-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
911 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
If you haven't watched any of their material there is definitely new evidence (to you) that contradicts the OR.
You actually asked if it was new stuff or old stuff repacaged. I told you there was new stuff and you still ignored it which says it all about your "open-mindedness" on ths issue.
You actually asked if it was new stuff or old stuff repacaged. I told you there was new stuff and you still ignored it which says it all about your "open-mindedness" on ths issue.
Disco08 said:
That's one way to look at it.
Another way is that I've seen the way the troofists react to new evidence and I'm sure if there was something ground breaking that would change the whole debate, it would have been posted here in detail.
You're quick to accuse me of being closed minded about this debate which I find very amusing. I've spent time looking and reading and watching and I've come to the conclusion there is nothing that points to a massive cover up or conspiracy over who and how they performed the 911 events.
But for some reason, because I come to a different conclusion than you, I'm closed minded.
I'd completely respect your opinion if you watched material like this. Did you watch the videos posted on page 1?
Can you show me undeniable evidence that the US didn't have prior knowledge of the attacks? Can you show me undeniable evidence that the WTC towers weren't brought down by controlled demolition? Can you show me undeniable evidence that the hijackers were flying those planes?
As I said to KR this thread is based on the AE analysis of WTC7's collapse. Why wouldn't you watch all their material if you wanted to take part in this discussion?
Can you show me undeniable evidence that the US didn't have prior knowledge of the attacks? Can you show me undeniable evidence that the WTC towers weren't brought down by controlled demolition? Can you show me undeniable evidence that the hijackers were flying those planes?
As I said to KR this thread is based on the AE analysis of WTC7's collapse. Why wouldn't you watch all their material if you wanted to take part in this discussion?
And plenty of undeniable evidence that evidence of that crash was removed even though that's completely against standard procedure.
You know what's very amusing Baloo? You b!tch about my use of the word "apologist" event though it's not derogatory yet you use terms like "troofist" which is clearly derogatory.
You know what's very amusing Baloo? You b!tch about my use of the word "apologist" event though it's not derogatory yet you use terms like "troofist" which is clearly derogatory.
Disco08 said:
I'm not fussed one way or another when it comes to this debate
Possibly, dunno. I've watched a fair few of the stuff your posted, couldn't give you specifics because they've all said roughly the same thing.
No, I can't, but you knew that. We also both know you can't show any evidence that they did.
But after reading and listening to you and the stuff you've posted, my conclusion is that it's much more likely, much much more likely, that the US didn't have prior knowledge, that the towers weren't brought down by a controlled demolition and that hijackers were flying those planes.
It seems you can't accept that I've come to that conclusion. But somehow I'm the close minded one.
Because to watch everything is akin to flogging a dead horse. Nothing to date has made me believe that the US, or secret all powerful familes, had anything to do with 911. How many more of the same videos do you want people to watch until they aren't close minded ? Do you measure it in hours ? Or is it only when they start to agree with you that they become open minded ?
Two more pages of open-ended questions and diversions and a little shall-we-say robust patter and where are we? Bullus made a definitive statement to the effect that WTC 7 "couldn't" have come down the way it did naturally. Nothing presented makes this statement true. Bullus himself offered no proof and did not reference any material. That is his prerogative, and it is mine to question it.
There might be a-million-and-one scenarios that could bring WTC 7 down the way it fell, "one" of them might even be a controlled demolition but the fact there are many doesn't mean the one that really did happen isn't the one offered by the professional investigators whose job it was to find out and report on it. Presenting alternatives doesn't in any way disprove the official report.
There might be a-million-and-one scenarios that could bring WTC 7 down the way it fell, "one" of them might even be a controlled demolition but the fact there are many doesn't mean the one that really did happen isn't the one offered by the professional investigators whose job it was to find out and report on it. Presenting alternatives doesn't in any way disprove the official report.
jb03 said:
Which ones? I've seen the footage of the collapse and it's uncannily uniform, much like a controlled demolition. At the time of collapse, there appears to be flames jutting out of several mid-level floors but no visible damage from the base of the building. The building then collapses in a freefall motion in a matter of seconds. How so? These buildings are designed to withstand fires, that's why the structures are made from steel, the only feasible way the buliding could have fallen in the way it did was for the steel supports at the base of the building to melt at temperatures approaching 2750 degrees F. Furthermore, there's been no documented case of a building just collapsing due to a spot fire on a mid tier floor. None whatsoever, this is why 1500 architects and engineers have signed a petition demanding an investigation, it just doesn't add up yet NIST continues to bury it's head in the sand.
Baloo said:
I can accept your concluson but I'll continue to critisise it while you refuse to watch that doco. It's the main one being discussed here and also the main one behind the 9/11 truth movement.
Surely you can recall whether or not you watched those videos. Either way you should be able to remember having seen an hour and a half doco of experts questioning NIST's report on WTC7. If you can't remember having seen a doco like that you really need to watch it for your own credibility.
The logic here is that if the US didn't have prior knowledge, the buildings collapsed because of plane impact and fire and the hijackers were flying those planes there should be a mountain of undeniable evidence remaining. The fact you can't produce any at all should convince you that something is up.
Baloo said:
Your book is wrong. Did you miss the definition?
hey bull, this collapse due to fires was a once in a lifetime occurance. never happened before and will never happen again. must accept it because the investigators said so.
where's the evidence that one caused the other? did they investigate for explosives, or other possible causes? probably not because all the evidence was destroyed.
where's the evidence that one caused the other? did they investigate for explosives, or other possible causes? probably not because all the evidence was destroyed.
rosy23 said:
Haven't seen any evidence of that either, no plane debris, no photos, no charred bodies. What I have seen is some footage of an explosion and a 60 foot hole in the side of the Pentagon. Where's the evidence that a passenger jet hit the building?
Disco08 said:
Criticise all you like disco, but I really don't think I need to do anything more for my credibilty when it comes to this debate. Ivestated my position clearly. You refuse to accept it and call me close minded. There really isn't much point continuing unless I am willing to agree with you. I cant do that.
Disco08 said:
The base of the buliding appears to give way, that is the only means by which a perfectly symmetrical collapse can take place. False, symmetrical collapse CAN occur when failure occurs anywhere throughout a structure.
Even if there was damage to the south side, any collapse would have been lopsided as opposed to perfectly uniform. False. Symmetrical collapse CAN occur with failure of one side, element or part of a structure.
The other point is that the heat of burning furniture is insufficient to melt steel. False, offices fixtures and fittings can cause fires that can melt steel or cause steel to fail structurally. In Australia, steel needs to be coated or sealed off with fire resistant material (i don't know what American codes require). This does not prevent ultimate failure of the steel, but allows enough time for any building on fire to be evacuated. Ie, fire protection is there to protect people, not the structure or building itself. Offices are deemed to be high risk in relation to burning and fire damage due to the material of construction of the fixtures and fitting plus the high volme of paper that exist in offices. In Australia, office buildings are subject to greater fire control measurs than say an apartment building.
, not to mention that the fire occurred on the upper levels of the building. It just doesn't add up and NIST have provided a pretty lame excuse for what transpired. This is opinion so cannot respond categorically but one I obviously don’t agree with.
Where's that coming from jimbob?
You can't claim to be open minded if you won't even watch the doco outlining one of the the main focuses of the troofists. All you've really done is argue periphery points that aren't crucial one way or another. You've backed away from all the real stuff hence my belief you have little credibility.
Baloo said:
You can't claim to be open minded if you won't even watch the doco outlining one of the the main focuses of the troofists. All you've really done is argue periphery points that aren't crucial one way or another. You've backed away from all the real stuff hence my belief you have little credibility.
