
Secondly, you did not answer the ballot question. So what evidence would you need to see ColdCircuit?
Great, now they'll really have a field day ;)
"The facts have been stated again and again.
by Searchlight on Thu Aug 31, 06 4:57am"
The facts that prove you wrong have. I'm talking about you citing some facts, not other people. You refuse to cite any, or you don't have any? Which is it?
"So what evidence would you need to see ColdCircuit?
by Beauregard on Thu Aug 31, 06 4:58am"
NUMBER ONE; a mathematical model of the collapse of WTC 7 proving that there was enough energy for a gravity driven collapse. It must model in the formula the collapse of WTC 7 the whole collapse, not only the beginning, but all the way to the end.
The mathematical formula must work too. If it can't pass independent calculation and analysis, and in way requires alteration or deviation from the empirical data, then it fails.
^ Thanks. Now can you please pull from Searchlights comments the peronal attacks you claim she made in that comment? I'm just not seeing it. If you could cut and paste the part of her comment that you say is a personal attack.
" NUMBER ONE; a mathematical model of the collapse of WTC 7 proving that there was enough energy for a gravity driven collapse. It must model in the formula the collapse of WTC 7 the whole collapse, not only the beginning, but all the way to the end."
Where did you get your PhD in Mathematics from coldcircuit??
Until you can provide proof of your PhD in mathematics, then you talking completely out of your ASS.
Voted : I don't believe there was a conspiracy but I would like to comment (see comment)
I still find it hard to believe that a plane flew into the Pentagon. Other than that, I don't see any conspiracies
"Until you can provide proof of your PhD in mathematics
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Thu Aug 31, 06 6:30am"
Either you can provide the mathematical model or you can't. Can you or can't you?
Voted : I don't believe there was a conspiracy but I would like to comment (see comment)
^^ yah
find someone who saw a plane hit the Pentagon and then I'll believe anything The Man tells me :)
by Jyl on Thu Aug 31, 06 9:44am
[+]
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"
What do you mean by "mathematical model", Coldcircuit?
Unfortunately a lack of proof (or proof that it is not true) is what motivates these people.
All the facts point towards the official story? Well that just proves that there is a very efficient and thorough conspiracy in place to make sure the facts all point towards the official story.
There is little hope for these people.
"In my experience conspiracy theorists dont live in the world of evidence...."
by Searchlight
He then as per usual goes on to present NO evidence himself to back up his phoney box cutter, 7 arabs who couldn't fly, who trained in America when they could have trained anywhere in the world, and the buildings that were obliterated by pre planted explosives, the missile that hit the Pentagon and can be vestigially seen in the video that was released without official authorisation (whistleblowers?), the confiscation of all the other videos and the refusal 5 years later to release any of them, the stand down of the US airforce on the morning of the attacks by war profiteer Dick Cheney, the subsequent blips all over the ATC radar screens from phantom airliners crashing into buildings at the very hour of the attacks while phantom drills took place - how stupid are you people to fall for this? - sure it was just a coincidence wasn't it? -of course it was!
Atta's passport being the only one recovered and in an amazing stroke of luck for the accusers found in pristine condition on the street despite the plane and everyone else in it being allegedly vaporised!
The fires that were almost out and never rose above 500 centigrade in the brief time they flourished, yet supposedly softened and melted steel that needs temps of 2800 degrees before this can even begin - max temp airline fuel will burn at is around 1800 degrees if I remember correctly.
It just goes on and on and on.....
There is NO hope for you people as long as you stick your heads in the sand.
Well let me ask you this K_F_D. What evidence? How much more evidence do you want or need to see. See, by nature of a conspiracy theory, the belief in a conspiracy (cover-up) usually either stems from someone spilling the beans or from someone, whether an expert or not, who says "hold on, something doesn't add up here." Would you agree so far?
At this point, all the evidence has been presented and people either accepted it as fact and as believable, or they did not. Obviously, those who believe there was a conspiracy have not accepted it, correct? So what more evidence should those that do not believe there was a grand conspiracy have to produce?
To be fair, the onus is on you and those who believe as you do, to present evidence that refutes the "expert" evidence, as it were.
Its not to say that you are wrong and its not to say that you are right. What it is to say is that if someone like Searchlight believes in the commonly accepted facts of those events, she in theory should not be expected to produce any evidence. Its those that challenge the commonly accpeted facts or explanation of events that need to produce evidence to back-up the claims they make, which go against the mainstream findings.
Its just like in a court of law. Its up to the Prosecution (the accuser) to prove the claims being made (charges).
More generalisations and and diversionary small talk, you go on about 'evidence' and 'experts' but never present any evidence or quote any experts! - sure we can all do that! - you really aren't fooling anyone but yourself Beaureagard...
So here's a challenge to you Beau -
Quote some of these 'experts' and present some of the 'evidence' here and now and let's see how it stacks up to the reality ->
GO ON - WE'RE WAITING!
"What do you mean by "mathematical model", Coldcircuit?
by Applerod on Thu Aug 31, 06 10:47am"
I believe that the answer to that is clear in the very first statement that I made on the subject.
NUMBER ONE; a mathematical model of the collapse of WTC 7 proving that there was enough energy for a gravity driven collapse. It must model in the formula the collapse of WTC 7 the whole collapse, not only the beginning, but all the way to the end. The mathematical formula must work too. If it can't pass independent calculation and analysis, and in way requires alteration or deviation from the empirical data, then it fails.
No one, and no organisation has succeeded in this.
Beauregard if you can't provide any facts get off the ballot. It's too tough for you and you don't know how to debate.
Ken there are whole paper decaded that supporting the official story.If you would do a little research rather than keep repeating the same line over and over again you would know this.
Well Lovelynice, I think I'll stay on the ballot. I see the usual diversionary, deflective tactics you and K_F_D like to use. As you can see by the ballot, Wideheadofknowledge is asking you what evidence you would need to see.
And as I stated, all the evidence has been presented. What new evidence is there? Instead of doing your usual tactics of attacking people and generally treating them like garbage, try taking your own advice and open your eyes. I made a very reasonable and civil comment above. I know its difficult for you to be civil, but please try.
K_F_D you can keep making your bold challenges all you like, but I'm not easily bated. Stay on topic here and respond as the ballot asks. Otherwise maybe its you that should leave the ballot.
