Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

What makes you most suspicious about the official 911 story?

  • Lack of air defence response

    Votes: 10 8.6%
  • Building 7 collapse

    Votes: 7 6.0%
  • Pentagon hole

    Votes: 6 5.2%
  • Bush response

    Votes: 5 4.3%
  • Insider trading

    Votes: 4 3.4%
  • FBI / CIA coverup

    Votes: 8 6.9%
  • Demolition-like collapse of WTC 1 & 2

    Votes: 8 6.9%
  • Gut instinct

    Votes: 11 9.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 11 9.5%
  • The official theory sure is a lot more believable than the bonkers conspiraloon stuff

    Votes: 46 39.7%

  • Total voters
    116
Status
Not open for further replies.
sparticus said:
To which Editor gives us...."Four years on and you still haven't produced a single shred of credible 'proof' <adds standard childish insult to make himself feel big> ."

I rest my case. Proof is a matter of opinion. The fact that the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement is not proof enough for you is your opinion, but that is not same as saying there is no evidence.

Ain't hindsight a wonderful thing.
 
sparticus said:
The fact that the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement is not proof enough for you is your opinion, but that is not same as saying there is no evidence.
The truth movement holds its annual party:

photo5.jpg


sparticus said:
Proof is a matter of opinion.
Earth calling Planet Sparticus...
 
That's right Ed, it's just me saying this stuff ain't it.

Forget the Zogby poll, forget the numerous WELL ATTENDED talks and film screenings that have been staged over the past year, forget the 9/11 family group campaigns and the numerous high profile endorsements for a further investigation.

In short keep lying and ignoring/distorting the evidence presented by the 9/11 truth movement.
 
Techno303 said:
Let see Sparticus and his ilk deconstruct the NIST presentation linked above in MikeMcc’s post.

Go on, in your own words… :D :D

I did once Techno on these boards in my own words. It basically descended into the usual bollox so excuse me if I don't repeat it.

But if you want to focus on one element, would you care to show me in the NIST report a credible explanation as to how there was near instanteous failure across the full span of the floor where a collapse initiated
 
sparticus said:
In short keep lying and ignoring/distorting the evidence presented by the 9/11 truth movement.
You keep on ignoring the overwhelming tide of hard evidence/peer reviewed credible research/eye witness testimony in preference to your fruitloop fantasies and I'll keep on taking the piss.

You see I'm not alone in trying to reason with you over the years, politely pointing out the flaws in your wild fact-free suppositions, but it's become increasingly obvious that you're not really interested in the truth per se.

All you want to do is prove something that you want to believe happened, regardless of what the evidence says. So you'll carry on ignoring vast swathes of evidence and keep on declaring some minor unexplained detail as absolute proof of some globe spanning conspiracy.

And now you've become very boring. You haven't proved a thing, nor have you come up with a single shred of proper evidence. And now you have the fucking cheek to call me an 'apologist.'

Maybe you should consider why most people here treat you - and your bonkers theories - as a joke.
 
sparticus said:
I did once Techno on these boards in my own words. It basically descended into the usual bollox so excuse me if I don't repeat it.

But if you want to focus on one element, would you care to show me in the NIST report a credible explanation as to how there was near instanteous failure across the full span of the floor where a collapse initiated

Well I’d love to do that for you but in the NIST presentation (it is not a report – the bits that are missing is where the person does the talking) the hypothesis that (your words) “there was near instanteous failure across the full span of the floor where a collapse initiated” is not proposed. Where does this get mentioned in the presentation?

:confused:
 
MikeMcc said:
Yet in none of those are the possibility that there may have been demolition charges/bombs considered at all! Rather, the conclusion is simply assumed - that the towers came down thanks to the plane impacts and resulting fires. So we have blazing infernos where none existed etc.

Simple tests - which should have been carried out in any proper analysis, such as testing the steel for 'twinning' - would determine whether the steel was exploded or otherwise. However the function of the investigation has not been to consider all possibilities, but rather seize the evidence and make sure that the crucial tests weren't done. This should ring massive alarm bells that all is not right.

My personal view is that - whatever could have happened to the rest of the towers - the collapse of the huge central steels proves that they were blown up. They were extraordinarily thick. The planes would have little damaged them (huge thick steel columns trump aluminium debris). Conducting heat beatifully down a massive heat sink they would have been cool to touch. They couldn't 'pancake' collapse. Even if the rest of the tower failed no way could it bring down the central steel. In short, they couldn't collapse, yet ended up in tiny pieces all the way down. They had to have been blown up.
 
Jazzz said:
Yet in none of those are the possibility that there may have been demolition charges/bombs considered at all! Rather, the conclusion is simply assumed - that the towers came down thanks to the plane impacts and resulting fires. So we have blazing infernos where none existed etc.

Simple tests - which should have been carried out in any proper analysis, such as testing the steel for 'twinning' - would determine whether the steel was exploded or otherwise. However the function of the investigation has not been to consider all possibilities, but rather seize the evidence and make sure that the crucial tests weren't done. This should ring massive alarm bells that all is not right.

My personal view is that - whatever could have happened to the rest of the towers - the collapse of the huge central steels proves that they were blown up. They were extraordinarily thick. The planes would have little damaged them (huge thick steel columns trump aluminium debris). Conducting heat beatifully down a massive heat sink they would have been cool to touch. They couldn't 'pancake' collapse. Even if the rest of the tower failed no way could it bring down the central steel. In short, they couldn't collapse, yet ended up in tiny pieces all the way down. They had to have been blown up.

You can imagine the presenter at NIST: “…and that concludes my talk…oh…hang on a minute…we didn’t factor in bombs!”.
 
Jazzz said:
Yet in none of those are the possibility that there may have been demolition charges/bombs considered at all!
Right. So all those highly qualified engineers who analysed the collapse in great detail and used all their experience and knowledge to explain what happened must have collectively missed something so blazingly obvious that even a totally unqualified web reader could see it!

Incredible!!

Thank heavens for these amazing website posters!
 
Techno303 said:
You can imagine the presenter at NIST: “…and that concludes my talk…oh…hang on a minute…we didn’t factor in bombs!”.
Hand rises at back, "And what about the invisible, missile firing pods?""
 
Why is it so difficult to believe in extremist terrorists training to fly planes wanting to strike at the US because of their unpopular foreign policies, again? Remind me?
 
This muted cry is worth noting, for those who think that scientific inquiry for government agencies is somehow impervious to political forces

WASHINGTON - The voice of science is being stifled in the Bush administration, with fewer scientists heard in policy discussions and money for research and advanced training being cut, according to panelists at a national science meeting.

Speakers at the national meeting of the American Association for Advancement of Science expressed concern Sunday that some scientists in key federal agencies are being ignored or even pressured to change study conclusions that don’t support policy positions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7004259/
 
Badger Kitten said:
Why is it so difficult to believe in extremist terrorists training to fly planes wanting to strike at the US because of their unpopular foreign policies, again? Remind me?
er...

er...

OPERATION NORTHWOODS!
 
editor said:
Right. So all those highly qualified engineers who analysed the collapse in great detail and used all their experience and knowledge to explain what happened must have collectively missed something so blazingly obvious that even a totally unqualified web reader could see it!

Incredible!!

Thank heavens for these amazing website posters!

That's right keep on lying

You know it's not just us "incredible website posters" that are challenging the official report but you just keep on pretending that is the case.
 
Badger Kitten said:
Why is it so difficult to believe in extremist terrorists training to fly planes wanting to strike at the US because of their unpopular foreign policies, again? Remind me?

The evidence that challenges the official account, oh and the fact that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Co have been proven to be serial liars and the US has a proven record of sponsoring terrorism
 
FridgeMagnet said:
er...

er...

OPERATION NORTHWOODS!

A 1962 non-implemented madcap plan which was never executed, vs. thousands of real terror attacks which , like, actually happened? One ( non) example vs. loads of real-world precedents?

A terror strike involving a nihilistic death-fetishising strand of theology, funded by an oil billionaire with a grievance and a well -known agenda?

Hum, hum, no brainer.
 
Once again someone has to remind this lying cock of a few basic facts...

Jazzz said:
Yet in none of those are the possibility that there may have been demolition charges/bombs considered at all! Rather, the conclusion is simply assumed - that the towers came down thanks to the plane impacts and resulting fires. So we have blazing infernos where none existed etc.

And in none of these FACTS are the assumption that Bugs Bunny was personally involved either.

Damn - they overlooked that one! What's up Doc?

Simple tests - which should have been carried out in any proper analysis, such as testing the steel for 'twinning' - would determine whether the steel was exploded or otherwise. However the function of the investigation has not been to consider all possibilities, but rather seize the evidence and make sure that the crucial tests weren't done. This should ring massive alarm bells that all is not right.

This is another lie, presumably serving to back up the antisemitic theories from which these tales of fantasy and conspiracy are derived.

My personal view is that - whatever could have happened to the rest of the towers - the collapse of the huge central steels proves that they were blown up. They were extraordinarily thick. The planes would have little damaged them (huge thick steel columns trump aluminium debris). Conducting heat beatifully down a massive heat sink they would have been cool to touch. They couldn't 'pancake' collapse. Even if the rest of the tower failed no way could it bring down the central steel. In short, they couldn't collapse, yet ended up in tiny pieces all the way down. They had to have been blown up.

They HAD to have been blown up did they?

Must have been that magic explosive that doesn't send fragments throughout the building's exterior then, because clearly - TO ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY WATCHED THE TOWERS COLLAPSE - there was structural failure at the point of the plane's impact, then the buildings, having been burning aviation fuel for a considerable amount of time, collapsed from the top down, they didn't explode, nor were they blown up.

I'm tired of your endless finger-in-ears action in the face of logical supposition and proven evidence, and again - these threads do far better when you are not here repeating stuff that has already been blown out of the water.

No amount of your anti-semitic website bullshit is going to convince anyone of anything other than your own gullibility.

And this thread is typical of the reasons why 9/11 threads are just a magnet for disturbed clueless paranoid little boys who want to play amateur detective.

I'd have binned it the first time you posted on it, if it were up to me...
 
Techno303 said:
…and this is shocking, you really need to brush up on your GCSE physics Jazzz.
Why? Genuine question. In the debate on the physics.org forum someone came on to have witnessed oil depot fires and said that even with millions of gallons of blazing fuel inside you could still touch the outer skin of the steel holder - steel which was far thinner than used in the central support columns. And look at the Buncefield depot blaze - after days of mostrous inferno the skin of some holders was still intact - pretty warped, yes, but still there. The central columns were fantastically thick and would conduct any heat up and down, there was absolutely no evidence of an inferno in the south tower, and any fire that there was in either tower only burned for around 90 minutes. It would barely have warmed it.

However, even you assume that the fires could have heated up the central supports, you can't possibly claim that they could have heated them significantly all the way up and down the towers - utter nonsense. I don't even guess that that is claimed! So, what made them collapse?
 
sparticus said:
That's right keep on lying
Where have I lied, please?

Could you list the peer-reviewed, suitably qualified engineering experts with relevant qualifications who have come out and supported your sci-fi yarns about the WTC collapse, please?

And then how do you explain the hundreds of engineers who don't go along with your exciting tales? Are they all in on it too?
 
sparticus said:
The evidence that challenges the official account, oh and the fact that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Co have been proven to be serial liars and the US has a proven record of sponsoring terrorism

What evidence?

And to deny you your pathetic attempts to disprove the simple truths of the events of 9/11 is one thing - for you to accuse everyone of being an "apologist" for Cheney et al just because people don't go along blindly with your shithead anti-semitic website nonsense makes YOU the fucking liar.
 
Yes, they are definitely in on it too. Everyone who does not go along with exciting madcap internet theories is in on it, everywhere. And they - we - are all coming to get Jazzz and sparticus any time now...


Paranoid? Oh no, just because everyone else is in on a giant global conspiracy and only you know the truth cos the internet told you doesn't make you paranoid, no, no, no...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom