Conspiracy Theories are a Conspiracy!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The Truthers have conspired to cause panic, paranoia and chaos within the U.S. and worldwide. They conspire to tell narrative and fairy stories because they have nothing to gain in their personal and political lives. They will constantly lie and retell all of their theories to gullible people. Anyone that's gullible is a target for the Truthers, and they will literally brainwash those with the same rheotric and theories without any evidence to back them up.

They know they make the claim about having "mountains of evidence", but fail to show it the to Federal Court to make a case. They know that is a conspiracy to withhold evidence, since they blame the U.S. Government & 9/11 Researchers for "withholding evidence", they're in fact doing the same in return.

They have conspired to hide the real perpatraitors, Al-Qaeda, who plotted & planned 9/11.

[Sabretooth]

I think the latest Richard Gage offering really put the brakes on the 9/11TM for good. Coming out and proclaiming "New and Improved EvidenceTM!!1!"...and then spending 2 hours rehashing the same old crap from 2006, and creating that plodding and useless "mock debate", all in front of a handfull of people who were obviously just as crazy as Gage himself...it really shows where they stand.

9 years, no facts, and no brains...they need to just shut it down and stop wasting what's left of their lives...

[T.A.M.]

I think the latest Richard Gage offering really put the brakes on the 9/11TM for good. Coming out and proclaiming "New and Improved EvidenceTM!!1!"...and then spending 2 hours rehashing the same old crap from 2006, and creating that plodding and useless "mock debate", all in front of a handfull of people who were obviously just as crazy as Gage himself...it really shows where they stand.

9 years, no facts, and no brains...they need to just shut it down and stop wasting what's left of their lives...

One could say he jumped the shark, but at the rate they do that, the ocean would be out of them by now.

TAM:)

[Sabretooth]

One could say he jumped the shark, but at the rate they do that, the ocean would be out of them by now.

TAM:)

I wanted to add, too, that all these "movements" can't even agree on what or who did what to what and who. (Did that even make sense???)

I mean, between the cruise missiles, thermite, no-planes, DEW's...it's not even coherent to me some days...I can't keep track of them all.

[MG1962]

I wanted to add, too, that all these "movements" can't even agree on what or who did what to what and who. (Did that even make sense???)

I mean, between the cruise missiles, thermite, no-planes, DEW's...it's not even coherent to me some days...I can't keep track of them all.

I always find it interesting that this diversity of opinions never seems to bother them

[ozeco41]

The Truthers have conspired to cause panic, paranoia and chaos within the U.S. and worldwide....
Take care that you don't give them credit where it is not deserved.

I'm not sure about "panic", nor "chaos".

I am sure about "paranoia" but it is limited to themselves.


Otherwise I am in broad agreement with your statements. :)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Take care that you don't give them credit where it is not deserved.

I'm not sure about "panic", nor "chaos".

I am sure about "paranoia" but it is limited to themselves.


Otherwise I am in broad agreement with your statements. :)

They give us credit for "murdering" the people on 9/11 & call us a bunch of "murderers". So why not just spill out the truth that what they're doing is a real conspiracy.

They're conspiring to overthrow the U.S. Government without any evidence of a crime they committed. Just like Julius Ceasar, the lot conspired to overpower him & take his position.

Thank you! :)

[Sabretooth]

They're conspiring to overthrow the U.S. Government without any evidence of a crime they committed. Just like Julius Ceasar, the lot conspired to overpower him & take his position.

I disagree. CTer's don't even know what their goal is. There is a complete lack of foresight and/or logistics in any of their "theories". Almost all of their ideas are born of complete ignorance and stupidity. They eventually get to the point where they just want someone to say that their ideas are valid and they don't really care what happens after that.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I disagree. CTer's don't even know what their goal is. There is a complete lack of foresight and/or logistics in any of their "theories". Almost all of their ideas are born of complete ignorance and stupidity. They eventually get to the point where they just want someone to say that their ideas are valid and they don't really care what happens after that.

I can accept that! But I agree that Alex Jones is spearheading them into overthrowing the Government. It only takes 1 lone nut to spoil the rest of the nuts.

I'd like to have Truthers give their side of the story, as to why they are part of a conspiracy to cover up the real perpatraitors, Al-Qaeda.

[JihadJane]

I always find it interesting that this diversity of opinions never seems to bother them

Why should it?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Why should it?

My prayers have been answered!

JJ, why do you hide the real perps that attacked us on 9/11?

[JihadJane]

My prayers have been answered!

JJ, why do you hide the real perps that attacked us on 9/11?

How do I do that, Chewy?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

How do I do that, Chewy?

You think that America attacked itself when you place blame on the Government & the people for the attacks. And you let the terrorists get off scott free by covering up their murderous attacks with conspiracy theories.

[JihadJane]

You think that America attacked itself when you place blame on the Government & the people for the attacks.

When do I do that, Mr Mind Reader?!


And you let the terrorists get off scott free by covering up their murderous attacks with conspiracy theories.

What conspiracy theories?


Will you answer my question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6343138#post6343138)now?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

When do I do that, Mr Mind Reader?! What conspiracy theories? Will you answer my question now?

Quite using the Truther Tactic:

Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you can not explain away.

You know what I'm talking about JJ. I didn't study you Truthers for years for nothing. I know how you think & I understand what you are.

It bothers you to know that there are people out there, like me, that study Truther behavior & know what Truthers are going through.

[Sabretooth]

I can accept that! But I agree that Alex Jones is spearheading them into overthrowing the Government. It only takes 1 lone nut to spoil the rest of the nuts.

Absolutely. But Alex tends to spread his woo so thin that he's only attracting the brainless anyway...meaning those folks are already lost causes to begin with :p

[Sabretooth]

Will you answer my question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6343138#post6343138) now?

Ah ah...the question was posed to CTer's first.

Why doesn't it bother you that none of you CTer's can agree on a single story? There are literally dozens of theories as to why they believe 9/11 was not as it seemed.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Absolutely. But Alex tends to spread his woo so thin that he's only attracting the brainless anyway...meaning those folks are already lost causes to begin with :p

True! Those diehard Truthers who are still in the 9/11 TM are definantly brainless. They fight for a cause that's not even worth fighting for, but yet they still fight anyways.

It's like the Truthers are playing the "Confederate soldiers", they fight for their right to have opinions based on speckulation & non-existant evidence. Then they try to fight the "Union soldiers", which is us, & we counter-attack them with rational thoughts & evidence. In the end, they have to surrender!

[Sabretooth]

Will you answer my question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6343138#post6343138) now?

To answer your question - it SHOULD bother you. All you 911TMer's contradict the living daylights out of one another with your inane theories. One person says WTC7 was a CD, while the next one in line says a plane was supposed to hit WTC7 and ignite the oxygen containers in the upper floors.

None of you are on the same page, and none of you have a coherent theory as to the who, what, how and why the US Govt would kill it owns citizens. Just a bunch of wild Tom Clancy novels.

[beachnut]

... They have conspired to hide the real perpatraitors, Al-Qaeda, who plotted & planned 9/11.
Some are only conspiring to separate fools from their money.
Gage, DRG, and others. Fraud, but willing participants too stupid on the issues to know better.

[MG1962]

Why should it?

It would greatly improve the possibility of getting action and resolution.

Say a new commission is held, and half the truthers have their theory either validated or discounted. The other half are going to call for a new commission because their view was not addressed.

And lets say one small group of truthers did get it right and a truth is exposed and leaders are held accountable for their actions

Other truthers will not be satisfied because the uncovered truth is not their truth

[Reactor drone]

:boggled:
None of you are on the same page, and none of you have a coherent theory as to the who, what, how and why the US Govt would kill it owns citizens. Just a bunch of wild Tom Clancy novels.

It's worse than that, they have a bunch of pages ripped from 100 different novels and they've never bothered to stick them together to see if they make an actual story.



:boggled:

[JihadJane]

Quite using the Truther Tactic:



You know what I'm talking about JJ. I didn't study you Truthers for years for nothing. I know how you think & I understand what you are.

It bothers you to know that there are people out there, like me, that study Truther behavior & know what Truthers are going through.




Please list my "Truther" qualifications!



You don't know diddly-squat about me or how I think or what bothers me.

You appear to be on automatic pilot.

[JihadJane]

It would greatly improve the possibility of getting action and resolution.

Say a new commission is held, and half the truthers have their theory either validated or discounted. The other half are going to call for a new commission because their view was not addressed.

And lets say one small group of truthers did get it right and a truth is exposed and leaders are held accountable for their actions

Other truthers will not be satisfied because the uncovered truth is not their truth


There won't be a new commission.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah ah...the question was posed to CTer's first.

Why doesn't it bother you that none of you CTer's can agree on a single story?


Why are you including me in your comfort-blanket "CTer's" collective, either-you're-for-us-against-us game?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Please list my "Truther" qualifications!