More generalisations and and diversionary small talk, you go on about 'evidence' and 'experts' but never present any evidence or quote any experts! -
Quote some of these 'experts' and present some of the 'evidence' here and now and let's see how it stacks up to the reality ->
by Ken_from_Dublin on Thu Aug 31, 06 4:23p
^^ You both sound just like Lovelynice? K_F_D, your mad obsession with these debates is annoying. Every ballot you post on, you drivel on with endless posts. How many more ballots are going to be made with the same evidence presented by both sides of the arguments, with never any resolution?
You're not going to change anyones mind and one is going to change yours, so all we have is you and the alias gang posting the same stuff endlessly.
Instead of being so rude, try being civil and a bit less arrogant and unpleasant.
Your whole gang (all 2 of you) get no where because you're rude and snippy and because nothing ever changes. Facts and evidence? How much more does either side need? Its the same stuff.
So its we who are waiting for you both to answer the ballot question. You've done everything to avoid it.
And ColdCircuit (wink, wink), please answer this question you keep avoiding
Now can you please pull from Searchlights comments the peronal attacks you claim she made in that comment? I'm just not seeing it. If you could cut and paste the part of her comment that you say is a personal attack.
by Beauregard on Thu Aug 31, 06 5:19am
^^We're waiting. Hurry up you guys.
More generalisations and and diversionary small talk, you go on about 'evidence' and 'experts' but never present any evidence or quote any experts! -
Quote some of these 'experts' and present some of the 'evidence' here and now and let's see how it stacks up to the reality ->
by Ken_from_Dublin on Thu Aug 31, 06 4:23p
^^ Yeah, that would be because I'm not all about cutting and pasting and because its been put up on what looks to be about 15 ballots already and because you need that to give you the launch pad into your abuse of others. See, we're all kind of onto you guys (wink, wink). You need others to put up "evidence" so that you can have a reason to cut and paste replies you made 2 years ago. See, I've been doing quite a bit of research on here and I was kind of surprised at what I discovered. Quite surprised indeed. Anyway, back on topic.
We're waiting.
"Energy for a gravity driven collapse"?
This kind of psuedoscientific babble is laughable.
A "gravity driven collapse" derives it's energy from (drum roll) gravity!
The comment makes no sense AT ALL.
And Ken_from_dublin has a real problem when it comes to "evidence" he will accept.
ACCEPTABLE: Conspiracy theory lies, misinformation, conjecture, irrelevant eyewitness testimony (but ignoring eyewitnesses that go against the claims), anomaly hunting and arrogant claims that non-specialists would have known what should have happened.
UNACCEPTABLE: forensic and DNA analysis, many scientific papers and journals, expert testimony, photographic evidence, logic, science etc etc etc.
And of course he seems to think that scientific reports, statements or evidence only hold weight if we copy and paste them onto this site.
" He then as per usual goes on to present NO evidence himself"
Rather than insult the intelligence of other users by copying reams and reams of information, Ken most of us feel that everyone should find the real story for themselves - only finding it necessary to highlight the blatant lies with the occasional quote.
Big difference between believers in the conspiracy and non-believers? Believers clearly do not actually read and evaluate what they post because they cannot transform the information into their own words. It's what high school plagiarists do - they copy but have no idea AT ALL about what they are presenting to others.
" there are whole paper decaded that supporting the official story.If you would do a little research rather than keep repeating the same line over and over again you would know this.
by Corrupt on Thu Aug 31, 06 8:35pm"
and there are whole papers tearing apart the official story too.
No one and no organisation has succeeded in modelling the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.
"A "gravity driven collapse" derives it's energy from (drum roll) gravity!
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Aug 31, 06 10:34pm"
and there wasn't enough energy from gravity for a gravity driven collapse.
Your sophist excuse doesn't work.
There has to be enough energy to overcome the structural resistance of the buildings, and there isn't enough energy for a gravity driven collapse according to every mathematical model based on the empirical data without any alteration to that data.
I'm not asking for much; only a mathematical model of the collapse of WTC 7 proving that there was enough energy for a gravity driven collapse. It must model in the formula the collapse of WTC 7 for the whole collapse, not only the beginning, not stopping part way, but all the way to the end. The mathematical formula must work and it must pass independent calculation and analysis, and not in anyway require alteration or deviation from the empirical data.
Beauregard, Miss Lovelynice has not posted any comments on this ballot. Is this "pre-emptive stalking behaviour"?
^ Yes she has. You just did. Would you like some pre-emptive proof? I keep warning to be civil otherwise, your past words are going to show you up. It obvious you think we're all stupid and don't know that you are in fact, among many ohter aliases, Lovelynice. You realize I'm sure that you've left a factual trail of evidence, right?
And once again, answer the question.
WIDEHEADOFKNOWLEDGE, don't let them turn this into another endless debate with the same ole' crap.
Answer the ballot question!!
Big difference between believers ...blah, blah, blah
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Aug 31, 06 10:43pm
You should stick to telling facts, not insults and other bullcrap.
^ Yes she has.by Beauregard on Fri Sep 01, 06 4:03am
NO, she hasn't
It obvious you think we're all stupid by Beauregard on Fri Sep 01, 06 4:03am
when are you going to debate with facts. we're all waiting. the longer it takes you, the more stupid you appear
Coldcircuit, with regards to the mathematical model: When you say "empirical data" are you talking about seismology reports?
(This is a genuine question.)
Coldcircuit - you don't need a mathematical model - just check out the photos of how badly wtc7 was damaged in the collapse of the twin towers. The damage was extensive and catastrophic.
Just research - find the pictures, find the data and then come back to this point.
I say again - if a mathematical model of the wtc7 collapse is "all" you would require to believe there was no conspiracy then check the facts and welcome to our side!
just check out this shot of the wtc7 building before it's collapse - you think that the damage wasn't critical?
search for wtc7moresmoke.avi
"The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt."
FDNY Chief D. Nigro quoted in Fire Engineering, 10/2002
"K_F_D you can keep making your bold challenges all you like, but I'm not easily bated.
Stay on topic here and respond as the ballot asks. Otherwise maybe its you that should leave the ballot." _(You wish -Ken)
SEE WHAT I MEAN FOLKS? - NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO OFFER, JUST IRRELEVANT ACCUSATIONS OF USERNAME DUPLICITY, AS IF IT MADE ANY DIFFERENCE TO OUR FINDINGS, RESEARCH AND FACTS.
So again Beauregard*
More generalisations and and diversionary small talk, you go on about 'evidence' and 'experts' but never present any evidence or quote any experts! -
Quote some of these 'experts' and present some of the 'evidence' here and now and let's see how it stacks up to the reality ->
WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? - YOU'VE FAILED THIS CHALLENGE ONCE ALREADY, I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER CHANCE HERE ->
I don't know enough too argue either way, but one of the supposed terrorists did in fact take flying lessons at an airport near me when I lived in Florida. I do not have or am able to produce the records, but I did see them myself. Given a bit of time I could produce others who have seen them and the "terrorists" name.
oh dear Ken. Why raise to the bait?
