9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

[jamesrwright3]

Hi James with Todd, Steezie and NewMan mentioned:



I am the very first CF.com debater (1Cor. 1:20) to see the importance of having ‘some’ controversy interwoven into these discussions to inspire the deliberation process and keep our readers entertained somewhat at the very same time. Otherwise, the substance of our arguments become mundane and appears pointless to even the motivated reader of these posts. My first duty to these ChristianForums.com readers is to write on ‘Bible’ Topics and upon subjects like the “First Resurrection” (here), just posted before coming over to the recently discovered Politics Forum. Anyone interested can see that I have started NO Political Topics on this CF.com Board since 2004, because quite frankly this does not appear the right place to have discussions about Homosexuality and the 9/11 Inside-Job atrocities perpetuated by rouge elements inside our out-of-control Bushie Administration and his warmongering machine. However, Todd’s boasting above and your flaming remarks have been sufficient to help show me the Light and I am more than happy to engage ALL OF YOU on any 911Truth Topic as time permits, so long as our gracious admins and moderators are of the opinion that these readers can be edified to benefit from our deliberations.

I have thousands of hours invested in my own 911Truth Investigation, with over 1000 hours invested in the Pentagon Case alone; even though I currently spend practically all of my time writing on Bible Topics. Todd has until the end of today (at midnight) to post ‘his’ Thesis Paper on Flight 93, Flight 77 or the WTC-7 Controlled Demolition, but this side of the debate has already seen all of the empty boasting before and knows full well that HE HAS NO CASE for anything. :0) Therefore, I will rise up early in the morning and put together a new Flight 93 Opening Post for presentation right here in this CF.com Political Forum to see if Todd, James, Steezie, NewMan or anyone else can offer any kind of rebuttal TO A SINGLE WORD.

We shall let that thread run its course, then I will submit an updated version of my Flight 77 paper. Hopefully everyone will stick very near ‘the topic’ and resist the juvenile urges to attack their debating opponents. We shall see . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Dude you make no sense. Either tell us your theory on the Pentagon..and explain the photos I posted..and eyewitness accounts. And if you spent 1000 hours and still think a plane did not hit into the Pentagon, then you wasted 1000 hours of your life lol

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Everyone knows it was a missile...

 

[oldbetang]

Save your petty excuses. This side does not expect Todd to post ANYTHING to support the Official Bushie Administration/DoD Cover Story that makes one lick of sense today, tomorrow, a week from now or EVER. Do not come out here bragging about debating anyone, when you do not even have the time to post your Flight 93 paper that should ALREADY be posted somewhere here on God’s green earth.


Here is just one Pentagon Forum (Loose Change) where anyone can read a sampling of previous debates (link) with two Fight 93 threads here (link) and three WTC-7 threads here (link). Use the 'arrowed options' (the last 30 days) and select "the beginning" then "Go." Then a long list of threads will appear with my name (Terral) appearing under the "Topic Starter" with everyone else.

One thing that I can assure everyone here is that Todd and his little helpers will be severely ‘outgunned’ in these debates. :0)

LOL!

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

The tinfoil hats actually amplify the mind control rays...

 

[Btodd]

Hi Todd:

Save your petty excuses. This side does not expect Todd to post ANYTHING to support the Official Bushie Administration/DoD Cover Story that makes one lick of sense today, tomorrow, a week from now or EVER. Do not come out here bragging about debating anyone, when you do not even have the time to post your Flight 93 paper that should ALREADY be posted somewhere here on God’s green earth.

Here is just one Pentagon Forum (Loose Change) where anyone can read a sampling of previous debates (link) with two Fight 93 threads here (link) and three WTC-7 threads here (link). Use the 'arrowed options' (the last 30 days) and select "the beginning" then "Go." Then a long list of threads will appear with my name (Terral) appearing under the "Topic Starter" with everyone else.

