New 9/11 Investigation Marks Decade Milestone

[RealDealNeverstop]

You're silly. This conspiracy theory is silly. Stop being silly.

The OCT is very silly which is why we need a real investigation.

 

[Btodd]

Yeah, I don't quite get why the WTC7 needed to be collapsed either. I've never heard an explanation, and based on the responses in this thread, it seems evident that these people don't really think it through.

They don't understand it, either. The closest I've ever gotten to an answer (although laughable) is that:

1. There were incriminating files from government agencies in the building, so the whole building had to be destroyed.

2. The government wanted to help Silverstein get richer.


Still waiting on a motive that actually makes sense, and for anyone who believes it was a demolition to point out a single explosion in any video source.

But the 9/11 Truth Cult is very similar to another famous cult, as evidenced by the motto of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard:

"Always attack, never defend". That's why you won't get any answers about this supposed conspiracy. They don't have any, and don't want it to become obvious during questioning, so they simply refuse. Incredulity is passed off as a positive argument for conspiracy.


Btodd

 

[prophecyistrue]

Let's make it simple for you, using an analogy.

Pretend this group is Isaac Newton. He saw an apple fall from the tree. He observed it, and came up with a preliminary explanation for it. Yet, he didn't right away have a math equation explaining what just happened. He knew there was a force that acted on the apple to bring it down. It took time to develop the formula.

Likewise, it is easy to see that really high buildings, made of very heavy materials, would crash down and damage nearby structure, even the the point of causing collapse of one nearby. It is easy to observe that. However, for a report to be published and things to be considered 100% fact, there must be science and math behind it. Those things take time. Models have to be made. People have to be interviews. Pictures and videos have to be analyzed, as does evidence from the scene. They have to go over the structure blueprints and dimensions, and all of this. Its not as simple as you are trying to make it.

Thats great! except one little change in your analogy, to make your analogy more in line you must say apples never fell from a tree before, and on the day in question three apples fell from the same tree

 

[prophecyistrue]

You're silly. This conspiracy theory is silly. Stop being silly.

"says the clown"

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Thats great! except one little change in your analogy, to make your analogy more in line you must say apples never fell from a tree before, and on the day in question three apples fell from the same tree

What's funny is for years OCTAs claimed they knew why 7the fell-due mainly to damage from 1+2 and exploding diesel tanks in the basement. Then NIST comes along and says no to all of that and claims it was fire alone. They literally had to invent a new theory inside of thermal expansion to explain 7. It may have been easier if they didn't start with a conclusion and did an actual investigation.

 

[prophecyistrue]

What's funny is for years OCTAs claimed they knew why 7the fell-due mainly to damage from 1+2 and exploding diesel tanks in the basement. Then NIST comes along and says no to all of that and claims it was fire alone. They literally had to invent a new theory inside of thermal expansion to explain 7. It may have been easier if they didn't start with a conclusion and did an actual investigation.

Logic would tell anybody that even if it was fire that caused building 7 to fall, when in the history of fires, has a steel constructed building had unilateral structure failure, even at points where no fires were even burning, and systematically dropped in one piece into a seemingly disolved basement. Yeah! thats really logical thinking!

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Logic would tell anybody that even if it was fire that caused building 7 to fall, when in the history of fires, has a steel constructed building had unilateral structure failure, even at points where no fires were even burning, and systematically dropped in one piece into a seemingly disolved basement. Yeah! thats really logical thinking!

So even accepting the claim it was fire is problematic for how the building fell but they don't want to admit that. It seems like most are so hopelessly married to the OCT that even if-and this would not surprise me-someone came forward and admitted that yes, 7 was brought down purposefully, they would still claim the rest of the OCT had to be true. I can already hear them scurrying to defend why we were lied to for so long:

"They couldn't tell people because it would make everyone afraid to work in skyscrapers."

It's just like with 93 as it was obvious it was not a crash they kept saying it had to be a crash and there was never any shoot down order given. Then Bush's book comes out and he says he thought 93it was shot down because he gave the order. What did OCTAs do? Closed their ears and eyes even tighter.

 

[prophecyistrue]

So even accepting the claim it was fire is problematic for how the building fell but they don't want to admit that. It seems like most are so hopelessly married to the OCT that even if-and this would not surprise me-someone came forward and admitted that yes, 7 was brought down purposefully, they would still claim the rest of the OCT had to be true. I can already hear them scurrying to defend why we were lied to for so long:

"They couldn't tell people because it would make everyone afraid to work in skyscrapers."

It's just like with 93 as it was obvious it was not a crash they kept saying it had to be a crash and there was never any shoot down order given. Then Bush's book comes out and he says he thought 93it was shot down because he gave the order. What did OCTAs do? Closed their ears and eyes even tighter.

sometimes its what happens after the fact that should raise a red flag, what happened to the wreckage of flight 93, why is it so important to keep this wreckage from the public, whats left of flight 93 is now under armed guard deep below ground in "Iron mountain" yes that makes logical sense, what is the great concern over bits of crashed plane wreckage?

 

[Btodd]

Oh my gosh! Look at all the incredulity! It must have been a demolition and a shoot-down, then! No evidence required, hahaha.


Btodd

 

[prophecyistrue]

Oh my gosh! Look at all the incredulity! It must have been a demolition and a shoot-down, then! No evidence required, hahaha.


Btodd

somtimes what happens after a crime is committed, IS THE EVIDENCE! Just as a bank robber goes on a spending spree after a holdup, to say this man normally buys gold watches and stays at the ritz carlton every night and has no means of earning money is evidence, you might not see it as evidence but police agencies and courts alike all see it as evidence. what happens after a crime is very much apart of the evidence. burying flight 93 wreckage in iron mountain is just another reason people don't believe the story their being told. you obviously believe it, but according to the sequence of your postings, I would say you either always have to get the last word, or you want people to read your debunking nonesense to keep people from hearing the truth.

 

[Btodd]

somtimes what happens after a crime is committed, IS THE EVIDENCE! Just as a bank robber goes on a spending spree after a holdup, to say this man normally buys gold watches and stays at the ritz carlton every night and has no means of earning money is evidence, you might not see it as evidence but police agencies and courts alike all see it as evidence. what happens after a crime is very much apart of the evidence. burying flight 93 wreckage in iron mountain is just another reason people don't believe the story their being told.

Actually, you're wrong.

When speaking of WTC7 being demolished, what happened afterward (Iraq War? NIST report? What do you mean?) does not create evidence of a controlled demolition. We've seen nothing of the sort, and I've repeatedly asked for both a motive, and evidence of the supposed explosions.

And I would like to see a source for your 'buried wreckage' claim, although that would not do anything to prove a 'shoot-down' any more than a crash.

you obviously believe it, but according to the sequence of your postings, I would say you either always have to get the last word, or you want people to read your debunking nonesense to keep people from hearing the truth.

That doesn't even make sense. I at least give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually believe the things you say...your notion that I want to 'keep people from hearing the truth' implies that I don't even believe what I'm saying. I point out flaws in the methodology of Truthers and ask for evidence of their supposed claims because I think they're complete nonsense.

The Twin Towers were a perfect example. I explained very well how they collapsed, and why the South Tower collapsed first. I challenged Truthers to show evidence of explosions, and got absolutely nothing. They moved on to another subject, which is usually what happens when someone is cornered and has no answers.


Btodd

 

[prophecyistrue]

Actually, you're wrong.

When speaking of WTC7 being demolished, what happened afterward (Iraq War? NIST report? What do you mean?) does not create evidence of a controlled demolition. We've seen nothing of the sort, and I've repeatedly asked for both a motive, and evidence of the supposed explosions.

And I would like to see a source for your 'buried wreckage' claim, although that would not do anything to prove a 'shoot-down' any more than a crash.



That doesn't even make sense. I at least give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually believe the things you say...your notion that I want to 'keep people from hearing the truth' implies that I don't even believe what I'm saying. I point out flaws in the methodology of Truthers and ask for evidence of their supposed claims because I think they're complete nonsense.

The Twin Towers were a perfect example. I explained very well how they collapsed, and why the South Tower collapsed first. I challenged Truthers to show evidence of explosions, and got absolutely nothing. They moved on to another subject, which is usually what happens when someone is cornered and has no answers.