This ballot isn't about "us" providing "you" with evidence or sources. It's a simple question:
What evidence would you accept as proof that there was no conspiracy?
And it's mighty big of you to ignore quite plainly the evidence that is put down in the comments.
Mmmm! Smell the hypocrasy!
{ I do not have or am able to produce the records, but I did see them myself..
by vladiv on Fri Sep 01, 06 9:16pm}
The "supposed" terrorists. Well, sure, that means a lot. They couldn't even name them (of the 19 hijackers, 9 are still alive... which means the names were wrong. The FBI admitted this but still we see the same names being promoted, branding innocent men). They couldn't prove those men were even on the planes.
and why is that you JUST HAPPEN to join TODAY, and post on this with your claim. This ballot isn't anywhere near the front page anymore.
You need to cite verifiable links, sources, and quotes. Just "saying it" doesn't make it true.
It just gets worse and worse....
Aside from failing to answer the ballot and smokescreening by attacking a post, Lovelynice has brought up one of the most often cited and demonstrably wrong claims.
Firstly, if the government planned this grand conspiracy all along why not invent Iraqi of Afghan hijackers?
Secondly, are we to believe that the masterminds behind all this picked names at random, (Saudi names no less!) including people who were alive and could therefore come forward and blow the whole conspiracy wide open??!
The whole claim is based on nothing more than a mix-up very early in September 2001 which soon died down (in the real world at least) when the FBI made public the names and faces of the hijackers. All this is in the public domain - don't take my word for it - look it up for yourselves.
The only people claiming that they are still alive or not on the list are conspiracy theorists.
I'll ask again: what evidence would you need to prove that there was no conspiracy?
{The whole claim is based on nothing more than a mix-up very early in September 2001 which soon died down (in the real world at least) when the FBI made public the names and faces of the hijackers. by wideheadofknowledge on Sat Sep 02, 06 3:20am}
You mean those names which were taken from Arabs who had their identities "stolen", as the FBI admitted.
The faces don't match up either, and the FBI still got them wrong. I'll have to post the photos sometime.
I'm not avoiding your ballot question either, just having a good think about it, and trying to come up with something different from Coldcircuit's "impossible to provide evidence".
By the way, mathematical simulations of the WTC 7 collapse have been created, but none of them worked except as being based on assumptions that were either unprovable "out of thin air" claims or provably incorrect. One fool tried to pass off the WTC 7 collapse with the same "on floor freefall drops" initiating collapse.
{ The only people claiming that they are still alive or not on the list are conspiracy theorists.
by wideheadofknowledge on Sat Sep 02, 06 3:20am}
That's a silly claim.Are you saying that the BBC are conspiracy theorists?
"That's a silly claim.Are you saying that the BBC are conspiracy theorists?"
show me an up to date news story froma reputable source that agrees with you.
Representative Of Largest 9/11 Families Group Says Government Complicit In Attack
Tells radio host 9/11 Commission a sham, "cover-up beyond belief"
The representative of the largest group of 9/11 families says that the official version of events is a fallacy and that the NORAD stand down and evidence of incendiary devices used to bring down the towers amount to government complicity in the attacks - a conclusion shared by half of the 9/11 families he represents.
Doyle heads the Coalition of 9/11 Families and lost his own son Joey in the collapse of the twin towers.
"If you want to believe what they want to snow you under on like the 9/11 Commission - that's a total fallacy," said Doyle.
"The continuing cover-up is beyond belief,"
Doyle questioned why WTC steel that was withheld from NIST for examination for explosives was used instead to build a battleship.
"Isn't it amazing how they got it out of this country within days," said Doyle as he addressed the cover-up of the physical evidence from a crime scene.
Doyle said he had personally talked to six different individuals who were at the World Trade Center site and described incendiary devices before the collapse of the towers.
"It's documented proof that tower 7 was not hit by a plane yet it goes up in flames then the owner of the place Larry Silverstein himself ordered it to be pulled at 4 o'clock that afternoon and all of a sudden it exploded straight down."
"We have two planes fly into the towers and all of a sudden they get blown up within an hour and a half - that's impossible," said Doyle.
Doyle estimated that around half of the family members his organization represents think that there was government complicity in the attacks.
"It looks like there was a conspiracy behind 9/11 if you really look at all the facts - a lot of families now feel the same way."
"Where was NORAD," asked Doyle as he highlighted the implausible gap between the known hijacking times of Flight 93 and Flight 77 and their eventual destruction.
"It was called a step-down - don't do anything - let it happen."
"From everything I look at I'm sure there was a lot of complicity - in the least there had to be a lot of complicity - if you read all the facts there's no way that nineteen hijackers carried out this mission,"
Doyle also spoke out on establishment charities withholding large portions of donations from 9/11 families and how 9/11 whistleblowers have been punished meanwhile individuals who facilitated the attacks were rewarded.
The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).
Once initiated, the collapses proceeded to total collapses.
NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process.
It remains quiet about the second claim, except for its vague rehash of the pile-driver theory. This is indefensible, given NIST's charge to investigate the collapses.
Accepting that claim requires us to believe:
That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.
That those collapses were gravity-driven despite showing all the common physical features of controlled demolitions.
In the cases of the Twin Towers, those features included the following:
Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, exploding debris symmetricaly in all directions.
Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free-fall in a vacuum.
Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.
Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.
Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.
Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.
All of these features are seen in conventional controlled demolitions.
None have ever been observed in steel-framed buildings collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.
What are the chances that a phenomenon other than controlled demolition would exhibit all six features never observed elsewhere except in controlled demolitions?
What evidence would you need to see in order for you to believe that there was no conspiracy?
How about the confiscated video from the commercial premises around the pentagon?
How about a proper forensic examination of the steel that was rushed off and recycled illegaly.
How about a computer simulation that actually works when all the data is programmed in, none have been able to simiulate what happened to those buildings without explosives being entered into the equation.
How about a believable explanation as to why Norad was stood down on the very morning and hour of the 'attacks'?
How about evidence that any of the alleged 'hijackers' could fly - when we know they couldn't?
How about evidence to explain why at least seven of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive and well so far?
How about the evidence from the black boxes that were recovered in the WTC rubble but of which the existence is denied by officials.
How about evidence of how and why Atta's passport could possibly be conveniently found in pristine condition in the street despite all the alleged occupants of the planes being vaporised?
More to come..... heading out now for a night in the party capital of the world.
"How about the confiscated video from the commercial premises around the pentagon?"
Well, you may have to wait for that. Some of it was shown at the Moussaoui trial - but why the need for video proof when parts of the plane and all but one of the passengers were identified in the wreckage?
"How about a proper forensic examination of the steel that was rushed off and recycled illegaly."
Illegally recycled according to who? Conspiracy theorists? The steel was forensically examined.
"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures"
Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the building performance assessment team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives.
"How about a computer simulation that actually works when all the data is programmed in, none have been able to simiulate what happened to those buildings without explosives being entered into the equation."
Research the work of Dr Greening. If you can handle the maths.
"How about a believable explanation as to why Norad was stood down on the very morning and hour of the 'attacks'?"
According to whom? Due to the exercises taking place NORAD had more staff the normal on hand - including senior officials. The only people crying stand-down are the conspiracy theorists.
"How about evidence that any of the alleged 'hijackers' could fly - when we know they couldn't?"
How about the fact some of them actually had pilots licences. Read the quotes - they had problems landing NOT flying.
"How about evidence to explain why at least seven of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive and well so far?"
There is no evidence after september 2001. Basing your claims on misunderstandings that were cleared up within weeks of 9-11 seriously damage your credibility.
"How about the evidence from the black boxes that were recovered in the WTC rubble but of which the existence is denied by officials."
Suprious off-the-record claims have been made - nothing more.
"How about evidence of how and why Atta's passport could possibly be conveniently found in pristine condition in the street despite all the alleged occupants of the planes being vaporised?"
Strawman. Nobody but conspiracy theorists say everything was vaporised. There are clear pictures in the debris of airline upholstery and other personal effects.
Again you expect us to believe that the mastermind behind this operation were so devious and cunning that they decided to plant the passport when (according to you) everything was vaporized?
The evidence has been given for virtually all the points you make here it's just that you simply don't accept it.
that's why he usually doesn't like using point form, too easy to refute.
"The evidence has been given for VIRTUALLY all the points you make here it's just that you simply don't accept it."
by wideheadofknowledge
- Laughable layman 'off the top of my head' pathological denial, you truly demonstarte here that you are the 'narrow mind of ignorance' of B&W.
Unlike you I can back up all of my research with eyewitness quotes, and expert objective analysis.
Your naive claims don't stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny.
Oh by the way you state that 'virtually' all my points here don't stand up in your hysterical respnse to my ripping your little ballot apart - why the doubt?
What or which 'point' does stand up for you?
This should be good folks (o:
{ "How about a proper forensic examination of the steel that was rushed off and recycled illegaly."
Illegally recycled according to who? Conspiracy theorists? The steel was forensically examined. by wideheadofknowledge on Sat Sep 02, 06 6:05pm}
No it wasn't. Only extremely limited samples were examined, almost none from WTC 1 & 2
The steel was quickly sent away to be recycled
Going to China and India
china . org. cn / english / 2002 / Jan / 25776 . h t m
Limited examination of very little of the steel
By the time of Corley's testimony, nearly all of the steel had been recycled. His ASCE volunteers had saved a mere 156 pieces of steel, most of them small "coupons" cut from larger pieces
911 research . wtc 7 . n et / wtc / official / nis t/ index . h t m l
Destruction and Cover-Up of Evidence
While the steel was being removed from the site of the three largest and most mysterious structural failures in history, even the team FEMA had assembled to investigate the failures -- the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) -- was denied access to the evidence. 1 The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation: 2
The BPAT did not control the steel. "The lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence."
FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements that "frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse."
The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents."
"The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."
911research.wtc 7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html
According to FEMA, more than 350,000 tons of steel were extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it was cut up for recycling. Four salvage yards were contracted to process the steel.
# Hugo Nue Schnitzer at Fresh Kills (FK) Landfill, Staten Island, NJ
# Hugo Nue Schnitzer's Claremont (CM) Terminal in Jersey City, NJ
# Metal Management in Newark (NW), NJ
# Blanford and Co. in Keasbey (KB), NJ
FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study, "Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)."
911 research . wtc 7. n et / wtc / groundzero / cleanup . h t m l
{ "How about a computer simulation that actually works when all the data is programmed in, none have been able to simiulate what happened to those buildings without explosives being entered into the equation."
and his mathematical simulation FAILS.
This is OLD NEWS, and it's already been mathematically proven.
I've debated this on this site and elsewhere. Dr Frank Greening (a chemist, not a structural engineer or physicist) provably LIED about the results of his mathematical simulation. It does NOT show that a gravity-driven collapse is possible despite his claims about it (repeated by others), but in fact shows the OPPOSITE.
He dishonestly calculates only the first 50 milliseconds of the collapse, then claims that because there is enough energy for further collapse that it will continue all the way to total collapse. In fact, as Gordon Ross (a mechanical engineer) showed, when continuing the same mathematical formula, with Dr Frank Greening's OWN MATHEMATICAL VALUES AND ASSUMPTIONS, a mere 50 milliseconds further, collapse is arrested (STOPPED) at a very early stage due to the energy deficit.
There is not enough energy for a gravitationally driven collapse.
This has been REPEATEDLY shown in every mathematical simulation and computer simulation based on the empirical data without any deviation or alteration from that data.
A team of Chinese engineers managed to get together $50 million dollars to conduct the most in-depth simulation of the collapses, and only by weakening the structural strength of the steel TO UNREALISTIC LEVELS were they able to simulate a gravity driven collapse - and it still took 90+ seconds.
Gravity-driven total collapseof the WTC buildings is not only a lie, but a provable lie.
{ "How about evidence to explain why at least seven of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive and well so far?"
There is no evidence after september 2001. Basing your claims on misunderstandings that were cleared up within weeks of 9-11 seriously damage your credibility. by wideheadofknowledge on Sat Sep 02, 06 6:05pm}
Ken from Dublin claim about there being only 7 of the people named as hijackers turning out to be alive is out of date, and your claim that the misunderstanding was cleared up as if implying that the USA government wasn't continuing to lie about them is also untrue.
In fact, as the years have gone by, the number of the people who were supposedly the hijackers but in fact have been discovered as still alive has INCREASED.
It's now NINE (9) hijackers.
The FBI long ago admitted that none of the people named as hijackers were on those planes, they were victims of stolen identities, yet despite this, the USA news media and the Bush administration have continued to tell lies about these people, naming them as the hijackers when they weren't.
In September 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."
