911 Truth Movement

[Azza]

Sorry but Thermite has been covered. Agree with others there is no new material here. Lets not go around again.

My point referred to the framing of the question(s). Tim rejected evidence because the conclusion he drew from it seemed ludicrous. I agree that conclusion does seem ludicrous. That shouldn't lead to rejecting the evidence tho.

As to the thermite discussion here - I must have missed that. Has the sem evidence and resulting publication been refuted?

 

[tigertim]

My point referred to the framing of the question(s). Tim rejected evidence because the conclusion he drew from it seemed ludicrous. I agree that conclusion does seem ludicrous. That shouldn't lead to rejecting the evidence tho.

As to the thermite discussion here - I must have missed that. Has the sem evidence and resulting publication been refuted?

Well actually I was just trying to get behind what some people think "really" happened. Obviously to question so vigorously some must think there's another reason other than the official reason as to why the buildings collapsed.

 

[Rosy]

Yet the explosives theory has been dismissed out of hand, why? Three buildings go down in the space of an hour and every one of them resembles a controlled demolition. Pure co-incidence or perhaps something more sinister? I think it deserves some investigation and 1500 architects and engineers around the world happen to agree with me.

Do they also agree about a plane not hitting the pentagon? As far as I'm aware only you and Harry have issues with that on here.

 

[Rosy]

Definitely what? (Apart from not being able to spell.)

Hmmm interesting. I always wondered if Scoop and Leysy were the same person the way they jump in to answer on the behalf of each other. That supports my theory. >

 

[Disco08]

I haven't followed that closely. Have many denied conspiracy info? It's certainly fair to question some of the examples put forward on here as though they're gospel evidence. When we have no way of knowing what's fact or not I'm surprised you get so het up about it.

Just because I call a spade a spade doesn't mean I'm het up. The only thing that's annoyed me at all was KR's antagonistic disrespect. Not sure how you get this impression so maybe you're misinterpreting my taking this topic seriously with annoyance or aggrevation. IMO it deserves better than the childish point scoring that's been so prevelant.

Far more "conspiracy info" (evidence that doesn't support the OR is a better description) is discussed here and by and large it's all routinely ignored if it can't be easily disproved. Not much in the way of evidence supportive of the OR has been discussed, probably because for supposedly factual modern events very little exists. For example, if the world's architects and engineers came out in support of the OR that conjecture wouldn't exist. Or if the CVR's from those flights were available (as they should be) we could be certain of who flew the planes and how the hijackings occurred. Bush and Cheney could also have acted on the warnings from other countries (as they should have) and these events wouldn't even have happened. Even if they did their actions would reflect the situation whereas what we actually see from them is actions that for all intents and purposes look as though they wanted the attacks to succeed. The most crucial factor of course though is that much of the evidence that should have been preserved was systematically destroyed before it could be analysed.

 

[bullus_hit]

Assuming you are correct bullus, how do you know the temperature did NOT hit 2750 degrees F?

The colour of the smoke indicated a smouldering fire starved of oxygen (going on what the experts have pointed out) and that a typical office fire doesn't reach those temperatures.

 

[Rosy]

Just because I call a spade a spade doesn't mean I'm het up. The only thing that's annoyed me at all was KR's antagonistic disrespect. Not sure how you get this impression so maybe you're misinterpreting my taking this topic seriously with annoyance or aggrevation. IMO it deserves better than the childish point scoring that's been so prevelant.

We might have different opinions of het up. You seem to take things a bit to heart on this thread and resort to out of character (imo of course) personal insults. A couple of examples- saying I'm snide and condescending when I said I found the thread entertaining. Calling Knighters an obnoxious troll and mentioning him being on his high horse. Calling Tim's posts laughable. You've been quite abrupt in response to a few posters on here. Fair enough if you want to call a spade a spade, that's your prerogative, but sometimes that spade seems more like a pitchfork.

