9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

[joebudda]

Actually, I'd prefer that you direct me where to look in the videos.

Can you imagine any other explanation for the basement damage other than bombs?

Honestly, what you do or don't believe means nothing to me.
If you don't want to watch the videos I already submitted, then don't, I really don't care.

I have no idea what else could have caused the massive damage in the basement video.

 

[Btodd]

I am a skeptic, so rather then speculate lets stick with actual evidence shale we?

What evidence do you have that shows that a fire can cause a simultaneous systematic total infrastructure failure. Why don't you supply evidence for that?

You are not a skeptic in the slightest.

Earlier, you said you wanted to stick to the OP topic of explosions. Now, I'm supposed to prove that fires (and you, like Terral, casually leave out any structural damage) brought down the building or what.....controlled demolitions are the winner by default?

I don't think so. Where are the explosions that happen in a controlled demolition (like the video of one plainly shows), and how did thousands of people, all audio, all video and seismic sources miss them? Why do the WTC towers collapse from the top down, starting at the impact point of the planes? These are not features of a controlled demolition.

So far, you're relying on the use of the word explosion by various people who were never contacted to affirm what they meant, and implying that it means demolitions, despite no physical evidence to support it, and no explosions. That's your evidence.

When we get to the Pentagon, you will completely flip-flop and start disavowing eyewitness testimony, even when there are mountains of physical evidence to back it up, including multiple photographs of wreckage, bodies, and DNA evidence.

At that point, you will make enormous demands on how much evidence there needs to be for Flight 77, but for now, while trying to support controlled demolitions......simply the word 'explosions' by a handful of people will be enough that you find it very persuasive.

Skeptics rely on evidence. You have nothing.


Btodd

 

[joebudda]

So all you have is speculation. That tells me all I need to know.
If you have no evidence then all I have to go on is the evidence we do have that you continue to deny. Which if fine, if you choose to deny the evidence, more power to you. I prefer to take all the evidence into account.

I will remain a skeptic and question the official version.

 

[Donkeytron]

So all you have is speculation. That tells me all I need to know.
If you have no evidence then all I have to go on is the evidence we do have that you continue to deny. Which if fine, if you choose to deny the evidence, more power to you. I prefer to take all the evidence into account.

I will remain a skeptic and question the official version.

We don't care. After 19 pages you're just trolling.

 

[joebudda]

We don't care. After 19 pages you're just trolling.

Ridicule? Is that the best you can come up with?

Maybe you can add something of value, maybe you can supply evidence that shows that a fire can cause a simultaneous systematic total infrastructure failure. Because everyone seems to avoid this very reasonable question like the plague.

 

[Donkeytron]

Ridicule? Is that the best you can come up with?

Maybe you can add something of value, maybe you can supply evidence that shows that a fire can cause a simultaneous systematic total infrastructure failure. Because everyone seems to avoid this very reasonable question like the plague.

Was this a fire that burned at "normal" temperatures, or was it fueled by something more potent, some kind of magical "jet" fuel?

As for adding something of value, one of the structural engineers who worked on buildings 1, 2, and 7 works about 50 ft down the hall from me. Do you have any real questions you would like me to put to him, or are you going to stick to youtube-based evidence?

 

[joebudda]

Was this a fire that burned at "normal" temperatures, or was it fueled by something more potent, some kind of magical "jet" fuel?

As for adding something of value, one of the structural engineers who worked on buildings 1, 2, and 7 works about 50 ft down the hall from me. Do you have any real questions you would like me to put to him, or are you going to stick to youtube-based evidence?

I would be honored if he would come here to discuss it.

So are you claiming that jet fuel can burn hot enough to weaken the steal infrastructure enough to cause no resistance during collapse allowing the buildings to fall at close to free fall speeds? How hot and for how long would jet fuel burning take for such weakening to the infrastructure to allow for this to happen?

.

 

[Donkeytron]

I would be honored if he would come here to discuss it.

So are you claiming that jet fuel can burn hot enough to weaken the steal infrastructure enough to cause no resistance during collapse allowing the buildings to fall at close to free fall speeds? How hot and for how long would jet fuel burning take for such weakening to the infrastructure to allow for this to happen?

.

Somehow I think the head of our construction department has better things to do than argue with someone who thinks he doesnt have to pay taxes because he doesnt recognize the united states's existence.

What is your alternate explanation? I saw (with my own eyes mind you) two large airliners full of jet fuel hit the twin towers, burn uncontrolled for a few hours, begin to list and twist from the top down, then collapse from around the points of impact.

 

[Btodd]

So all you have is speculation. That tells me all I need to know.
If you have no evidence then all I have to go on is the evidence we do have that you continue to deny. Which if fine, if you choose to deny the evidence, more power to you. I prefer to take all the evidence into account.

I will remain a skeptic and question the official version.

You don't know what skepticism is, and prove that repeatedly.

I have actual studies by qualified experts (not electrical engineers posing as structural engineers or gymnasium architects posing as demolitions experts), and peer-reviewed articles.

Would you like to compare peer-reviewed science papers to see who is relying on speculation?

Or would you rather tell me that 'you could care less' what we think, after spending multiple pages engaged in the debate?

I'll note that you once again have no answer for:

*Where the loud, sequenced explosions were on 9/11
*How thousands of people, plus audio, video and seismic sources missed them
*Where ANY physical evidence of controlled demolition is
*Whether the people you use as 'testimonies' even believe what you attribute to them, since Twoofers are afraid to check the facts
*How thermate could even be used in severing vertical columns, how much would be required to sever so many beams, how it was mounted, how it was fed, how it was timed perfectly from the top down, and ANY example of it EVER being used in demolitions before

And again: When we get to the Pentagon, you will suffer immediate memory loss on why eyewitness testimony is so persuasive to you.

I think the source of speculation is quite clear. Here's a real demolition for you again, to re-affirm that those explosions cannot be missed. Since you're not speculating, please produce those 9/11 explosions on video or audio, and evidence how thermate is used in demolitions. After all, you're not speculating about thermate.....right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ


Btodd

 

[joebudda]

Somehow I think the head of our construction department has better things to do than argue with someone who thinks he doesnt have to pay taxes because he doesnt recognize the united states's existence.

What is your alternate explanation? I saw (with my own eyes mind you) two large airliners full of jet fuel hit the twin towers, burn uncontrolled for a few hours, begin to list and twist from the top down, then collapse from around the points of impact.

I agree that airplanes crashed into the buildings. But what caused the collapse of the three buildings to fall at free fall speeds, there would have to be no infrastructure resistance to fall that fast.

And there were people standing in the holes made by the planes. If the fire was really that hot how can any human withstand such temperatures.

And the firefighters who made it up to the damaged areas didn't seem to think the fire was that bad.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EEDE1531F93AA35752C1A9649C8B63

Two hose lines are needed, Chief Orio Palmer says from an upper floor of the badly damaged south tower at the World Trade Center. Just two hose lines to attack two isolated pockets of fire. ''We should be able to knock it down with two lines,'' he tells the firefighters of Ladder Company 15 who were following him up the stairs of the doomed tower.

 

[joebudda]

Btodd
More speculation, ridicule, and strawmen. Just what I would expect from you.

All I am saying is there was a considerable amount of eyewitness testimonies from multiple unrelated sources that heard explosions, which is evidence of explosions. And we also have damage to the basement on video.

If not thermate, what caused the pools of large amounts of melted steal that burned for weeks? If you have a better explanation I am all ears. But I expect all I will get is more speculation, ridicule, and strawmen.

So if you want to hold onto the dogma of the Official Version, more power to you. I am a skeptic.

 

[Btodd]

Btodd
More speculation, ridicule, and strawmen. Just what I would expect from you.

What's left for me to do? You ignore all questions about controlled demolitions, and expect me to keep answering yours. Your standard for evidence is much different for demolitions than for the OV.