Btodd

No I am actually very right! everything done after a crime is committed is and can be used as evidence.....its done everyday in court ask any lawyer

 

[Btodd]

No I am actually very right! everything done after a crime is committed is and can be used as evidence.....its done everyday in court ask any lawyer

Not in the way you and other Truthers imply. The only thing that proves such a thing as a demolition will be hard evidence, not appeals to 'we went to Iraq on false charges', or 'the NIST report took too long'.

So I will continue to ask for real evidence, not appeals to incredulity about the official story. Point out the explosions. It should be very simple.


Btodd

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

No I am actually very right! everything done after a crime is committed is and can be used as evidence.....its done everyday in court ask any lawyer

For some reason showing things like motive with the PNAC, petrodollar, and occupations of nations that never attacked us-while completely ignoring the nation where the hijackers came from-does nothing for the discussion because some OCTAs are to a laughable point of desperation. It is so bad some will even claim an eyewitness who was in wtc 7 remembered it WRONG. That's correct. When they cannot explain eyewitness testimony that does not support the OCT they will actually claim the person who was actually there remembered it.......wrong. lol....

 

[prophecyistrue]

Not in the way you and other Truthers imply. The only thing that proves such a thing as a demolition will be hard evidence, not appeals to 'we went to Iraq on false charges', or 'the NIST report took too long'.

So I will continue to ask for real evidence, not appeals to incredulity about the official story. Point out the explosions. It should be very simple.


Btodd

Actually some cases are decided COMPLETELY ON WHAT A PERSON DOES AFTER A CRIME! some murderers are in prison for murder and they don't even have the body to prove the person they supposedly killed is even dead. How can that be?....BY THEIR ACTIONS AFTER THE DISAPEARENCE!

 

[Btodd]

It is so bad some will even claim an eyewitness who was in wtc 7 remembered it WRONG. That's correct. When they cannot explain eyewitness testimony that does not support the OCT they will actually claim the person who was actually there remembered it.......wrong. lol....

As usual, Truthers will fixate on the statements of one man, even if his statements disagree with everyone else around him at the time, and even if he clarifies that his words have been taken out of context in order to further their paranoid belief system.

And then they'll try to turn it back around on those who take all of the information into account, and make sure that the statements also correspond to the physical evidence...while ignoring any question put to them on the matter.

So, keep avoiding the request for you (or any other Truther) to point out the explosions, and expect us to believe a demolition happened anyway. A silent, magical demolition.


Btodd

 

[Wayte]

"says the clown"

Well of course. Am an expert on silly see. I knows it when I sees it, and right now I sees more than I should.

 

[Btodd]

Actually some cases are decided COMPLETELY ON WHAT A PERSON DOES AFTER A CRIME! some murderers are in prison for murder and they don't even have the body to prove the person they supposedly killed is even dead. How can that be?....BY THEIR ACTIONS AFTER THE DISAPEARENCE!

In other words, you cannot even come up with a plausible motive for a demolition of WTC7, nor point out explosions in any of the video. By the way, the Casey Anthony trial should show you how wrong your argument in this post can be.


Btodd

 

[prophecyistrue]

In other words, you cannot even come up with a plausible motive for a demolition of WTC7, nor point out explosions in any of the video. By the way, the Casey Anthony trial should show you how wrong your argument in this post can be.


Btodd

OJ is a good one too! notice nobodies looking for the murderer of Nicole Brown and the Goldman guy. I think many plausible motives have been given to you, and theres been numerous postings of eye witnesses to explosions in building 7, plus a huge number videos with all sorts of visual signs of explosives. you just keep denying everything people post, and making sure your negative rebutal is what is the last post on any of these kinds of subjects

 

[Btodd]

I think many plausible motives have been given to you, and theres been numerous postings of eye witnesses to explosions in building 7, plus a huge number videos with all sorts of visual signs of explosives. you just keep denying everything people post, and making sure your negative rebutal is what is the last post on any of these kinds of subjects

I already posted the only two motives I've heard for a demolition of WTC7, and neither of them are plausible.

As for 'eyewitnesses' to explosions, that's a different thing than demolitions charges. That's what I take issue with...I have no doubt that people heard things described as an explosion, I have an enormous amount of doubt that they were demolitions charges. If they were, you could point them out on video, where they would be visible and audible.

And you may think my rebuttals are 'negative', but that's how it feels when your beliefs are challenged, I guess. As for getting the last word, I notice you're still responding, no?


Btodd