One thing that I can assure everyone here is that Todd and his little helpers will be severely ‘outgunned’ in these debates. :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Apparently, my last post to you was as respectful as you're going to allow, but I'm going to try again. I mentioned some things that are necessary if you really want to have a legitimate debate about this, and you went right back to trolling responses.

If you would like to respectfully discuss the parameters of a debate, ones in which you will bear as much responsibility as you demand from others, then let's get started, and see if we can have a real debate.

If you're really serious about this, then let's discuss what evidence is, if you are going to attempt to provide POSITIVE evidence for your claims (like you will expect me to), and what 'expertise' is in regard to the subject matter.

I don't write 'papers' on 9/11. There is no need to, in order to logically defend reality. If you really want to have a serious debate about this, I recommend you stop using the tactics that have resulted in you being banned from other forums. I hope your next post will reflect an honest attempt at a real debate, in a respectful manner.


Btodd

 

[Terral]

Hi Todd, James, Steezie and all Loyal Bushie Cover Story guys everywhere:

Apparently, my last post to you was as respectful as you're going to allow, but I'm going to try again. I mentioned some things that are necessary if you really want to have a legitimate debate about this, and you went right back to trolling responses.

My apparently reluctant debating adversary is more interested in manipulating the parameters of our 911Truth debates than actually making his case for anything. :0) In case you are unaware, this fine CF.com Board has many qualified moderators capable of overseeing these deliberations to ensure both sides obey the COC guidelines and rules established for the Political Debates. My intention is to present these unbiased third-party readers with my Flight 93 paper (already posted here) for that thread to run its course, before my Flight 77 (Pentagon) paper is presented the very same way. When both of these threads have run the natural course of our deliberation process, then my final WTC-7 paper will be presented; so everyone here has the same opportunity to ‘quote >>’ anything at all from my work to offer their advocating or opposing views using whatever ‘you’ call credible evidence. My job is to offer defending arguments to any 'serious' rebuttal or counterproposal you offer up against my OP presentations, or to simply laugh out loud when all you can do is offer up excuses. :0)

On the other hand, Todd, James and Steezie (my adversaries in this WTC-7 discussion) are invited to present their own Opening Post papers presenting ‘their’ theories for each of these three 9/11 cases. That will give my side of these debates every opportunity to come behind and write rebuttals and counterproposals against your thesis statement, claims, evidence and conclusions, but only IF you guys ever get around to making that kind of presentation (might be too chicken). :0)

If it squawks and hops around like . . . then it is what it is . . .

GL in the 911Truth debates,

Terral

 

[jamesrwright3]

Wow...once again avoiding questions..because you can't handle the truth

 

[Terral]

Hi James with Todd and Steezie mentioned:

Wow...once again avoiding questions..because you can't handle the truth

No sir. Steezie asked some WTC-7 questions in the OP of this thread and they have already been answered (mine = Post #147). The fish are now biting over on the new Flight 93 thread (here), but for some reason Todd and James and others are having difficulty making a "Flight 93 Crashed Here Case." BTW, where is yours? :0)

If you were really paying any attention (Post #246 above), then you would know we are debating these 911Truth Topics beginning with Flight 93 first and then the Flight 77 case and then the WTC-7 case to help everyone stay on track.

Does this mean James has no Flight 93 case to present, or do you intend to hang out on this 'ran-its-course' thread forever? :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[jamesrwright3]

Hi James with Todd and Steezie mentioned:



No sir. Steezie asked some WTC-7 questions in the OP of this thread and they have already been answered (mine = Post #147). The fish are now biting over on the new Flight 93 thread (here), but for some reason Todd and James and others are having difficulty making a "Flight 93 Crashed Here Case." BTW, where is yours? :0)

If you were really paying any attention (Post #246 above), then you would know we are debating these 911Truth Topics beginning with Flight 93 first and then the Flight 77 case and then the WTC-7 case to help everyone stay on track.

Does this mean James has no Flight 93 case to present, or do you intend to hang out on this 'ran-its-course' thread forever? :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Dude I presented evidence showing plane parts all over the Pentagon
I am waiting for an explanation from you

If you can't justify your crackpot theories, just say so.