Now, people who are intending to commit suicide normally don't worry about whether anyone knows their real name, and it is here that some other odd aspects take on a new meaning.
We are told that the group that planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks were highly trained (possibly by the CIA) experts, with knowledge of how to steal identities and forge fake IDs, yet at the same time we are being told that these men were incapable of correctly filling in US visa applications.
We are also being told that they spent the night before the attack getting drunk in bars, making noise, screaming insults at the "infidels", and doing everything they could to attract attention to themselves. They used the credit cards issued in their stolen names, allowed their driver's licenses with the stolen names to be photocopied, and used public library computers to send emails back and forth using their stolen names signed to unencrypted messages about their plans to steal aircraft and crash them into buildings, then decorated their apartments with absurdly obvious props such as a crop dusting manual to the point where the whole affair reads like a low budget "B" detective movie from the 1930s.
In short, these men did everything they could to make sure everyone knew who they were, or more to the point, who they were pretending to be.
Because the IDs used by these men were phony, we cannot know who they really were or who they really worked for. But what is apparent is that those who planned the 9/11 attacks went out of their way to leave plenty of clues pointing to Arabs, so they could say "Arab Did It"
Salem Alhazmi - Alive
Khalid Almihdhar - Alive
Saeed Alghamdi - Alive
Ahmed Alnami - Alive
Mohand Alshehri - Alive
Waleed M. Alshehri - Alive
Wail M. Alshehri - Alive
Abdulaziz Alomari - Alive
Mohammed Atta was still alive the DAY AFTER the 9/11attacks - he called his father, and spoke to him on the phone. His father believed at the time that his son was in danger, and that Mossad later killed him.
"Unlike you I can back up all of my research with eyewitness quotes, and expert objective analysis."
No, no, no you can't. Your claims and testimony are worthless.
"Your naive claims don't stand up to even a modicum of scrutiny."
They are accepted by ALL scientists, specialists, analysts and investigators that worked on it.
..."to my ripping your little ballot apart"
Shush, Kenneth you're embarrassing yourself.
A quote from 'The New Yorker'
- A former high-level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase." -
newyorker . com / fact / content / ?011008fa _ FACT
{No, no, no you can't. Your claims and testimony are worthless.
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Sep 03, 06 7:56am}
Although you're addressing Ken on this, I have to say that your own SUBJECTIVE opinion means nothing.
{They are accepted by ALL scientists, specialists, analysts and investigators that worked on it.
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Sep 03, 06 7:56am}
I would love to see a survey to support this claim of yours, otherwise it's only a BULLSHIT GENERALISATION.
and a FALSE ONE.
The mere existence of the 9/11 Scholars for Truth with their 400+ academics who officiallly and publicly doubt the Official Lies about 9/11 proves your wrong, and there are many more engineers and scientists who have lately begun to openly question the Official Lies about 9/11.
{Strawman. Nobody but conspiracy theorists say everything was vaporised.by wideheadofknowledge on Sat Sep 02, 06 6:05pm}
That's strawman claim of your own, and totally untrue.
It was the Offiicial Lies that first promoted the story of the planes being vapourised, not the sceptics and doubters of the story.
WE WERE THE PEOPLE WHO SAID THE VAPOURISATION CLAIM WAS BULLSHIT!
We said it was impossible, but it's still the official excuse to explain away the lack of the black boxes.
give it up, ken, you can't protect them.
bestandworst. com/ v/ ?id= 101065
Big church publisher buys 9-11 Bush plot 09 Aug 2006
It wasn't Osama bin Laden who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks, it was George W. Bush, according to a book to be published this month by the Presbyterian Church USA.
Called "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action," it is the third book on the conspiracy theory authored by David Ray Griffin, a professor emeritus of theology at Claremont School of Theology. According to Christianity Today, Griffin argues in his new book that the Bush administration planned the events of Sept. 11, 2001, so they could provide justification for going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq.
then they would have framed hussein. they did not, therefore, they did not frame anyone.
Exactly.
If they were so clever why didn't they make their hijackers Afghans and Iraqis? I mean putting the blame on Saudis who truned out to be alive or to have died before 9-11 seems to be a big boo boo.
THe conspiracists case falls apart at the merest touch of logic, reason, common sense and science.
I think Bush certainly was predisposed to go into Iraq, but to believe him capable of masterminding the largest and most complex conspiracy and cover-up of all time is to give him too much credit. Besides which, whatever it was he was hoping to do in Iraq has failed, IMO.
"THe conspiracists case falls apart at the merest touch of logic, reason, common sense and science."
more like "or", you really only need one at a time.
they wanted to go into iraq since before they were "elected". if they had aranged those attacks, it would have been done by iraqis and iraqis only under direct orders from sadaam hussein, or claiming to.
{The conspiracists case falls apart at the merest touch of logic, reason, common sense and science.
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Sep 03, 06 9:20pm}
Well, the "Arabs Did It" conspiracy theory is certainly falling apart. It's getting torn to pieces really.
Most people are smart enough to recognise controlled demolitions (like WTC 7 in particular) when they see it. Most people know that no steel-framed hi-rise has ever suffered total collapse due to fire, and when steel-framed hi-rises collapses, it's NEVER straight down into their own footprint at near freefall except with controlled demolitions.
Most people are also smart enough to realise that cellphones can't make successful calls from passenger planes flying six miles up at over 450mph, and therefore the alleged cellphone calls were all FAKE.
Now real physics has shown that the total collapse of those buildings was impossible without controlled demolition. NIST by the way has now completely denied the "pancake collapse theory" that was promoted by NOVA/Eagar. Which sort of leaves them with NO EXPLANATION. It's a fact that nobody has succeeded in simulating those collapses with the empirical data, except as controlled demolitions. It's a fact that NIST couldn't simulate the collapses either, but gave up because in their worst case scenario the buildings still wouldn't collapse with the empirical data, but instead NIST filled out their reports with assumptions because they couldn't simulate it. It's a fact that a group of Chinese engineers with a $50 million dollar budget (more than double NIST's budget for the investigation) were only able to get the buildings in their simulation of the Twin Towers to collapse by weakening the steel in the simulation to UNREALISTIC levels - and that even then, the collapse took 90+ seconds.
you've never given a reason for the use of explosives. why would they gpo through all that work to do nothing but give you evidence against them?
"Most people are smart enough to recognise controlled demolitions (like WTC 7 in particular) when they see it."
No they're not. Plus the fact that NOBODY could say what the wtc buildings would do or look like after a plane crashed into them because it had never happened before. It is supreme arrogance to claim you know how it should have happened or what it should have looked like. One thing is for sure though - video evidence does not support the controlled demolition theory and anyone who says it does has no idea what they are talking about.