All I am saying is there was a considerable amount of eyewitness testimonies from multiple unrelated sources that heard explosions, which is evidence of explosions.

You haven't established that their use of 'explosion' meant a series of very loud sequenced explosions that signify a controlled demolition; and the fact that no truther is willing to ask them is icing on the cake. On top of that, you can provide no physical evidence. We have an extremely biased attempt to hijack people's descriptions for an 'inside job', and a refusal to even verify the assumption with those people.

And we also have damage to the basement on video.

Which refutes a controlled demolition, since controlled demolitions don't involve people walking around the basement after it's been demolished. Watch the video again. What you propose has nothing to do with controlled demolitions, so it's puzzling to see you use it as evidence for such a thing.

If not thermate, what caused the pools of large amounts of melted steal that burned for weeks? If you have a better explanation I am all ears. But I expect all I will get is more speculation, ridicule, and strawmen.

Thermate doesn't cause pools of metal for weeks after it's used, either. Nor do controlled demolitions. This is a complete non-sequitur, but it sounds just sciencey-enough to soothe itching ears. Please show me how thermate is used in demolitions, and how it leaves pools of metal for weeks or you have no point in bringing it up.

So if you want to hold onto the dogma of the Official Version, more power to you. I am a skeptic.

That isn't going to excuse you from your inability to present anything to support your pre-conceived conclusion of controlled demolitions (and a little thermate science fiction for good measure), and if we get to the Pentagon, we will see the hypocrisy of your stance on eyewitnesses in action.


Btodd

 

[joebudda]

Btodd

For starters I don't have a pre-conceived conclusion, that is your stance, not mine.

All I have said is the evidence shows some kind of controlled demolition. And quite a bit of evidence has been presented. You deny the evidence, which I allow you your denial.

But the interesting thing is you have supplied zero evidence to even show you have a rational reason to accept the official version. Is it just dogma, or do you have evidence that persuades you?

I would be very interested what makes you believe that three buildings can fall at free fall speeds if the infrastructure wasn't compromised somehow throughout the building.

All I am doing is taking all of the evidence into account. But I am not saying for you to accept it if you would rather cling to your official version, I will remain a skeptic.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I would be honored if he would come here to discuss it.

So are you claiming that jet fuel can burn hot enough to weaken the steal infrastructure enough to cause no resistance during collapse allowing the buildings to fall at close to free fall speeds? How hot and for how long would jet fuel burning take for such weakening to the infrastructure to allow for this to happen?

.

No. Jet fuel burns hot enough to weaken SOME of the load bearing members of the structure. The remaining load must then be borne by the remaining members. At some point, the remaining structure can no longer take the force bearing on it, and the structure collapses.

Close to free fall speeds? Damn right. When you have a mass as big as the top of the WTC centre being accelerated due to gravity, you have one almighty kinetic force. More than enough to smash through the load bearing members of the "bottom" of the tower, which were designed to resist static forces (i.e. hold up the building above them) not kinetic ones (tower rushing downwards)

 

[Btodd]

Btodd

For starters I don't have a pre-conceived conclusion, that is your stance, not mine.

All I have said is the evidence shows some kind of controlled demolition. And quite a bit of evidence has been presented. You deny the evidence, which I allow you your denial.

All that's been presented are misrepresented eyewitness statements. That's it. The basement damage video refutes a demolition, so that's out. So 'quite a bit of evidence' has not been presented for controlled demolitions at all, and you will deny eyewitness testimony when it hurts your pre-conceived conclusion at the Pentagon, so there is no standard for dealing with you. It's classic confirmation bias; not skepticism.

You specifically avoided my request as to the relevance of your claim about molten metal. Since that's not a feature of controlled demolitions, or thermate reactions (for weeks, as you claim), then you're erecting a false dilemma. Please explain what molten metal means, or correct the implication.....that it's some sort of smoking gun for an inside job.