 

[Btodd]

My apparently reluctant debating adversary is more interested in manipulating the parameters of our 911Truth debates than actually making his case for anything. :0) In case you are unaware, this fine CF.com Board has many qualified moderators capable of overseeing these deliberations to ensure both sides obey the COC guidelines and rules established for the Political Debates.

I'm not talking about manipulating parameters, but simply agreeing on what they are. I asked you for your input, not for another snide comment.

What I'm referencing is the usual way that Truthers expect a debate to go, which is the same way that Intelligent Design proponents do.....you get to ask all the questions, you get to demand all the proof, and our questions are avoided like the plague. That's why I want to get your agreement that we BOTH have a duty to support our positions, so if you think controlled demolitions happened, for instance, you will need to positively support your claim.....which means dealing with the lack of loud, sequenced explosions, the logistics of the amount of wiring required and other massive prep work a demolition entails, the lack of physical evidence, etc. Are you willing to hold up your end of the debate when asked questions, or will you simply jump from anomaly to anomaly and expect me to do all the work?

That will give my side of these debates every opportunity to come behind and write rebuttals and counterproposals against your thesis statement, claims, evidence and conclusions, but only IF you guys ever get around to making that kind of presentation (might be too chicken). :0)

Again, can we agree that you need to positively support your claims as well? You seem to want to frame it in terms of 'either/or', in which you simply poke holes at the official story and that somehow leaves controlled demolitions as the only thing standing. So please, let me know if you are willing to actually defend your claims. If so, I will be happy to devote my time to this.

Since you complained about my comments being comedic earlier, I'm sticking to the subject matter only, and giving you an opportunity to make your case without the usual schtick that gets you banned from other forums. If you can spend less time on comparing me to farm animals, and more on supporting your case, then it will help you convince all those third-party readers who are watching (personally, I doubt very many people care, other than our usual participants) much more effectively.

If it squawks and hops around like . . . then it is what it is . . .

I honestly can't believe a grown man thinks that's effective or funny.


Btodd

 

[Terral]

Hi James with Steezie and Todd mentioned:

Dude I presented evidence showing plane parts all over the Pentagon
I am waiting for an explanation from you

If you can't justify your crackpot theories, just say so.

Let’s see . . . What is the Topic of ‘this’ thread all about? Oh yea:

9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

. . . The contention is that the WTC was brought down by demolition explosives via a controlled demolition.

Please explain why James is strumming his harp on the Pentagon case, when Steezie decided to post his questions on the WTC-7 case? In fact, what makes James or anyone think for one minute that I am responsible to answer any Pentagon questions from James or anyone else on Steezie’s WTC-7 thread? You guys are so accustomed to hijacking these topics to WhereverYouWishVille, yelling “Dude!” and “Crackpot!,” that in your universe I am required to pander to any off-topic query that comes to your mind on ANY TOPIC. Right? Of course. You can wait to eternity for someone to come along and play nursemaid to James and his delusions about What Really Happened At The Pentagon On 9/11 (my Let'sRoll Thread) and the “Sixty-Hour Assassination Campaign” (Carol Valentine’s article) that started off as a “Seven Minute Fire” (more of Carol’s work). My Pentagon case thread for this CF.com Political Forum will be presented when the Flight 93 thread (link) has run its course, which by the looks of things (someone might be chicken) could be by this time tomorrow. :0)

Please forgive if I thought you guys were experts on these 911Truth topics. Continue hiding out on this thread if that makes James happy. BTW, has anyone seen hide or hair from Todd?

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

. . . Without You . . . :0)

Hi Todd! with James mentioned:

I'm not talking about manipulating parameters, but simply agreeing on what they are. I asked you for your input, not for another snide comment.

Well, I waited all day yesterday for Todd to start his “Flight 93 Crashed Here” thread and we might all grow old before that ever happens. The 911Truth Train left without you this morning (here) and as yet I see no reply from Todd anywhere. If you need a formal invitation to offer your opposing arguments against my OP explanation, then by all means fly over (with James) and join in the deliberations.

What I'm referencing is the usual way that Truthers expect a debate to go, which is the same way that Intelligent Design proponents do.....you get to ask all the questions, you get to demand all the proof, and our questions are avoided like the plague.

Stop being ridiculous, Todd! What utter NONSENSE! I am expected to follow the same guidelines obeyed by everyone else here and we have plenty of able moderators on hand to make sure everyone stays within those guidelines. I am not asking Todd any questions in my OP presentation. Your job is to point out the flaws in my thesis statement, claims, evidence or conclusions to the best of your God-given abilities. That means ‘quoting >>’ me the same way I do you and using whatever Todd calls ‘credible evidence’ to prove whatever you wish. Please forgive, but, just like James you seem like a guy without a case for anything. The fact is that I can fill this room with Opening Posts already written and posted on 911Truth Boards all over the Internet, but Todd cannot offer us just one! :0)

That's why I want to get your agreement that we BOTH have a duty to support our positions, so if you think controlled demolitions happened, for instance, you will need to positively support your claim.....which means dealing with the lack of loud, sequenced explosions, the logistics of the amount of wiring required and other massive prep work a demolition entails, the lack of physical evidence, etc.

There you go again . . . I am not waiting for Todd or anyone else. You wrote this bold statement yesterday (bold is my emphasis*),

I certainly don't have a bias toward the Truther conspiracy, if that's what you mean. But I have entertained a vast amount of the claims presented by the Truth Movement, so it's not as if I've buried my head in the sand. I will still put my knowledge of the arguments surrounding 9/11 (for AND against) up against yours or anyone else here*, so let's not act as if I've been avoiding the claims of the Truth movement. I would be surprised if you could present any Truther arguments I HAVEN'T entertained (many times over).

Okay, Todd (being kind): So again, let’s fly over to my Flight 93 Thread and entertain some claims presented by the Truth Movement (heh) and stop burring that head in the sand. This is where your vast knowledge of the arguments surrounding 9/11 (for AND against) come in handy for standing against my little Flight 93 OP hypothesis standing at attention and ready for your meaningful reply. We are all waiting . . .

Are you willing to hold up your end of the debate when asked questions, or will you simply jump from anomaly to anomaly and expect me to do all the work?

Questions, questions and more questions. :0) Step up to the plate and present ‘your’ Flight 93 Explanation in the same way mine was posted this morning at exactly 8:44 AM. I will begin writing my rebuttals the first thing in the morning and have a reply looking at you by 9 AM – God willing and if the creek don’t rise. :0)

Again, can we agree that you need to positively support your claims as well?

My Flight 93 paper is ALREADY POSTED. Where is yours? :0) Just ‘quote >>’ from any of my supported arguments and show us what you got. This side of the debate knows full well that you have no case, so type up anything you wish . . .

You seem to want to frame it in terms of 'either/or', in which you simply poke holes at the official story and that somehow leaves controlled demolitions as the only thing standing.

Who cares about the WTC-7 case? Your boasting above says, I will still put my knowledge of the arguments surrounding 9/11** (for AND against) up against yours or anyone else here.” The three ‘surrounding 9/11’ cases are the Flight 93/Shanksville case, the Flight 77/Pentagon case and the WTC-7 case in that order. Why that order? This is really very simple: The Flight 93 case has the least number of variables (an open field) and a single Jetliner (Flight 93) that supposedly crashed there. Just show us your pictures of Flight 93 crashed in the empty Shanksville field and you are done! :0) However, your big problem comes when Todd cannot find even one picture making his case. So good luck!

So please, let me know if you are willing to actually defend your claims. If so, I will be happy to devote my time to this.

Do whatever you wish, Todd. So much for all of that boasting . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[jamesrwright3]

Ok new thread started re pentagon
Go explain it
Now you have no excuses..or I am guessing you will

 

[jamesrwright3]

Ok new thread started re pentagon
Go explain it
Now you have no excuses..or I am guessing you will

 

[phoenixgw]

High school teacher-level Physics calculations show Gravity action on 9/11 Towers was 0.1 KiloTons of TNT-equivalent ENERGY, and then
debris and dust erupted over 8.5 KiloTons of ‘TNT’ ENERGY in REACTION.
No spin, FACT: 0.1 KT ACTION not equal 8.5 KT REACTION


Who dunnit?




http://www.infowars.com/?p=2948

 

[oldbetang]

ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE​

 

[_Zap_]

Honestly, why do you guys even waste your time trying to argue with Terral?

He's seems pretty much completely impervious to reality.


Terral kind of reminds me of another truther I saw in a different forum. This particular truther proudly posted his extremely "scientific" experiment to prove the official story was false.

He had his cousin throw an aluminum can at a hollow steel pole he had stuck in the ground. The aluminum can dealt no damage to the pole, so a plane clearly did not knock the twin towers down. No one could convince this man to even consider how absurd his experiment was.


And that is why I don't bother arguing with truthers anymore. They're all like the steel pole man, completely unable to accept reality. The only thing they are good for is to make fun of.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And that is why I don't bother arguing with truthers anymore. They're all like the steel pole man, completely unable to accept reality. The only thing they are good for is to make fun of.

What an unfair generalization. You encounter one 'truther' who performs a silly little experiment and you liken him to all others? You did something similar in another thread where you claimed that the We Are Change member did not represent all liberals (despite the fact that he wasn't a liberal), but that he did represent all 'truthers.' Effectively, you are choosing, on the basis of your bias, who represents whom and then unfairly generalizing to justify ridicule which itself possesses no substance.

 

[_Zap_]

What an unfair generalization. You encounter one 'truther' who performs a silly little experiment and you liken him to all others? You did something similar in another thread where you claimed that the We Are Change member did not represent all liberals (despite the fact that he wasn't a liberal), but that he did represent all 'truthers.' Effectively, you are choosing, on the basis of your bias, who represents whom and then unfairly generalizing to justify ridicule which itself possesses no substance.

Yup.

Basically, turning you all into a walking joke is the only way I can avoid despising you for your disgusting habits of twisting heroes into psychopathic murderers in order to live out your pathetic action movie fantasies.

But my generalization is valid. You have to be nearly as dense and deluded as steel pole man to believe the truther nonsense.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I was discussing this with someone earlier and I've found that theres one problem with the "controlled demolition" idea (apart from the fact that its ludicrous) that conspiracy theorists cant seem to answer.

The contention is that the WTC was brought down by demolition explosives via a controlled demolition.

For research purposes, I've watched probably several dozen ACTUAL controlled demolitions of buildings and in EVERY SINGLE ONE there is one constant feature.

That is a LOUD and completely audible explosion preceding the collapse. This is not "Well there was a witness who thinks he might have heard an explosion" no this is "I was two miles away and I heard it." ALL of Lower Manhattan would have heard the required explosives needed to bring down such large structures in such a fashion.

There were probably several dozen recording devices trained on the WTC at the time of the collapse and not a single one caught any hint of an explosion the requisite size. The only audio recording I have heard that hinted at something that size has a contested validity.

So why is this? Wheres the explosion?

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-Twin-Towers26jan06.htm

“[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

¥DISCLAIMER: Iam not arguing demos were used to bring down the towers but only trying to respond to the op question.¥

There are 3 of a lot more eyewitness accounts. Why did NY withhold over 500 testimonies from Emergency workers for almost 4 years?

Also, the op is making a bad assumption regarding ordinance and execution. IF thermate or thermite were used (or any other cutting agent) it doesn't automatically mean commercial grade equipment was used. There are several types of grenades and not all of them sound the same nor produce the same damage and many aren't designed to cause damage.