"ost people know that no steel-framed hi-rise has ever suffered total collapse due to fire, and when steel-framed hi-rises collapses, it's NEVER straight down into their own footprint at near freefall except with controlled demolitions."
Most people have no idea what happens - and remember the wtc didn't fall as a result of a fire - they fell as a result of a head on collision with a large aircraft AND fire. That's something that never happened to the twin towers before and again no one is in a position to say what should have happened or what it should have looked like!
"Most people are also smart enough to realise that cellphones can't make successful calls from passenger planes flying six miles up at over 450mph, and therefore the alleged cellphone calls were all FAKE."
Mot people don't realise that airphones were used and that the calls were made at far lower altitudes than you suggest.
"Now real physics has shown that the total collapse of those buildings was impossible without controlled demolition."
No it hasn't.
"NIST by the way has now completely denied the "pancake collapse theory" that was promoted by NOVA/Eagar."
Which is fine - not all theories will be correct.
What most people on this site DO realise is that your patronizing posts are not backed up with sound research.
And your strawman arguments are plain for all but the most illiterate to see: "no steel-framed hi-rise has ever suffered total collapse due to fire". Ok good, nice. And why does that help your cause?
I am getting the feeling that no evidence would be good enough for the conspiracy theorists. It seems that the conspiracy theory is unfalsifiable and therefore not a valid theory at all.
a wise man never knows all, only fools know everything
{"Most people are smart enough to recognise controlled demolitions (like WTC 7 in particular) when they see it."
No they're not. Plus the fact that NOBODY could say what the wtc buildings would do or look like after a plane crashed into them by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 05, 06 12:39am}
Amazing how everytime somebody brings how obvious the controlled demolition of WTC 7 was, that some shill is going to make excuses about plane crashes... WHEN NO PLANES HIT WTC 7
{and remember the wtc didn't fall as a result of a fire - they fell as a result of a head on collision with a large aircraft AND fire.
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 05, 06 12:39am
AGAIN IGNORING WTC 7 - the smoking gun. It wasn't hit by a plane, and there was no inferno inside it. The smoke on that video you link you sent was dust ffom the just collapsed/destroyed Twin Tower nearby.
{Most people don't realise that airphones were used and that the calls were made at far lower altitudes than you suggest.
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 05, 06 12:39am}
That's a wonderful claim except that CELLPHONES were used for many of those calls, and why is that you can't give the EXACT HEIGHTS at which the cellphone calls were made?
I can. I've done so many times.
FLIGHT 93
United Airlines Flight 93
According to the 9-11 Commission's account:
"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."
The Report claims that passengers started placing calls with cell and air phones shortly after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report's confirmation of the plane's attitude of 35,000 feet. In other words, the calls started some 9 minutes before the Cleveland Center lost UAL 93’s transponder signal (9.41) and approximately 30 minutes before the crash in Pennsylvania (10.03)
There was no indication from the Report that the aircraft had swooped down to a lower level of altitude, apart from the 700 feet drop recorded at 9.28. from a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. Shortly after the alleged hijacking commences, the passengers and flight crew allegedly began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones.
The alleged call (strangely not mentioned in the Report) by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.
"Local emergency officials said they received a cell phone call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. "We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!" he was quoted as saying.
So, the ALLEGED cellphone calls from Flight 93 were made while the plane was at cruising altitude between 34,000 to 35,000 feet. It can't be done, so those calls were FAKE.
Then there's FLIGHT 175
United Airlines Flight 175 departed for Los Angeles at 8:00:
"It pushed back from its gate at 7:58 and departed Logan Airport at 8:14."
The Report confirms that by 8:33, "it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet." According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it "deviated from its assigned altitude":
"The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it."
And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.
"At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.
Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cellphone. Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson's call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)
AGAIN, MORE IMPOSSIBLE CELLPHONE CALLS
At the time of ALLEGED cellphone calls, Flight 175 was was still at high altitude, and was still flying well over 500mph, again meaning the cellphone calls were IMPOSSIBLE, and therefore FAKE.
ALL OF THESE CELLPHONE CALLS WERE IMPOSSIBLE AND THEREFORE FAKE
CeeCee Lyles: CELLPHONE - Her husband Lorne Lyles who managed to take her second call reported that he saw her ID therefore we can assume that she used a cell phone. A flight attendant using a cell phone is of course extremely strange given the fact that she should very well know that there are airphones aboard and it is much more likely to come through using this kind of phone. Call 1: Beginning: 9:47, Length: unclear as no indication what she left as a message on her answering machine. But we can assume from the fact that she managed to leave a message that the length was at least: 15’. Call 2: 9:58, Length: 1’ 00’’ (my estimation based on accounts of the call). She got disconnected.
post-gazette . com / headlines / 20011028flt93lylesbiop8 . asp
election . cbsnews . com / stories / 2001 / 09 / 12 / national / main310935 . shtml
Jeremy Glick, 31, from West Milford, New Jersey, He called his wife, Liz, and in-laws in New York on a CELLPHONE to tell them the plane had been hijacked
cnn . com / SPECIALS / 2001 / trade . center / victims / ua93.victims . html
msnbc . com / news / 627214 . asp
Elizabeth Wainio - CELLPHONE
msnbc . msn . com / id / 3067652
Thomas E. Burnett Jr - CELLPHONE 3-4 calls
usatoday . com / news / nation / 2001 / 09 / 11 /victims-capsules . htm
post-gazette . com/headlines / 20010913somersetnat 3p3 . asp
Lauren Grandcolas, her husband said his wife made a quick CELLPHONE call before the plane crashed in Pennsylvania.
usatoday . com / news / nation / 2001 / 09 / 11 / victims-capsules . htm
Sandra Bradshaw - CELLPHONE
webcache . news-record . com / legacy / photo / tradecenter / bradshaw21 . htm
Marion Britton - 13 minutes call from a CELLPHONE
post-gazette.com / headlines / 20010922 gtenat 4p4 . asp
WOW, A WHOLE THIRTEEN MINUTES!!!
What amazingly unbelievable MAGIC CELLPHONES they had on those planes back in 2001 - flying along at 500mph, at a speed where it's impossible for the phone to maintain a connection anyway for longer than a few seconds, and these amazing MAGIC CELLPHONES haven't any problems with reality at all.
EDWARD FELT CELLPHONE CALL
The alleged call (strangely not mentioned in the 9-11 Commision Report) by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.
"Local emergency officials said they received a CELLPHONE call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. "We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!" he was quoted as saying.
Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.
pittsburghlive . com / x / tribune-review / news / s_90401 . html
{What most people on this site DO realise is that your patronizing posts are not backed up with sound research.
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 05, 06 12:39am}
Nonsense. I proved that statement of yours wrong so many times, it would take ages to count all the posts and ballots where you've failed to refute what I've stated. Sound research is something that I have heaps off. I never make any claim about 9/11 unless I can support it with cited links, quotes, and sources.
{ "Now real physics has shown that the total collapse of those buildings was impossible without controlled demolition."
No it hasn't.
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Sep 05, 06 12:39am}
Then you should have no trouble providing a link, quoted source to verify that somebody has succeeded in simulating those collapses with the empirical data as "gravity-driven collapses", without any deviation from that data. So far, NOBODY has succeeded in making such a simulation.
i have already proven that all 3 collapses were inconsistent with controlled implosions.
Seeing as nobody was able to assess the full damage of the either the plane impacts (or debris impacts) and the subsequent fires, econdary explosions and smaller collapses its no wonder the models are hard to replicate.
And to state that the video of the fires in wtc7 is smoke from the collapsed towers is from the "just collapsed" towers is an outright lie.
Check the link again (I will put it on my user page for anyone who wants to check) and you can clearly see the rubble from the towers in the foreground whilst the smoke is visibly pouring from the wtc7 windows.
Seeing as the towers supposedly fell into its own footprint it sure did a hell of a lot of damage to the surrounding buildings (something not seen in controlled demolitions).
Your treatment of video evidence comes as no surprise - your unfalsifiable claims are a sham and a joke. No one of any merit believes the conspiracy theory or has produced ANY conclusive evidence of a controlled demolition, faked calls or switched planes.
Let's make this plain - YOU HAVE PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE. Therefore your hypothesis cannot be accepted.
but enough evidence has been presented against it to reject it entirely. and enough evidence has been presented regarding his dishonesty for anything and everything he says to be completely disregarded. which of course means if he ever comes across something valid, he will not be listened to. yet another disservice he's done to the world. i guess you could call him "the boy who cried wolfowitz"
{Seeing as nobody was able to assess the full damage of the either the plane impacts (or debris impacts) and the subsequent fires, ...
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 06, 06 10:33pm}
Yes, suspicious isn't that so much of the evidence was sent away for recycling before anyone could do a proper investigation.
Oh, and your excuses don't work at all for WTC 7.
{And to state that the video of the fires in wtc7 is smoke from the collapsed towers is from the "just collapsed" towers is an outright lie.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 06, 06 10:33pm}
Bull. Anyone with two working eyes can see that nearly all of that grey dust in that video is just that, DUST from the first of the Twin Towers collapsing.
The fires in the WTC 7 weren't great infernos at all. Are you trying to pretend that the flames WERE HIDING from the windows???
I don't believe in SHY FIRES THAT HIDE from windows.
{Seeing as the towers supposedly fell into its own footprint it sure did a hell of a lot of damage to the surrounding buildings
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 06, 06 10:33pm}
WTC 7 fell 95% or more within it's own footprint.
WHY do you constantly try to avoid WTC 7's collapsing almost entirely within it's own footprint at barely slower than freefall time?
WTC 1 & 2 were controlled EXplosive demolitions, which means flying debris, and like other controlled demolitions close to other buildings it's normal for other buildings to be at risk of damage. Still they collapsed roughly 90% straight down at near freefall speed - which is IMPOSSIBLE except with controlled demolitions.
{Your treatment of video evidence comes as no surprise - your unfalsifiable claims are a sham and a joke.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 06, 06 10:33pm}
It's a sham and joke how you pretend that there was an inferno inside WTC 7, 1, 2. There wasn't. There were bigger, longer lasting fires in the other WTC buildings.
Your deliberate ignoring of the hundreds of witnesses to EXPLOSIONS, backed by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and the seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions is the real sham and joke.
{YOU HAVE PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE...
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Sep 06, 06 10:33pm}
B U L L S H I T and a whopping great big LIE as you well know. I've produced HEAPS, supported by quotes links, and sources.
all you can do is accuse people of lying without proof. you're finished, bushie. go report your failure to your superiors.
youtube. com/ watch? v= bAf4NAik- nY
Be careful of neothe1, he tells LIES ALL THE TIME.
Tank_Girl had NOT posted ballot 98784, but neothe1 LIED and stated that she'd said on that ballot that WTC 1 and WTC 2 had "imploded" - well, since she didn't post on that ballot at all, then she OBVIOUSLY didn't say anything of the kind. neothe1 then LIED AGAIN and tried to claim that I had stated WTC 1 and WTC 2 had "imploded", and yet again neothe1 was caught LYING, this time by Meteor7 who pointed out that neothe1 was playing a strawman argument and attempting to misrepresent what I had stated.
you keep repeating that lie. it doesn't change anything. you slipped.
this is exactly the same as:
me: "hey, you lied about WMDs!"
you: "what WMDs? who said anything about WMDs? we're freeing the iraqi people! you don't want them to be freed? you don't support our troops?! you want our soldiers to die! you want them to attack us again! SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH!!!!!!!!"
typical right wing behavior, forget the facts and stick with the talking points.
go away, bushie. go report your failure to your superiors.
and don't try to pretend meteor7 isn't just another alias.
{you keep repeating that lie.by neothe1 on Sun Sep 10, 06 11:00am}
Yes I keep repeating about that LIE because YOU WERE CAUGHT LYING!
Tank_Girl had NOT posted ballot 98784, but neothe1 LIED and stated that she'd said on that ballot that WTC 1 and WTC 2 had "imploded" - well, since she didn't post on that ballot at all, then she OBVIOUSLY didn't say anything of the kind. neothe1 then LIED AGAIN and tried to claim that I had stated WTC 1 and WTC 2 had "imploded", and yet again neothe1 was caught LYING, this time by Meteor7 who pointed out that neothe1 was playing a strawman argument and attempting to misrepresent what I had stated
You, neothe1, are a LIAR
{and don't try to pretend meteor7 isn't just another alias.
by neothe1 on Sun Sep 10, 06 11:01am}
You would say that anyway. It's the shills tactic recently to spread this bullshit lie about every 9/11 sceptic on this site being the same person with multiple usernames. It's a load of BS, and you know it. You government shills are OUTNUMBERED, and your LIES don't work anymore.
already proven, kenny boy.
i suggest you look into a documentary called "the Secret history of 9/11". those are the facts you and your government are trying to hide with these filthy smokescreen tactics.
"Tank_Girl had NOT posted ballot 98784, but neothe1 LIED and stated that she'd said on that ballot that WTC 1 and WTC 2 had "imploded" - well, since she didn't post on that ballot at all, then she OBVIOUSLY didn't say anything of the kind. neothe1 then LIED AGAIN and tried to claim that I had stated WTC 1 and WTC 2 had "imploded", and yet again neothe1 was caught LYING, this time by Meteor7 who pointed out that neothe1 was playing a strawman argument and attempting to misrepresent what I had stated."
paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste
There goes neothe1, not only LYING as usual, but SPAMMING as well because HE LOST ANOTHER DEBATE.
mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror
maybe you can explain to me how you can spam and then accuse someone else of spamming.
well for starters;
1) I don't post the same word 1000 times or more.
2) I don't post the same word 1000 times or more.
3) I don't post the same word 1000 times or more.
I think you will eventually get it.
The simple fact is, when all you can do is spam a ballot with paste paste paste OVER ONE THOUSAND TIMES, is that you are SPAMMING.
and not citing any facts, sources, links, or anything else relevant. Which really shows another simple fact; YOU DON'T HAVE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE AND YOU LOST THE DEBATE.
You advertise this fact to the whole world everytime you do it.
I noticed that widehead didn't take up the challenges of Coldcircuit or Ken_from_Dublin to provide the sort of evidence that they asked for.
He obviously CAN'T.
They ask for material that is impossible to provide or that they could refute if it was provided.
time and time again they ignore the evidence that is placed before them - preferring instead to look at only a highly selective portion of it.
They refute the DNA identification of victims, photographic and video evidence that undermines their claims, testimony from scientists and a wealth of other repsectable and reputable sources.
Be open and honest about the fact that you ignore all the evidence contrary to your claims but don't accuse us of lying or misleading people.
( time and time again they ignore the evidence that is placed before them
by wideheadofknowledge on Fri Sep 22, 06 8:08pm)
That really sounds like you are talking about YOURSELF.
Apart from myself, evidence has been cited against the Bush Administration's lies about 9-11 by Ken from Dublin, Lovelynice, Coldcircuit, Meteor7, have already cited aerial photos, video, and the hard evidence of the thermate traces discovered by Steven Jones.
Professor Steven Jones and his X-ray spectrometry evidence from samples taken at the WTC site show a perfect match for for the highly specialized compound "thermate" (used for cutting through steel) found in the WTC debris. (And no, thermate was NOT used during the clean up operation...this stuff was in the building, and ignited, prior to collapse.) If you're new to this information, you might want to check out "Molten Metal" and "Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary Arguments Against"
stopthelie . com / the _ evidence _is _ in . ht ml
You should also look up Steven Jones lecture on the subject which is available on video.
You have been claiming that evidence collected by thousands of people is not admissible only because it goes against the 9-11 story promoted by the Bush Administration. You've tried to dismiss for no reason at all, evidence from physicists such as Steven Jones. You've tried to dismiss for no reason at all witness testimonies which disagree with the official version, and you've also tried to dismiss for no reason at all video evidence of the explosions which are visible taking out the floors in those beautiful long perfect lines well below the collapsing debris falling from above. You've tried to dismiss for no reason at all witness testimony that the first explosions (decribed as huge booms) that triggered collapse in the twin towers began not at the impact point of the planes, but well below by 3-5 floors.
You also ignore the
135 Architects and Engineers who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.
ae911truth . org
Another 170+ Engineers who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.
patriotsquestion911 . com / engineers
50+ Pilots and Aviation professionals who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.
patriotsquestion911 . com / pilots
140+ Professors who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.
patriotsquestion911 . com / professors
On your side of the fence,
So far you have a lack of credible DNA evidence from an independent analysis, and no evidence of DNA from Arab hijackers. NONE. If a huge passenger jet really hit the Pentagon, then there would videos of it. There have been none publicly released. The bodies found at the Pentagon could easily be Pentagon staff. The DNA evidence is not convincing because it has not been independently verifiable. Btw, on ballot 101154, you were asked to support your claim that all the victims from the Pentagon crash were identified by their DNA - that would include orphans, and individuals with no living relatives. When you were asked to support this claim of yours, you never did. Instead you ran away and avoided the question. How about backing your claims with links, quotes, and sources as per what is required. Your word alone in not enough.
So far, there has been almost no wreckage which fits the alleged cricumstances nor the planes which that wreckage is claimed to come from. The plane parts are minuscule, minimal, and could easily have been from another aircraft. Many of the engine parts are from the wrong kind of engine - a similar case with the engine parts from the World Trade Center crashes.
The black box recorders were not independently analysed either, and worse, there is evidence of tampering as the times are wrong.
The passenger lists do not match up, and the different versions contradict each other.They include obviously fictional names that sound similar.
The airfone calls become less credible because the cellphone calls were impossible, making the airfone calls suspicious. It's too easy to fake a phone call. For example, the notorious "Hi Mom, it's me" scam.
Expert eyewitness testimony also says those were controlled demolitions.
Lack of independent and full investigation - there has never been a full and proper independent investigation into 9-11 despite the demands of the survivors and victims relatives to this very day. Scientific investigations have not yet simulated the collapses themselves while being based only on the empirical data, nor have any mathematical or computer simulations shown there was enough energy for the gravitational collapse.
You've shown no evidence connecting Arab hijackers to 9-11. You've shown no links between Osama bin Laden and 9-11, and the FBI deny that they have found any such links. The only videos where Osama bin Laden allegedly "claims credit" for 9-11 all appear to be fakes, and go against what he said already back in 2001
“The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders’ rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations.”
—Usama bin Laden (Saudi Arabian), CNN News, "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks," September 17, 2001
"I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people."
—Usama Bin Laden, Ummat magazine, September 28, 2001
I'm sure you will say he lied, but I could easily turn it around and say he lied when you say he confessed. I've seen the so-called confession tape, and it does not appear to be bin Laden. To me it appears to be a an imposter in the video I've seen. There have also been studies done on the bin Laden video and audio tapes, concluding that they were faked. And as of today, it's the FBI who confessesthey don't have any "hard evidence" linking him to 9/11.
Voted : I will outline the evidence I would need to see below (see comment)
proof that the laws of physics were not broken in the interpretation of how the towers fell: proof of black box failures: proof of hijackers ability to perform advanced piloting with large jet liners when they couldn't confidently pilot a small twin engine plane:evidence that the Pentagon was hit by something wider than a missile: evidence that wtc7 fell from natural causes: etc.....
|