I would be very interested what makes you believe that three buildings can fall at free fall speeds if the infrastructure wasn't compromised somehow throughout the building.

They didn't fall at free-fall speeds, since there is debris well below the collapse level, as you will no doubt casually ignore. Again, you either need a series of explosions that are impossible to miss (and all of the physical evidence that would leave), or a plausible theory as to how thermate was used for the first time EVER in demolitions (and all the physical evidence for that, too). Both of those have no basis in reality in regard to 9/11, as the video and audio of the event plainly shows.

All I am doing is taking all of the evidence into account. But I am not saying for you to accept it if you would rather cling to your official version I will remain a skeptic.

When you're done taking into account all the evidence for thermate demolitions, and non-explosion producing controlled demolitions, please pass it on to the rest of us.


Btodd

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Terral, don't bother debating with James. His strategy is to ridicule and declare his opponent refuted despite lack of evidence. In order to do this, he must either pretend that his opponent has not presented satisfactory evidence, or, shift the goalposts. For example, tell him that there are architects, structural engineers, physicists and other experts that disagree with the official 'pancake' theory and he will first ridicule you and then declare that there is no peer-reviewed journal article validating such disapproval. Provide him with one, and then the goal posts shift yet the again.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Terral, don't bother debating with James. His strategy is to ridicule and declare his opponent refuted despite lack of evidence.

LOL you are joke. Really,. He was refuted. He tried to claim a plane did not crash into the Pentagon. Are you really going to say he was not refuted?

In order to do this, he must either pretend that his opponent has not presented satisfactory evidence, or, shift the goalposts

Nope, wrong. I simply point out how your asinine assertions are incorrect and you have been refuted.

. For example, tell him that there are architects, structural engineers, physicists and other experts that disagree with the official 'pancake' theory and he will first ridicule you and then declare that there is no peer-reviewed journal article validating such disapproval. Provide him with one, and then the goal posts shift yet the again.[/

LOL what a bunch of BS. You have not provided a single article from a single peer reviewed academic journal i.e. one that would be found in the engineer library of any reputable university. You have not shown one university study that proves your theory. You have not shown one professional engineering organizaiton study that supports your assertions.

 

[Terral]

Hi Purple with James, Steezie and Todd mentioned:

Terral, don't bother debating with James. His strategy is to ridicule and declare his opponent refuted despite lack of evidence.

I would love to debate James on this WTC-7 topic and all the related 9/11 Inside Job cases, but he has ‘no case’ for anything at all. :0) The few CF.com members that do know me also know that over 90 percent of my posts on this Board are written on Christian Topics (mostly in the Dispensationalism Forum), but Steezie’s question in the Opening Post of this thread deserved ‘the’ right answer given in Post #147. I have debated this topic on many Boards and have seen James’ and Steezie’s trolling tactics right along with their extreme lack of “Building Fires Did It” evidence, so their name calling and acting out represent nothing new. The fact that ANYONE can believe ‘building fire’ and/or ‘building debris’ (heh) can cause the catastrophic simultaneous failure of ‘all’ WTC-7 columns, beams, girders and bar-joists is hilarious to say the very least. :0)

In order to do this, he must either pretend that his opponent has not presented satisfactory evidence, or, shift the goalposts.

No sir. You give these guys far too much credit, when in truth they showed up to this WTC-7 deliberation process very much empty handed. Again, there are only TWO working theories for what took WTC-7 down demolition-style into its own footprint and I have already made the “Controlled Demolition” case to my complete satisfaction. The only other theory, that in reality makes NO SENSE whatsoever, is the “Building Fires / Debris Did It” explanation which NONE of these guys have even attempted to prove using any evidence at all. The reason is that no precedent exists for 47 story steel-framed skyscrapers burning down and collapsing CD-style outside of 9/11. :0) Everyone here is aware of the 911Commission Report. Right? Okay then. My distinguished debating adversaries have every opportunity to use that 585 Page Report to support their “Building Fires/Debris Did It” case. Right? Wrong! :0) Those Loyal Bushie LIARS never bothered to mention the WTC-7 controlled demolition, even though the skyscraper was not hit by any plane and is 350 feet from the nearest of the Twin Towers. Then these guys have the NIST Report to use in making their “Building Fires Did It” case. Right? Wrong! Anyone can go to the Wiki page and see “NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 World Trade Center in 2008.” The top of the NIST Official Website Page says, “NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available.” If these so-called ‘experts’ cannot conclude that WTC-7 was taken down by Building Fires/Debris, then how do James, Todd and Steezie draw that conclusion and from what evidence? :0)