 

[bullus_hit]

Do they also agree about a plane not hitting the pentagon? As far as I'm aware only you and Harry have issues with that on here.

That has nothing to do with the Pentagon, and yes, I'm yet to be convinced a 747 can fly through a small hole in a building without the wings causing any external damage, yet somehow the wings end up inside the structure apparently liquidfied. I'm also sceptical about a plane having such a low entry point yet there being no indications of a landing. Do those things not strike you as a bit strange?

 

[Rosy]

It's just going over old ground bullus. In fact I think you're the only one questioning the plane. I seem to recall, after much debating in favour of secret missiles, that Harry finally indicated a change of mind.

 

[Disco08]

We might have different opinions of het up. You seem to take things a bit to heart on this thread and resort to out of character (imo of course) personal insults. A couple of examples- saying I'm snide and condescending when I said I found the thread entertaining. Calling Knighters an obnoxious troll and mentioning him being on his high horse. Calling Tim's posts laughable. You've been quite abrupt in response to a few posters on here. Fair enough if you want to call a spade a spade, that's your prerogative, but sometimes that spade seems more like a pitchfork.

If I were to try and list all the similar language used towards Harry and my own posting I'd be here for hours and all of the people you mentioned are guilty of it. I've been just as abrupt with other posters from time to time but perhaps you didn't notice as much because you agreed with my POV.

Whatever though. Like last time I'd much prefer to discuss the topic than who posted what in the past.

 

[TigerForce]

Funny how this topic was bumped (on its original thread) in it's 10th anniversary 18 months ago, and yet some want to debate it now.

 

[bullus_hit]

It's just going over old ground bullus. In fact I think you're the only one questioning the plane. I seem to recall, after much debating in favour of secret missiles, that Harry finally indicated a change of mind.

Maybe I'm just a lone renegade then. Here's some more testimony which creates a few more uncertainties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFz7gLz7CVk

 

[Disco08]

Well actually I was just trying to get behind what some people think "really" happened. Obviously to question so vigorously some must think there's another reason other than the official reason as to why the buildings collapsed.

Questioning vigourously is the base for all science. You don't need any other motive than a desire for understanding.

 

[tigersnake]

Maybe I'm just a lone renegade then. Here's some more testimony which creates a few more uncertainties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFz7gLz7CVk

All been discussed Bullus. You aren't a lone renegade I'm afraid. You really don't want to go back and read the thread do ya? Carry on.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Questioning vigourously is the base for all science. You don't need any other motive than a desire for understanding.

Now that is a statement I can get behind. :clap

 

[evo]

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.
.... lame excuse for what transpired. This is opinion so cannot respond categorically but one I obviously don’t agree with.

It just occurred to me you may be the closest thing we have to an 'expert' in this thread. Pull your protractor out and show these neophytes where they are mistaken my good man.

 

[Harry]

yeah, explain to us how office furniture fuelled fire can disintegrate steel.

while your'e at it explain why this building didn't collapse at free fall

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Inferno-destroys-Madrid-skyscraper/2005/02/13/1108229860915.html

 

[evo]

Funny how this topic was bumped (on its original thread) in it's 10th anniversary 18 months ago, and yet some want to debate it now.

probably part of the conspiracy, mate.

 

[tigertim]

Questioning vigourously is the base for all science. You don't need any other motive than a desire for understanding.

Fair enough but no one here is a scientist (I'm guessing!) and it's fairly obvious one side can't "prove" anything to the other. So I was simply trying to ascertain the "other" sides beliefs on what occurred.

 

[bullus_hit]

All been discussed Bullus. You aren't a lone renegade I'm afraid. You really don't want to go back and read the thread do ya? Carry on.

Ok, I just perused all of the photos and video footage and concede the evidence is compelling that a plane hit the Pentagon, not emphatic proof but certainly enough circumstantial evidence.

Now here's a question for those towing the official line, was Osama the real culprit or a scapegoat?