You don't know diddly-squat about me or how I think or what bothers me.

You appear to be on automatic pilot.

Truther qualifications:

1: Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 Researchers into "Strawman" issues that are easily knocked down.

2: Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you can not explain away.

3: Deny - Refuse to acknowledge any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 arguement.

4: Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 Researchers.

5: Repeat - Repeat the Conspiracy Theories constantly.

Oh I know alot about your behavior JJ & I know how you think that 9/11 wasn't perped by Al-Qaeda. I know what bothers you the most, not having any evidence to prove anything you claim about 9/11.

You appear to be transparent to the real truth that 9/11 wasn't an "Inside Job". So continue to dream on JJ!

[JihadJane]

Truther qualifications:



Oh I know alot about your behavior JJ & I know how you think that 9/11 wasn't perped by Al-Qaeda.

You are wrong.

I know what bothers you the most, not having any evidence to prove anything you claim about 9/11.

What claims?

You appear to be transparent to the real truth that 9/11 wasn't an "Inside Job". So continue to dream on JJ!

Is being transparent to the real truth a bad thing?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You are wrong.

What claims?

Is being transparent to the real truth a bad thing?

If I were "wrong", then why is it that that's what your qualifications are? You love to make excuses as to why people are "wrong", when you know they're right to begin with.

That 9/11 was an "Inside Job" perped by the U.S. Government. Too bad you don't have that "mountains of evidence" to prove it! :p

The real truth you can't swallow. All you can do is ignore what people are telling you & you handwave the evidence like it was nothing.

You said that I don't know you Truthers? I know you fellas real well!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

None of you are on the same page, and none of you have a coherent theory as to the who, what, how and why the US Govt would kill it owns citizens.


Hell, some of them don't even believe the U.S. Government was the responsible party. They think "the Jews did it."

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Hell, some of them don't even believe the U.S. Government was the responsible party. They think "the Jews did it."

If they think the "Jews did it", then they're propaghanding for Adolf Hitler!

[Chuck Guiteau]

JJ, just what are your beliefs regarding the attacks on 9/11 and the identities of the perpetrators?

[dvictr]

Where is your evidence?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Where is your evidence?

It's plastered all over the internet in the form of Truther websites. Kind of sucks knowing that Truthers are the real conspiratists themselves, isn't it?

[JihadJane]

If I were "wrong", then why is it that that's what your qualifications are? You love to make excuses as to why people are "wrong", when you know they're right to begin with.

This is what you are wrong about:

“I know how you think that 9/11 wasn't perped by Al-Qaeda”.

That 9/11 was an "Inside Job" perped by the U.S. Government. Too bad you don't have that "mountains of evidence" to prove it! :p

Idiotic. Why should I provide evidence for something I've never claimed?

The real truth you can't swallow. All you can do is ignore what people are telling you & you handwave the evidence like it was nothing.

You said that I don't know you Truthers? I know you fellas real well!

Are you a pre-recorded message?

I didn’t say you “don't know you Truthers”.


I said "You don't know diddly-squat about me or how I think or what bothers me". [my bold]


JJ, just what are your beliefs regarding the attacks on 9/11 and the identities of the perpetrators?

My belief: We'll never know the full story.


Truther qualifications:

1: Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 Researchers into "Strawman" issues that are easily knocked down.

2: Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you can not explain away.

3: Deny - Refuse to acknowledge any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 arguement.

4: Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 Researchers.

5: Repeat - Repeat the Conspiracy Theories constantly.




Perhaps you could illustrate how any of these qualifications apply to me.

[Chuck Guiteau]

My belief: We'll never know the full story.


That is an evasion, Jane. You don't know the full story about George Washington, the Treaty of Ghent or your own mother. No one ever knows the full story about anything.
Surely your belief extends beyond an admission of total ignorance, so why don't you just give us your suspicions about who perpetrated the attack?


This is what you are wrong about:


I said "You don't know diddly-squat about me or how I think or what bothers me". [my bold]



But we do know a lot about you, how you think, and what bothers you. You've told us yourself.

You're female, or you have some serious gender identity issues to address.

You're young. Under 30 and probably closer to 20.

You're poorly educated and the product of a public school in which even by their standards you were an underachiever (you found it boring, right?).

You have difficulty with relationships (does the phrase "No one understands me" ring a bell?)

You're either unemployed or working in a menial job.

You're very insecure.

You have a marked inferiority complex.

You fantasize a lot.

I'd say that's quite a bit considering the paucity of your posts.

[aggle-rithm]

Why should I provide evidence for something I've never claimed?


You seem proud of the fact that you lack the courage of your convictions.

We're well aware that you never claim anything. You merely insinuate in order to get attention.

Do you disagree?

(Careful with your answer. It might require you to make a claim.)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bolding's mine:

This is what you are wrong about:

“I know how you think that 9/11 wasn't perped by Al-Qaeda”.


Idiotic. Why should I provide evidence for something I've never claimed?

Because you're guilty be association with the 9/11 TM. Fair enough?


Are you a pre-recorded message?

LOL! Don't shoot the messenger! Unlike you, I'm not programmed to repeat the same lame CTs. You are programmed to ignore evidence when you see fit to ignore them.

I didn’t say you “don't know you Truthers”.

Can you speak English & not gibberish?

I said "You don't know diddly-squat about me or how I think or what bothers me". [my bold]

I know you, you just can't understand how I know you!


My belief: We'll never know the full story.

Your belief is pure BS! We know the full story & you can't accept it because you have no evidence.

Perhaps you could illustrate how any of these qualifications apply to me.

No illustration needed. You're guilty by association with the 9/11 TM!

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

For someone who uses the screen name "Jihad Jane" sure knows how to pick that kind of name without reseaching first:

JihadJane, an American woman, faces terrorism charges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030902670.html

A petite, blond-haired, blue-eyed high school dropout who allegedly used the nickname JihadJane was identified Tuesday as an alleged terrorist intent on recruiting others to her cause, as federal prosecutors unsealed criminal charges that could send her to prison for life.

JJ, need I say any more?

[Patriots4Truth]

When you think of anyone believing a conspiracy theory you may as well think that they are a weirdo.

But people that spend endless amount of time debunking the weirdo are actually the weirdest of them all. Do y'all really have nothing better to do? I would say get a job but I'm starting to believe that debunking 9/11 conspiracy is some people's job here at jref.

Being obsessed with conspiracy is one thing. Being obsessed with debunking weirdos is... to put it mildly... completely insane.

[riptowtan]

When you think of anyone believing a conspiracy theory you may as well think that they are a weirdo.

But people that spend endless amount of time debunking the weirdo are actually the weirdest of them all. Do y'all really have nothing better to do? I would say get a job but I'm starting to believe that debunking 9/11 conspiracy is some people's job here at jref.

Being obsessed with conspiracy is one thing. Being obsessed with debunking weirdos is... to put it mildly... completely insane.

I don't agree with that. I find debunking weak arguments/theories fun and good practice for building argumentative skills. I also find conspiracy theories to be really interesting to talk about. It's kind of like a hobby I guess..

[Patriots4Truth]

but if you don't have the skill set to debunk engineering arguments why bother. that's where 9/11 conspiracy is heading - all engineering talk.

[Sabretooth]

When you think of anyone believing a conspiracy theory you may as well think that they are a weirdo.

But people that spend endless amount of time debunking the weirdo are actually the weirdest of them all. Do y'all really have nothing better to do? I would say get a job but I'm starting to believe that debunking 9/11 conspiracy is some people's job here at jref.

Being obsessed with conspiracy is one thing. Being obsessed with debunking weirdos is... to put it mildly... completely insane.

I look at "debunking" as a public service.

CTer's go out of their way to nitpick some half-hearted piece of crap to further a need to believe that the Guberment/NWO/NATO is out to get them.

Debunkers go out of their way to find facts and evidence that supports the science, math, and physics.

In the event that some lurker does happen to drive by the JREF looking for facts, it's better to show them that they can get info from real sources and not only the tin-foilers...

[Sabretooth]

but if you don't have the skill set to debunk engineering arguments why bother. that's where 9/11 conspiracy is heading - all engineering talk.

If you're suggesting Dick Gage and his group of leg-huggers has more than a snowball's chance in hell opposing real-life engineering...then the truthers need prepare themselves for many, many, many more years of fail.

[riptowtan]

but if you don't have the skill set to debunk engineering arguments why bother. that's where 9/11 conspiracy is heading - all engineering talk.
Most of the mistakes the truthers make come down to logical fallacies and erroneous claims. These can be understood by any lay person. Sure there are some technical issues that experts in engineering can debate, but one could debunk 9/11 conspiracies with just logic alone.

[Patriots4Truth]

most of the mistake that debunkers make is accepting that controlled demolition isn't at all possible

[carlitos]

Hi Patriots4Truth, and welcome to the forum.

Do you have a hypothesis about how controlled demolition could have brought down one more more of the towers, given the observed events that day? Including video, seismic record, sound, etc.

Thanks!:)

[Patriots4Truth]

can you entirely rule out controlled demolition?

Thanks! :)

ps. this is a yes or no question.

[carlitos]

Answering a question with a question? Even a yes / no question? This is annoying.

My answer to your question is "yes." What's your answer to my question?

ETA - If the answer is "yes," and you do have a hypothesis, here is the thread to post it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149321&page=7).

[BigAl]

can you entirely rule out controlled demolition?

Thanks! :)

ps. this is a yes or no question.

yes

[Patriots4Truth]

incorrect, try again

[Patriots4Truth]

you guys would have to be pretty biased to the original story if you can entirely rule out controlled demolition because it is just not possible

[carlitos]

I think that my fuse is shorter than it used to be. If Patriots4Truth wants to stop trolling, he / she is welcome to do so.

[TexasJack]

you guys would have to be pretty biased to the original story if you can entirely rule out controlled demolition

I guess there's a chance Elvis is still alive too, but to prove it, you would have to provide evidence. Show us why a CD can't be ruled out. Let's hear your hypothesis and support it with evidence.

[T.A.M.]

most of the mistake that debunkers make is accepting that controlled demolition isn't at all possible

1. Stop the "I have only been at this a week" crap. Your experience as a truther is showing...you are no newb...just confess so we can get it out of the way.

2. I for one have never said it "isn't at all" possible. Just like I have never said that it "isn't at all" possible we have been visited by aliens. What I have said is that no one, NO ONE, has ever shown me a single piece of credible evidence that CD occurred.

TAM:)

[riptowtan]

incorrect, try again

Lol. You asked for a yes or no question, but then rejected the answer. I would agree that you can rule out controlled demolition on 9/11 in this observable universe. Maybe in some fantasy world. There is simply no evidence or even a plausible scenario in which a controlled demolition occurred on 9/11. It takes some time and explanation to understand why it didn't happen, but you asked for a yes or no answer. There are plenty of internet resources and books you can read about 9/11, and plenty of knowledgeable people here. What you are arguing is old and still baseless.
Yes we can rule out controlled demolition.

[T.A.M.]

can you entirely rule out controlled demolition?

Thanks! :)

ps. this is a yes or no question.

Can you rule out unicorns did it? Can you rule out aliens did it? Can you rule out the russians did it? Can you rule out that this life we live is not entirely a dream?

Please...this is the WEAKEST form of argument.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

you guys would have to be pretty biased to the original story if you can entirely rule out controlled demolition because it is just not possible

can you calculate the exact value of Pi?
is there a finite number of pieces a pie can be cut into?

stop your silly argument.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Here is what you can do, as others have pointed out...

You can rule it so improbable, that for sane, logical, reasonable people, you have effectively ruled it out...this is the case with CD and the towers.

TAM:)

[Chuck Guiteau]

but if you don't have the skill set to debunk engineering arguments why bother. that's where 9/11 conspiracy is heading - all engineering talk.

That's where you're wrong,P4T. Debates of engineering in regards to a criminal conspiracy are only relevant after you establish that a conspiracy took place to begin with, or at least provide the necessary elements to establish a prima facie case.
Otherwise, you might as well be arguing over the ballistic path of a fatal rifle bullet before you've even established that a homicide occured. It is exactly the same as debating the mechanics of warp drive; an interesting exercise in mental masturbation, but not applicable to the real world.

And establishing a theory that transcends the officially recognized explanation is a skill set I do not believe you possess.

[Patriots4Truth]

actually I have signed onto a "conspiracy theory".
the one posted here: WTC 7's compartmented demolition collapse sequence reveals human intervention. (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg1)

Several posts long. I doubt that debunkers will read all of LaBTop's posts and references. Their loss.

[Patriots4Truth]

That's where you're wrong,P4T. Debates of engineering in regards to a criminal conspiracy are only relevant after you establish that a conspiracy took place to begin with, or at least provide the necessary elements to establish a prima facie case.
Otherwise, you might as well be arguing over the ballistic path of a fatal rifle bullet before you've even established that a homicide occured. It is exactly the same as debating the mechanics of warp drive; an interesting exercise in mental masturbation, but not applicable to the real world.

And establishing a theory that transcends the officially recognized explanation is a skill set I do not believe you possess.

the engineering debates can determine whether NIST's final report has errors or is omitting very important information. it could determine whether a criminal investigation into 9/11 is necessary. <that in itself is why it is the most important thing to debate

[Carlos]

The 9/11 conspiracy is a government conspiracy.

[R.Mackey]

actually I have signed onto a "conspiracy theory".
the one posted here: WTC 7's compartmented demolition collapse sequence reveals human intervention. (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread612056/pg1)

Several posts long. I doubt that debunkers will read all of LaBTop's posts and references. Their loss.

That "theory" is complete stupidity. You cannot "Cut all the main columns [of WTC 7] as low as possible ... during the whole day, one by one" because WTC 7 won't remain standing. Losing even a single core column can mean collapse of the structure. And the seismographic argument your hero presents is total lunacy. Those traces have been discussed both here and in published literature, and they show nothing like what he claims.

I give him some credit for stating a partial theory, much more than you lot usually manage, but his theory is mind-bogglingly dumb.

Yes, a controlled demolition is impossible. Your argument is one of sophistry, and therefore invalid. Look it up.

[Patriots4Truth]

That "theory" is complete stupidity. You cannot "Cut all the main columns [of WTC 7] as low as possible ... during the whole day, one by one" because WTC 7 won't remain standing. Losing even a single core column can mean collapse of the structure. And the seismographic argument your hero presents is total lunacy. Those traces have been discussed both here and in published literature, and they show nothing like what he claims.

I give him some credit for stating a partial theory, much more than you lot usually manage, but his theory is mind-bogglingly dumb.

Yes, a controlled demolition is impossible. Your argument is one of sophistry, and therefore invalid. Look it up.

I'm not even going to reply to stuff like this if you cut up quotes like that. The complete quote is:

"Cut all the main columns as low as possible, just above or between floors 5 to 7."

anyways it is late, I have to go to sleep at some point.

[R.Mackey]

This symbol: "..." is called an ellipsis. It indicates a deliberate pruning of a quote to emphasize the relevant portions. I left that part out because it makes no difference. If you cut the core columns at practically any level, WTC 7 comes down. It's not designed to lose columns and retain structural integrity. Few buildings are.

Sleep might help you come up with a more realistic set of beliefs.

[Chuck Guiteau]

the engineering debates can determine whether NIST's final report has errors or is omitting very important information. it could determine whether a criminal investigation into 9/11 is necessary. <that in itself is why it is the most important thing to debate

Wrong again, P4T. The absolute best you would be able to do is show a flaw in the report. That in itself does not indicate that there was a government conspiracy, only that a report was flawed.

Before you can justify a criminal investigation you have to:

A. Have a viable theory that fits all the facts of the case.

Neither you or any other person here has even offered a viable method of performing a CD which fits the facts. Quite the contrary, you and all the other Ct'ers run from the very thought like it contained the plague (which, in a manner of speaking, it does).

B. Prove to the exclusion of all else that your theory is the correct one.

Your position is that if you can prove the dog is not a German Shepherd it must therefore be a Chihuahua.
All Chihuahuas are dogs but not all dogs are Chihuahuas.You must prove it to be a Chihuahua to the exclusion of all other breeds of dog.


Simply pointing out a flaw or an omission in the NIST report will not fulfill this criterion.
Far from being the most important thing, it is (without a building a foundation upon which to present your "evidence") the least.

[Patriots4Truth]

This symbol: "..." is called an ellipsis. It indicates a deliberate pruning of a quote to emphasize the relevant portions. I left that part out because it makes no difference. If you cut the core columns at practically any level, WTC 7 comes down. It's not designed to lose columns and retain structural integrity. Few buildings are.

Sleep might help you come up with a more realistic set of beliefs.

Of course "just above or between floors 5 to 7." would be relevant to include in your quote. Your quote is doctored to look like every core column at WTC7 would need to be cut.

Also your reading level must be around grade 6 if you can't comprehend that the core columns were "cut horizontally". "The purpose of this first sequence was to cut the main columns, not displace them. They still stand firm on the non-cut column parts under them."

-----------------------------
R.Mackey, you need to learn how to not misrepresent people you are quoting and how to read at a 6th grade level (I suggest going back to middle school). Until then, you will be ignored

// signing off for tonight // over and out //

[Patriots4Truth]

Wrong again, P4T. The absolute best you would be able to do is show a flaw in the report. That in itself does not indicate that there was a government conspiracy, only that a report was flawed.

Before you can justify a criminal investigation you have to:

A. Have a viable theory that fits all the facts of the case.

Neither you or any other person here has even offered a viable method of performing a CD which fits the facts. Quite the contrary, you and all the other Ct'ers run from the very thought like it contained the plague (which, in a manner of speaking, it does).

B. Prove to the exclusion of all else that your theory is the correct one.

Your position is that if you can prove the dog is not a German Shepherd it must therefore be a Chihuahua.
All Chihuahuas are dogs but not all dogs are Chihuahuas.You must prove it to be a Chihuahua to the exclusion of all other breeds of dog.


Simply pointing out a flaw or an omission in the NIST report will not fulfill this criterion.
Far from being the most important thing, it is (without a building a foundation upon which to present your "evidence") the least.

finding flaws and getting the omitted files to be released is a great way to debunk the original story. if you can rule out fire and anything else that isn't controlled demolition then the only scenario left to describe the destruction of WTC7 is obviously controlled demolition. in that case there would almost definitely be a criminal case

//and out//

[R.Mackey]

Of course "just above or between floors 5 to 7." would be relevant to include in your quote. Your quote is doctored to look like every core column at WTC7 would need to be cut.

I take it you didn't read the theory you claim to believe? He says very clearly that his theory involves cutting every core column. Heck, you quoted it yourself. "Cut all the main columns..."

This is not a good way to convince me you're worth the trouble.

Also your reading level must be around grade 6 if you can't comprehend that the core columns were "cut horizontally". "The purpose of this first sequence was to cut the main columns, not displace them. They still stand firm on the non-cut column parts under them."

I understood that perfectly. It's totally idiotic. By cutting columns horizontally, the person in question apparently believes each column would gently come to rest on the stub that was just cut, and the structure would stay put until additional bracing is cut, and kicker charges fired (silently, one imagines) to start it in motion. This is not how large structures behave. First, those cuts are not particularly clean. Second, even if they were, you introduce displacement. Third, many of those columns were carrying moments, and they can't anymore if you cut them like this.

Real demolitioneers don't do this because they try to make the demolition as predictable as possible. This is of even greater importance in this fantasy scenario, because the claim is the columns were cut many hours before it was to collapse, and the whole time the structure was on fire... But horizontal cuts make the collapse unpredictable. If it remains standing in the first place once you begin.

It's nothing but juvenile science fiction.

-----------------------------
R.Mackey, you need to learn how to not misrepresent people you are quoting and how to read at a 6th grade level (I suggest going back to middle school). Until then, you will be ignored

// signing off for tonight // over and out //

Odds are I spent more time at college than you've been alive.

Pleasant dreams!

[Chuck Guiteau]

finding flaws and getting the omitted files to be released is a great way to debunk the original story. if you can rule out fire and anything else that isn't controlled demolition then the only scenario left to describe the destruction of WTC7 is obviously controlled demolition. in that case there would almost definitely be a criminal case

//and out//
That's a rather broad statement, don't you think? Finding flaws, large or small, critical or insignificant, in the NIST report won't, in itself, trigger a criminal case.

And it brings us back to the elephant in the room, doesn't it? You've still got to prove that a CD is at least possible under the verifiable circumstances of the event, let alone show that is more likely than not the cause.
__________________________________________________ _____

CT Prosecutor in front of Federal Judge:
Your honor we can conclusively prove that the WTC did not fall as the result of fire or anything else. It must, therefore be a CD.

Federal Judge:How did you arrive at that conclusion?

CT P: We found several flaws in the NIST report.

FJ: And?

CT P: And that's it. We spent years just getting that far.

FJ: What about the "or anything else"?

CT P: I don't have an answer for that one.The most imporant thing was to find flaws in the NIST report. We're pretty sure it wasn't a meteor.

FJ: In your brief, where are the elements that constitute a prima facie case? You know: motive, method, opportunity?

CT P: We think the motive might have been oil. Or revenge, maybe.
We're at a loss on opportunity as well. There were thousands of witnesses, in and around the complex during and after the airplanes hit, who I'm sure will differ with our position , but we were too busy proving that a cataclysmic event the buildings were never designed to withstand didn't bring them down to give it much thought. We felt that was more important.
We've got a lock on the method, though: Controlled Demolition.

FJ: How was the CD performed then?

CT Prosecutor: We don't have a clue, your honor. We haven't even given it a thought either, other than idle speculation of a very general nature.

FJ: Inasmuch as you're accusing the US government of complicity in the most heinous crime in the history of the country, you might want to give those things some attention. As far as I'm aware, we haven't adopted the Soviet standards for burden of proof here.

By the way, why did you bring your English Bulldog to court with you?

CT P: That's not an English Bulldog, Your Honor. That's a Chihuahua.

FJ: A Chihuahua?

CT P: Yes. We were able to prove it wasn't a German Shepherd, so it has to be a Chihuahua. We call him "Pepe".

_____________________________________

Wile the above conversation may seem a bit ridiculous, it is done so to point out just how ridiculous your position is, without proper logical foundation.

[Sabretooth]

Of course "just above or between floors 5 to 7." would be relevant to include in your quote. Your quote is doctored to look like every core column at WTC7 would need to be cut.

Truther Semantics. Your gripe has nothing to with or against this lame demolition theory. It doesn't alter the implications of your next comment:

Also your reading level must be around grade 6 if you can't comprehend that the core columns were "cut horizontally". "The purpose of this first sequence was to cut the main columns, not displace them. They still stand firm on the non-cut column parts under them."

It doesn't matter WHERE specifically these cuts are. I repeat; IT DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that this theory is IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot cut through a steel column without instantly destroying the structural integrity of the building. There are glaring reasons why this theory doesn't begin to make sense:

1). Cutting a steel beam removes some of the material. Keep in mind that this "cutting" must be done with a cutting torch as there is no other viable and/or portable method of doing so.

2). To avoid having the column mend itself by the downward pressure on melted steel, the cutters would have to remove a large swath of material (by cutting circular or rectangular patterns across the section).

3).This would leave a minimum gap of 2 to 3 inches. So basically you have a floating column...that is meant to support a building...connected to nothing. Cutting "horizontally" means nothing.

4). How the hell do the daily workers, security, etc. in WTC7 not notice that people are torch cutting columns on floors 5-7?


This theory is absolutely ridiculous. Once again, it's a fantasy land dream that has no applicable real-world physics.

[Sabretooth]

...if you can rule out fire and anything else that isn't controlled demolition then the only scenario left to describe the destruction of WTC7 is obviously controlled demolition...

I hilited a very key word.

Nobody has ruled out fire as the primary cause of WTC7's collapse. All the CTer's have is flight of imagination.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

When you think of anyone believing a conspiracy theory you may as well think that they are a weirdo.

But people that spend endless amount of time debunking the weirdo are actually the weirdest of them all. Do y'all really have nothing better to do? I would say get a job but I'm starting to believe that debunking 9/11 conspiracy is some people's job here at jref.

Being obsessed with conspiracy is one thing. Being obsessed with debunking weirdos is... to put it mildly... completely insane.

Debunking isn't "weird" when you have evidence on your side of the arguement. Actually I like debunking those weirdos called "Truthers". Debunking 9/11 is everyone's "job" as a servant to realism & understanding how the world works. Truthers do the opposite of us!

Not exactly true! Those Truthers are the ones that are completely insane. They are willing to kill people for what they believe in.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

can you entirely rule out controlled demolition?

Thanks! :)

ps. this is a yes or no question.

Yes we can!

#1 reason: No physical or trace evidence of a CD was ever found at GZ.

[aggle-rithm]

if you can rule out fire and anything else that isn't controlled demolition then the only scenario left to describe the destruction of WTC7 is obviously controlled demolition. in that case there would almost definitely be a criminal case


Destroying your own building without a permit? Yeah, I hear there's a stiff fine for that.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Horizontally severing each column? A moderate wind could probably take the building down...

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And Truthers wonder why I think their Conspiracy Theories are the real Conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Here's a couple of poems the Truthers should read about themselves:

Eyes of Truth (by Alan Daniel)

Through the distorted lies
shine the eyes of truth
these eyes see which man can't;
all the hate and corruption
that they can not comprehend.
they write what they see,
with a pen that overflows with blood
this is the blood of the liars and corruptors.
with this blood it tries to make things right,
but they have been wrong for too long

First Lie (by Wildflower)

This is the world that I live in,
tainted by others so hollowed by
god that they cannot believe in
anything other than what they
were first told.

You can show them the truth,
and make them face the lies,
but belief in one so empty is
the devil in disguise..

[Sword_Of_Truth]

can you entirely rule out controlled demolition?

Yes. Already done. Physics teaches us that there are certain things that always happen when an explosive shockwave strong enough to rend structural steel is generated. None of these effects were observed in WTC1, 2 or 7 on 9/11.

Explosive demolition is ruled out the same way dragons from the world of warcraft have been ruled out.