For example, tell him that there are architects, structural engineers, physicists and other experts that disagree with the official 'pancake' theory and he will first ridicule you and then declare that there is no peer-reviewed journal article validating such disapproval. Provide him with one, and then the goal posts shift yet the again.

No sir. These WTC-7 trolls have NO CASE and no ‘goalposts’ to even move around. If you really want to understand the reason for all of the combined whining by my distinguished debating adversaries, then here it is in a nutshell:

The Apostle Paul’s teaching on the “Mystery of Iniquity” (2Thes. 2:7-12) has MUCH more application to these 9/11 events than many realize. The ‘god of this world’ is blinding the minds of the unbelieving (2Cor. 4:3-4) and forcing them to “believe what is false” (2Thes. 2:11) all of their days and NOTHING anyone here says or does will allow them to see ‘the Light.’ Period! Some of you see an empty 20-feet diameter hole in this picture like I do, but those blinded by the “deluding influence” will claim a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in that empty field no matter how many times you show them the ‘clear evidence’ saying otherwise. The Wiki Site has a high resolution picture (here) where you can zoom in and look at things very up-close and personal, but there is still no 100 Jetliner crashed anywhere. In fact, the grass is growing all the way down to the bottom of the hole (pic), but these guys are blinded by Loyal Bushie/DoD/FBI Disinformation and Propaganda with NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty field.

The same goes for the Flight 77 case where no 100-Ton Jetliner ever crashed (CNN News Video) (my thread and another). You will find that the same ‘deluded’ (heh) trolls acting out in these WTC-7 deliberations also believe a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in the empty Shanksville field ‘and’ at the Pentagon, because that is what the ‘deluding influence’ is forcing them to see. You are witnessing the “Grand Delusion” being perpetuated by the “god of this world” and his “deluding influence” using Senor Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Larry Silverstein, the joint-chiefs, NORAD, FEMA, 911Commission cronies, NIST cronies, ACAAR cronies and their cohorts to spread nothing more than Official Cover Story LIES. These readers stand between all of these LIARS ‘and’ my presentations of ‘the’ 911Truth to make up their own minds about what really happened on 9/11. I quite frankly do not care one way or the other what any of you believe, but my obligation to the members of Christ’s Body and to ‘the’ Truth have been served.

If you want to sit there and claim 100-Ton Jetliners crashed where NONE ever crashed, then go right ahead and follow that NONSENSE. While I disagree with everything coming from the mouths of these deluded souls, I will stand and defend their right to present their points of view in these discussions. This Board was founded upon the principle that every registered member has the right to give his or her side of the story from ‘their’ perspective and everyone else can make up their own minds for themselves.

If all these 9/11 trolls can do is whine and cry like babies, with no case for anything, then by golly that is their God-given right, so long as they obey the posted COC guidelines governing these deliberations. Our Lord Jesus Christ said it best, saying, “Father, forgive them; for they DO NOT know what they are doing.” Luke 23:34.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[jamesrwright3]

Wow dude you really need to get some help. Your mind is really warped
Can't debate someone that doesn't have a grasp on reality.
You have been owned in this debate,

 

[Terral]

Hi James:

Wow dude you really need to get some help. Your mind is really warped.

Can't debate someone that doesn't have a grasp on reality.

You have been owned in this debate,

See what I mean? :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral