Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11[W:371, 640]

[Mark F]

You really need to stop telling me what to do. This is not the first time. Unlike you, I don't have the temerity to tell you what to do because:

1. I could care less what you do or don't do.
2. Unlike you, I matured long, long ago and I don't go around telling others what to do.
3. It's irrelevant to any discussion about anything.
4. It is beyond moronic to tell someone that unless one thinks like you, it causes "mental blindness".

So stick to the subject matter or the discussion is over.

Having said the above, for me NIST, the 9/11 Commission Report and every official report about 9/11 (i.e. the OFFICIAL NARRATIVE) is the focus and subject of my detailed scrutiny. Everything else is secondary. Like I keep telling you and you either don't seem to understand or you want to ignore, 9/11 is NOT about every cockamamie theory out there, it's about the truth. The truth about 9/11 is CRITICAL because just about everything the US government has done since 9/11 is rooted and based on the 9/11 narrative.

There are massive problems with both the 9/11 Commission Report and ALL the NIST reports. These collectively comprise the official narrative (the standard if you will) that has been accepted by the US government and as it goes with authority, a large segment of the population of Americans. The problems with all these official reports are numerous and consist of incontrovertible evidence of FRAUD. That members of the 9/11 Commission have publicly made claims about being lied to and set up to fail is irrefutable and on the public record. That NIST's structural drawings in the NIST report do not match the original Frankel drawings is irrefutable and on the public record. That NIST did not test for explosives by their own admission is irrefutable and on the public record. Whether you want to ignore these major issues or dismiss them as irrelevant is your business and your mentality. I DON'T, period.

The above are only some of the reasons why these reports are absolutely worthless and we need and must have a REAL investigation, not a politically motivated criminal FRAUD. Another reason is that NO forensic criminal investigation into the events surrounding 9/11 has ever been conducted.

You don't need any official reports to understand what happened on 9/11. IMHO - Your fixation with authority, your ideological blindness to that simple fact keeps you in an endless cycle of making false technical claims and unfounded accusations without demonstrating relevance or intent on the part of the supposed perpetrators.

It is a shame you don't exhibit the same level of scrutiny to unofficial claims as you do official ones.

 

[Bob0627]

Absolutely false, the burden of proof is on government, no one else. Government is the one who produced the official report, it's up to government to correct it if it's found to be defective. And that has already been done beyond a shadow of a doubt. One is a material defect based on incontrovertible evidence, the other defect is procedural.[/QUOTE

Lets look at your claim. "it's up to government to correct it if it's found to be defective". You used "IF". That makes your whole statement based on "if" the report is wrong.
Many say the premise of fire induced collapse is correct. Therefore the govt has nothing further to address.


I listed CD explanations that are floating around and which one is correct. Your response, "We shouldn't accept anything unless it's proven."
. Seems your statement of "It has not been shown "beyond a shadow of doubt", is nothing more than opinion. Many have looked at the same data and conclude the fire induced collapse is correct.

guess we can add fairy dust, aliens , etc to the list. Govt better rule them out.:mrgreen:

First, I didn't say "if the report is wrong", I said "if it's found to be defective". There is a difference. Then I explained why in general, it's defective. I did not elaborate in my response to you but I did elaborate in other posts and in my response to Mike F just before this post. It is NOT an opinion that it's defective, it's incontrovertible based on evidence and the historical record.

 

[Bob0627]

You don't need any official reports to understand what happened on 9/11. IMHO - Your fixation with authority, your ideological blindness to that simple fact keeps you in an endless cycle of making false technical claims and unfounded accusations without demonstrating relevance or intent on the part of the supposed perpetrators.

It is a shame you don't exhibit the same level of scrutiny to unofficial claims as you do official ones.

Ok so we're done then. You want to make this discussion about me and not about the issues surrounding 9/11. When and if you decide to stick to the subject matter, I will respond at my discretion. Until then, there's nothing more about me or you that I want to discuss with you.

 

[Fledermaus]

First, I didn't say "if the report is wrong", I said "if it's found to be defective". There is a difference. Then I explained why in general, it's defective. I did not elaborate in my response to you but I did elaborate in other posts and in my response to Mike F just before this post. It is NOT an opinion that it's defective, it's incontrovertible based on evidence and the historical record.

You keep using the phrase "based on evidence and the historical record" yet you reject "evidence and the historical record" time after time after time.

Why is that?

And "I didn't say "if the report is wrong"" REALLY?

I found what he did to be highly instrumental and a major eye opener. FREE FALL is one of the major factual components that causes NIST's fire induced collapse and column 79 to be impossible and unworkable theories because they both fail basic Newtonian laws of physics.

Sounds like WRONG to me.

The fire induced natural collapse theory of the 3 towers is incompatible with the laws of physics.

Since "fire induced natural collapse theory" is the core of the report... Sounds like WRONG to me.

There is an overwhelming amount of information that's been posted that CLEARLY shows the fire induced collapse theory of the 3 towers is impossible, including and especially the basic laws of physics. If you can't see it after all that has been posted, you will never see it.

Ditto


Need I go on?

 

[Bob0627]

First, I didn't say "if the report is wrong", I said "if it's found to be defective". There is a difference. Then I explained why in general, it's defective. I did not elaborate in my response to you but I did elaborate in other posts and in my response to Mike F just before this post. It is NOT an opinion that it's defective, it's incontrovertible based on evidence and the historical record.

Looks like I have to clarify a bit further (credit to Fledermaus). The report is defective for the reasons already cited. Meaning that based on the defects, it can't be accepted as valid. None of this means the conclusion is correct or incorrect but it still has to be deemed incorrect regardless.

GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out. If the input data or the procedure or both are invalid or missing (garbage in), the report is worthless (garbage out).

Having said the above, the contents of the NIST Report, on its own merit, fails in many different ways anyway as explained in many other posts.

 

[Fledermaus]

You are wrong to assume that the use of ion mobility spectrometry, gas chromatography, or any other methods of forensics investigation will have zero bearing on the discussion and that I will reject it out of hand. The fact is that you have been asked to provide evidence--any kind of documentation--that will show that such methods were employed, and you have failed to do so.

Why? Be clear and concise. WHY would it matter?

Also, I mentioned thermite to show you that sources who demonstrated that over a hundred pounds of thermite had little affect on a piece of steel were being misleading, to say the least. The video I spoke of in which a guy uses 1/100th of that amount to burn through a steel beam with simple equipment he made up in his garage shows the truth of the matter.

Thermite is a dead end. One that died years ago. The ONLY people bandying about thermite are those that are actually clueless on how it would be used in THIS case.

And nowhere in the NIST's explanation of why they didn't test for evidence of explosives residue do they say that the FBI had already done so, and that, having seen the results of those tests, there was no need to test for that kind of thing since it had already been done. Instead, they simply claim that it would be unlikely. Apparently, much like yourself, even they couldn't come up with any documentation of the results of the FBI's investigation into the use of explosives or incendiaries.

Asked and answered a gajillion times... They were the LAST in line to receive the EVIDENCE. Add to that there is NO LOGICAL REASON to test. None. Not one.

YOU have been asked time and again:
For the explosions consistent with a controlled demolition that would justify the testing.
For the physical evidence consistent with a controlled demolition that would justify the testing.

The is NO REASON to test. It is not REASONABLE.

And, like National Geographic, the NIST was also dishonest about the amount of thermite needed to cut through steel, and also the time needed to do so.

Well, tell us why you keep going on about EXPLOSIONS?

Mythbusters Thermite Test is 911 Disinformation - it CAN cut girders - YouTube


Wait... NOW it's THERMITE?

Fire fighter said, “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”

Wait, wait... THERMITE DOESN'T EXPLODE.

Wow, watch the desperate conspiracy pinball at work.

Police officer stated "you would hear a loud boom go off at the top of tower one. As the building continued to burn and emergency equipment kept on responding stirring up the dust and debris in the streets. After approximately 15 minutes suddenly there was another loud boom at the upper floors, then there was a series of smaller explosions which appeared to go completely around the building at the upper floors. And another loud earth-shattering blast with a large fire ball which blew out more debris and at that point everyone began to run north on West Broad Street."

So, thse "explosions.... Pretty much RULE OUT THERMITE don't they?

 

[Fledermaus]

The above are only some of the reasons why these reports are absolutely worthless and we need and must have a REAL investigation, not a politically motivated criminal FRAUD. Another reason is that NO forensic criminal investigation into the events surrounding 9/11 has ever been conducted.

Why do you lie?

This IS a lie.

Repeated to counter the continued lie.

The FBI responded to September 11 in extraordinary fashion. More than 4,000 special agents and 3,000 professional employees helped in the recovery and subsequent investigation. A single crime scene at the Pentagon in Virginia or at the World Trade Center alone likely would have eclipsed any previous investigative effort. The combination—along with the crash site in Pennsylvania—challenged the FBI to deploy its assets efficiently and in innovative ways. All FBI Headquarters divisions, field offices, and nearly every unit at the FBI Laboratory contributed. Among the efforts:

In New York, more than 1,000 FBI employees from 55 of the 56 field offices worked to recover victims, evidence, and personal belongings.
At the Pentagon, 155 FBI employees from eight field offices recovered evidence.
In Pennsylvania, 152 FBI employees from eight field offices recovered evidence.
Special Agents and personnel in at least 30 of the FBI’s foreign offices tracked down leads and worked with international partners.
The FBI responded to more than 500,000 investigative leads.
Special agents conducted more than 167,000 interviews.
The FBI collected and processed more than 150,000 pieces of evidence.
Photographers took more than 170,000 pictures.
Computer experts examined more than 35 terabytes of data in the first 30 days of the investigation alone.
More than 70 agents and professional staff worked on the core investigative team.
Scores of Laboratory personnel helped identify victims and hijackers through DNA.
Dozens of document experts reviewed more than 1,600 small or damaged pieces of paper.
Dozens of fingerprint examiners received more than 3,800 pieces of evidence and conducted more than 126,600 comparisons.
Five FBI cadaver dogs worked at the Pentagon.
Highly skilled FBI artists developed models of the sites and produced dozens of graphics.
Hazardous materials specialists from numerous field offices worked the three sites.
Explosives experts examined plane wreckage and building debris for evidence of bombs.
FBI pilots transported teams, equipment, and specialists to different locations.
Technical specialists restored the New York Office’s computer and phone systems and provided emergency communication systems in Virginia and Pennsylvania.
FBI SWAT teams provided security at all three sites, and Hostage Rescue Teams evaluated security at several locations.

Specialists helped recover audio and data from cockpit voice and flight data recorders and analyzed other audio and video recordings.

 

[Fledermaus]

Looks like I have to clarify a bit further (credit to Fledermaus). The report is defective for the reasons already cited. Meaning that based on the defects, it can't be accepted as valid. None of this means the conclusion is correct or incorrect but it still has to be deemed incorrect regardless.

GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out. If the input data or the procedure or both are invalid or missing (garbage in), the report is worthless (garbage out).

Having said the above, the contents of the NIST Report, on its own merit, fails in many different ways anyway as explained in many other posts.

back·track
intransitive verb \ˈbak-ˌtrak\

: to go back over a course or path
: to return to something that was mentioned before
: to completely change what you think or say about something

Why don't the experts agree with you?

 

[Sadling]

Why? Be clear and concise. WHY would it matter?

Thermite is a dead end. One that died years ago. The ONLY people bandying about thermite are those that are actually clueless on how it would be used in THIS case.

The is NO REASON to test. It is not REASONABLE.

Mythbusters Thermite Test is 911 Disinformation - it CAN cut girders - YouTube

Wait, wait... THERMITE DOESN'T EXPLODE.

So, thse "explosions.... Pretty much RULE OUT THERMITE don't they?

You're pretending that you haven't been asked to provide evidence--any kind of documentation--that will show that such forensics methods as you have mentioned were employed. You failed to produce anything.

Here's something from one of your posts: "They didn't LOOK FOR ANY since the FBI had already looked."

Here's something from your last post: "The is NO REASON to test. It is not REASONABLE."

So, have you made up your mind yet as to whether they tested for explosives/incendiaries or not? I will assume that, since you failed to provide anything in the way of forensics test results pertaining to such things, you are leaning toward no testing; but one never knows.

Concerning explosions and thermite, you didn't watch that video, did you? No, you didn't.

 

[Fledermaus]

You're pretending that you haven't been asked to provide evidence--any kind of documentation--that will show that such forensics methods as you have mentioned were employed. You failed to produce anything.

I gave you the FBI's words.

Here's something from one of your posts: "They didn't LOOK FOR ANY since the FBI had already looked."

They did. YOU can't accept that.

Here's something from your last post: "The is NO REASON to test. It is not REASONABLE."

And?

So, have you made up your mind yet as to whether they tested for explosives/incendiaries or not? I will assume that, since you failed to provide anything in the way of forensics test results pertaining to such things, you are leaning toward no testing; but one never knows.

No. THE FBI has investigated. It does not matter what I have made my mind up about or not. It does not matter what you believe. Reality works that way.

And no, your assumption is baseless. As are so many of your assumptions.

Concerning explosions and thermite, you didn't watch that video, did you? No, you didn't.

Yes, I did. That makes your assumption, yet again, baseless. Plenty of claptrap and babble. Some burning of a beam remarkably UNLIKE those in the WTC.

Tell me, how did the stealth ninjas plant these in the exact areas impacted by the airliners?

The question, for the Nth time. Why are you babbling about EXPLOSIONS if you are theorizing THERMITE.

The question, for the Nth time. Is the FBI lying.

The question, for the Nth time. Where are the telltale blasts? The overpressure? The seismic record? The blown out windows?

 

[Sadling]

You're pretending that you haven't been asked to provide evidence--any kind of documentation--that will show that such forensics methods as you have mentioned were employed. You failed to produce anything.

I gave you the FBI's words.

Here's something from one of your posts: "They didn't LOOK FOR ANY since the FBI had already looked."

They did. YOU can't accept that.

Here's something from your last post: "The is NO REASON to test. It is not REASONABLE."

And?

So, have you made up your mind yet as to whether they tested for explosives/incendiaries or not? I will assume that, since you failed to provide anything in the way of forensics test results pertaining to such things, you are leaning toward no testing; but one never knows.

No. THE FBI has investigated. It does not matter what I have made my mind up about or not. It does not matter what you believe. Reality works that way.

And no, your assumption is baseless. As are so many of your assumptions.

Concerning explosions and thermite, you didn't watch that video, did you? No, you didn't.

Yes, I did. That makes your assumption, yet again, baseless. Plenty of claptrap and babble. Some burning of a beam remarkably UNLIKE those in the WTC.

Tell me, how did the stealth ninjas plant these in the exact areas impacted by the airliners?

The question, for the Nth time. Why are you babbling about EXPLOSIONS if you are theorizing THERMITE.

The question, for the Nth time. Is the FBI lying.

The question, for the Nth time. Where are the telltale blasts? The overpressure? The seismic record? The blown out windows?

So, you watched the video. Did you have the sound turned on? You know, everyone who watched that video is witnessing your willful denial of what was heard on it. And you're OK with that?

On the web page you referenced, The FBI said it tested for evidence of bombs. Yes, it is clear what they said. Now why can't you produce anything to substantiate their claim. Are you unable to locate anything in reference to the results of their investigation? If you are, that's OK. But asking everyone to have faith that, though there's abslolutely no documentation of such an investigation (and you know that they document everything at a crime scene), just believe that it's so. You're incorporating an appeal to authority. That's fine. But the rest of us need to see some documentation of the results of those tests.

Here's something from one of your posts: "They didn't LOOK FOR ANY since the FBI had already looked."

Here's something from your last post: "The is NO REASON to test. It is not REASONABLE."

How do you reconcile those two comments? You say there was no reason to do tests, but you also say that the FBI had already looked. So . . .
__________________________________________

EDIT: Ya know, just something--anything--saying anything about how the test results were negative.

 

[Fledermaus]

So, you watched the video. Did you have the sound turned on? You know, everyone who watched that video is witnessing your willful denial of what was heard on it. And you're OK with that?


Enough of the SADLING_WHACK_A_MOLE nonsense.

The question, for the Nth time. Why are you babbling about EXPLOSIONS if you are theorizing THERMITE.

The question, for the Nth time. Is the FBI lying.

The question, for the Nth time. Where are the telltale blasts? The overpressure? The seismic record? The blown out windows?

On the web page you referenced, The FBI said it tested for evidence of bombs. Yes, it is clear what they said. Now why can't you produce anything to substantiate their claim. Are you unable to locate anything in reference to the results of their investigation? If you are, that's OK. But asking everyone to have faith that, though there's abslolutely no documentation of such an investigation (and you know that they document everything at a crime scene), just believe that it's so. You're incorporating an appeal to authority. That's fine. But the rest of us need to see some documentation of the results of those tests.


The question, for the Nth time. Why are you babbling about EXPLOSIONS if you are theorizing THERMITE.

The question, for the Nth time. Is the FBI lying.

The question, for the Nth time. Where are the telltale blasts? The overpressure? The seismic record? The blown out windows?

Here's something from one of your posts: "They didn't LOOK FOR ANY since the FBI had already looked."

They did.

The question, for the Nth time. Why are you babbling about EXPLOSIONS if you are theorizing THERMITE.

The question, for the Nth time. Is the FBI lying.

The question, for the Nth time. Where are the telltale blasts? The overpressure? The seismic record? The blown out windows?

Here's something from your last post: "The is NO REASON to test. It is not REASONABLE."

It isn't.

The question, for the Nth time. Why are you babbling about EXPLOSIONS if you are theorizing THERMITE.

The question, for the Nth time. Is the FBI lying.

The question, for the Nth time. Where are the telltale blasts? The overpressure? The seismic record? The blown out windows?

How do you reconcile those two comments? You say there was no reason to do tests, but you also say that the FBI had already looked. So . . .

Not irreconsilable if you actually THINK. They had REASON to look for explosives in the airliner debris, buildings struck by the airliner, and the Flight 93 location DUE TO REPORTS THE TERRORISTS MAY HAVE HAD BOMBS. It is REASONABLE to do so. It is also REASONABLE they looked at the debris for MONTHS in the Freshkills site.

What is NOT REASONABLE is to search anywhere else based on out-cof-context quotes, lack of ANY explosions consistent with a controlled demolition. Lack of blast effect. Lack of EVERYTHING that would point to demolition. WTC7 for example.

YOUR TURN:

The question, for the Nth time. Why are you babbling about EXPLOSIONS if you are theorizing THERMITE.

The question, for the Nth time. Is the FBI lying.

The question, for the Nth time. Where are the telltale blasts? The overpressure? The seismic record? The blown out windows?

 

[Mark F]

Ok so we're done then. You want to make this discussion about me and not about the issues surrounding 9/11. When and if you decide to stick to the subject matter, I will respond at my discretion. Until then, there's nothing more about me or you that I want to discuss with you.

Don't flatter yourself. Frankly, I could care less about you,... but don't take that personally.

By definition people can not see their own blind spots. Most people are too polite to point them out for you but not me. I'm just trying to improve your game - to get you off an already well-worn path of proven irrelevance - because that in turn will improve mine.

I first and foremost want to make this a discussion, not a forum for amateur venting against the government for the sake of venting against the government. A healthy skepticism of government action and the decision making process is a good thing, but completely separate from the events of 9/11. One may dislike officialdom and the actions of government but that is no reason to cling to nonsense technical claims about on 9/11 because of some insatiable need to prove the government wrong. That is just a recipe for not being taken seriously on the legitimate grievances.

I am interested in a genuine discussion on the technical merits of the case and I don't care with whom. I am not interested in personal, ideologically motivated witch hunts against the official story for the sake of attacking officialdom. Especially since official story is not even honest, there being no such thing. "Official story" is a meme, an attack paradigm invented by people looking to demonize what is far more accurately (but clumsily) referred to as the commonly accepted version of events. What we know about what happened on 9/11 comes from thousands of sources, not one. NIST-picking is a waste of time. NIST can be wrong about everything - and they might be - it still does nothing to change what actually happened that day. The terrorist attack hypothesis in no way, shape or form relies on NIST, or the 9/11 Commission or any other single source or entity. It never has. Discrediting either gets you not one step closer to proving it was anything other than a terrorist attack.

If you want to have a genuine discussion and are willing to drop all the emotional baggage, your obsessions with officialdom and just discuss the case based on the known evidence I would say that would be a fruitful and wonderful thing. IMHO the best place to start is with what one thinks actually happened - in detail - and why.

 

[Fledermaus]

How can one "multi-like"?

 

[Thoreau72]

Absolutely false, the burden of proof is on government, no one else. Government is the one who produced the official report, it's up to government to correct it if it's found to be defective. And that has already been done beyond a shadow of a doubt. One is a material defect based on incontrovertible evidence, the other defect is procedural.[/QUOTE

Lets look at your claim. "it's up to government to correct it if it's found to be defective". You used "IF". That makes your whole statement based on "if" the report is wrong.
Many say the premise of fire induced collapse is correct. Therefore the govt has nothing further to address.


I listed CD explanations that are floating around and which one is correct. Your response, "We shouldn't accept anything unless it's proven."
. Seems your statement of "It has not been shown "beyond a shadow of doubt", is nothing more than opinion. Many have looked at the same data and conclude the fire induced collapse is correct.

guess we can add fairy dust, aliens , etc to the list. Govt better rule them out.:mrgreen:

Why is there no burden of proof for the govt? Why is it absolved of having to defend its story?

 

[Fledermaus]

Why is there no burden of proof for the govt? Why is it absolved of having to defend its story?

What is not proven?

The theory on how WTC7 collapsed?

The CAUSE of the collapse in known. The DETAILS about the collapse are an issue for TRUTHERS only.

Not the REAL WORLD

 

[Mark F]

Why is there no burden of proof for the govt? Why is it absolved of having to defend its story?

Da gubmint has submitted a comprehensive, evidence-based, prima facie case complete with a timeline going back more than a decade before the attacks. This case tells us the who, what, when, where, why and how. Much of it is published in open sources and available for revue (frequently done right here) and has been used in a court of law to convict 2 men already with 5 more suspects currently on trial.

It is a rather more well thought out account than the government always lies, we need a new investigation. That is the Chimpanzee part of the brain at work. It requires little thought and leaves the burdens of both making a case and proving it up to some un-known, un-named, vaguely defined entity.

 

[Bob0627]

Don't flatter yourself. Frankly, I could care less about you,... but don't take that personally.

By definition people can not see their own blind spots. Most people are too polite to point them out for you but not me. I'm just trying to improve your game - to get you off an already well-worn path of proven irrelevance - because that in turn will improve mine.

I first and foremost want to make this a discussion, not a forum for amateur venting against the government for the sake of venting against the government. A healthy skepticism of government action and the decision making process is a good thing, but completely separate from the events of 9/11. One may dislike officialdom and the actions of government but that is no reason to cling to nonsense technical claims about on 9/11 because of some insatiable need to prove the government wrong. That is just a recipe for not being taken seriously on the legitimate grievances.

I am interested in a genuine discussion on the technical merits of the case and I don't care with whom. I am not interested in personal, ideologically motivated witch hunts against the official story for the sake of attacking officialdom. Especially since official story is not even honest, there being no such thing. "Official story" is a meme, an attack paradigm invented by people looking to demonize what is far more accurately (but clumsily) referred to as the commonly accepted version of events. What we know about what happened on 9/11 comes from thousands of sources, not one. NIST-picking is a waste of time. NIST can be wrong about everything - and they might be - it still does nothing to change what actually happened that day. The terrorist attack hypothesis in no way, shape or form relies on NIST, or the 9/11 Commission or any other single source or entity. It never has. Discrediting either gets you not one step closer to proving it was anything other than a terrorist attack.

If you want to have a genuine discussion and are willing to drop all the emotional baggage, your obsessions with officialdom and just discuss the case based on the known evidence I would say that would be a fruitful and wonderful thing. IMHO the best place to start is with what one thinks actually happened - in detail - and why.

Besides your still personal bovine excrement "I'm just trying to improve your game" delusions of grandeur, there's an additional reason why there's no point in discussing the 9/11 issue with you. We're not even on the same page in terms of what I personally want to discuss. I'm interested in discussing government's official narrative because it's the ONLY one that affects America and the rest of the planet. And that affect is a devastating one in terms of liberty, life and death. While your point that nothing and no one can change what happened on 9/11 is correct, we still don't know what really happened on 9/11 because we've been LIED to and 9/11 affects just about everything the US government did since 9/11 and still does. The ONLY potential we can ever have to change government's agenda (and maybe even the US government itself) is to expose the truth about 9/11 to the world. I understand even then it's a very long shot, but truth is everything, no matter what it turns out to be.

So because I know with 100% certainty, backed by irrefutable evidence, that we've been lied to in the extreme, what I do want to discuss is anything and everything that supports the official narrative (if there is such a thing) and more importantly, everything that is in conflict with it and any other controversial issue surrounding that narrative. If you don't want to take part in such a discussion, it's not a problem for me. I know there are many here that do.

 

[Mark F]

Besides your still personal bovine excrement "I'm just trying to improve your game" delusions of grandeur, there's an additional reason why there's no point in discussing the 9/11 issue with you. We're not even on the same page in terms of what I personally want to discuss. I'm interested in discussing government's official narrative because it's the ONLY one that affects America and the rest of the planet. And that affect is a devastating one in terms of liberty, life and death. While your point that nothing and no one can change what happened on 9/11 is correct, we still don't know what really happened on 9/11 because we've been LIED to and 9/11 affects just about everything the US government did since 9/11 and still does. The ONLY potential we can ever have to change government's agenda (and maybe even the US government itself) is to expose the truth about 9/11 to the world. I understand even then it's a very long shot, but truth is everything, no matter what it turns out to be.

So because I know with 100% certainty, backed by irrefutable evidence, that we've been lied to in the extreme, what I do want to discuss is anything and everything that supports the official narrative (if there is such a thing) and more importantly, everything that is in conflict with it and any other controversial issue surrounding that narrative. If you don't want to take part in such a discussion, it's not a problem for me. I know there are many here that do.

If you are only interested in the political decision making process why do you push nonsense inside jobby-job claims? As I have said many times before, doing that just discredits your legitimate claims and ensures no one will take you seriously.

The government or entities within it can be wrong
The government or entities within it can be lying
The government or entities within it can be playing a giant game of CYA

And maybe, just maybe you can prove all of that,... but terrorists still did 9/11.

Proving some government agent or agency lied about something does not mean da gubmint did 9/11. This is where 9/11 Truth has consistently lost the plot.

Indeed, an evil/lying U.S. government makes a rather stronger case for terrorists, not vice-versa. To date there is no prima facie case for any other conclusion. Take all the "official" reports out of the equation and you are still left with terrorists did 9/11. If you really want to achieve your claimed objectives then start by building that prima facie case, the hypothesis that better explains the evidence than the commonly accepted account with fewer un-proven assumptions. The who/what/when/where/why/how. Picking out individual anomalies in government reports will not get you there.

PS

Snowden forced the government to change and there isn't a word about any inside jobby-job in any of the millions of pages he leaked.

Just sayin'

 

[Sadling]

So, you watched the video. Did you have the sound turned on? You know, everyone who watched that video is witnessing your willful denial of what was heard on it. And you're OK with that?

The question, for the Nth time. Why are you babbling about EXPLOSIONS if you are theorizing THERMITE.

The question, for the Nth time. Is the FBI lying.

The question, for the Nth time. Where are the telltale blasts? The overpressure? The seismic record? The blown out windows?

Well, I could have sworn that I heard some firefighter telling about windows being blown out in the lobby of one of the Towers, along with broken walls; in fact he says he was blown off his feet. I believe it's in one of the videos that's been provided for you.

Here's something from one of your posts: "They didn't LOOK FOR ANY since the FBI had already looked."

Here's something from your last post: "There is NO REASON to test. It is not REASONABLE."

You are suffering from cognitive dissonance. Don't take my word for it; ask someone else how your two statements above contradict each other. You say there was no reason to do tests, but you also say that the FBI had already looked. Are you getting it now? If not, ask someone.

Now, describe for me what will qualify as an indication of "overpressure," and I'll see if I can provide you with some video examples of such a thing.

And could you please produce something indicating what tests were done by the FBI? You know, like ion mobility spectrometry, gas chromatography, etc., and something showing that the tests proved negative?

 

[mike2810]

First, I didn't say "if the report is wrong", I said "if it's found to be defective". There is a difference. Then I explained why in general, it's defective. I did not elaborate in my response to you but I did elaborate in other posts and in my response to Mike F just before this post. It is NOT an opinion that it's defective, it's incontrovertible based on evidence and the historical record.

wordsmith much?:mrgreen:

It is your opinion despite what you may think if the reprot is "defective"

 

[mike2810]

Why is there no burden of proof for the govt? Why is it absolved of having to defend its story?

Why is it that many here say the alternative explanations need not be proved?

Doesn't it boild down to two groups. Those who accept that the officials met the burnden of proof of the "big pitcure" as outlined by the official reports and those who don't.

You seem to accept the mini nuke explanation by Prager. Prager seems to have met your burden of proof. He has not met mine or many others. That is why I have consistently stated each explanation should stand on its own. One explanation does not have anything to do with the other. Hence the burden of proof for those who support CD is on them.

Basically, HD, that is why their is CT's when there is no agreement on what the evidence is stating and the distrust in officials.

 

[Bob0627]

If you are only interested in the political decision making process why do you push nonsense inside jobby-job claims?

I never said that's my only interest, again making things up. As to "inside job", let's see: stand down, strong putrid essence of deep involvement, destruction of evidence, cover-up, lies, fraud, propaganda, etc. Any one of those can be described as complicity, therefore inside job. It speaks for itself. Understood that government crime is "nonsense" to you, it isn't to me.

As I have said many times before, doing that just discredits your legitimate claims and ensures no one will take you seriously.

You can say it many more times, you still don't speak for everyone and it's irrelevant that you don't take me seriously.

terrorists still did 9/11.

No kidding? Let's see, the worst terrorist attack in US history must have been committed by, er, er, yes, that's it! Terrorists. Well unlike you who just accepts what you're fed, I'd like to know who ALL these terrorists were/are.

Proving some government agent or agency lied about something does not mean da gubmint did 9/11.

Something? You mean many things. That's correct, it also doesn't prove elements within government did not but it is a major red flag nonetheless.

This is where 9/11 Truth has consistently lost the plot.

Yes your all purpose demons "9/11 Truth". Those nasty people are all the same aren't they? They look alike, dress alike, think alike and all have the same "plot". Well regardless, you don't know what the plot is, do you? No one does except those who participated in the plot and even then, many only know parts of the plot.

The rest, once again, is your suggestion of what I should do. That belongs where I flush what I expel.

PS

Snowden forced the government to change and there isn't a word about any inside jobby-job in any of the millions of pages he leaked.

Just sayin'

I have no clue what, if anything, the NSA has to do with 9/11, other than commit crimes using 9/11 as its pretext. And that's exactly what I keep saying about the importance of finding the truth about 9/11. To try to throw a monkey wrench into government's sinister agenda.

 

[Fledermaus]

Well, I could have sworn that I heard some firefighter telling about windows being blown out in the lobby of one of the Towers, along with broken walls; in fact he says he was blown off his feet. I believe it's in one of the videos that's been provided for you.

Would those be the firefighters discussing the COLLAPSE of the other tower? You know the COLLAPSE of a 100 story tower might just knock out a few windrows.

The Oklahoma City blast for example "destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings".

THAT is what high explosives do. Not the piddle pop "Squibs" nonsense brought to the table by folks that have no clue how explosives work,

As far as the "explosions". You know that rules out THERMITE... Right?

BTW Is the FBI lying?

Here's something from one of your posts: "They didn't LOOK FOR ANY since the FBI had already looked."

Here's something from your last post: "There is NO REASON to test. It is not REASONABLE."

Asked and answered.

You are suffering from cognitive dissonance. Don't take my word for it; ask someone else how your two statements above contradict each other. You say there was no reason to do tests, but you also say that the FBI had already looked. Are you getting it now? If not, ask someone.

Why do you terms you obviously don't understand?

The REASONING was given. Sorry REASONING is not in your vocabulary.

Now, describe for me what will qualify as an indication of "overpressure," and I'll see if I can provide you with some video examples of such a thing.

Lets see, how many DIED as the result of overpressure/barotrauna? Got a video of that?

How many had their internal organs ruptured by the overpressure/barotrauna? Got a video of that?

Maybe the burst eardrums all around ground zero due to the blast? Got a video of that?

Oh, and is the FBI lying?

Where are the telltale blasts? The overpressure? The seismic record? The blown out windows?

Where are they?

Where are the explosions consistent with a controlled demolition?

And could you please produce something indicating what tests were done by the FBI? You know, like ion mobility spectrometry, gas chromatography, etc., and something showing that the tests proved negative?

Why don't you ask the FBI?

Really.

Ask them.

And were they lying?

You haven't seemed to summon up the courage to say yes or no.

 

[Mark F]

I never said that's my only interest, again making things up. As to "inside job", let's see: stand down, strong putrid essence of deep involvement, destruction of evidence, cover-up, lies, fraud, propaganda, etc. Any one of those can be described as complicity, therefore inside job. It speaks for itself. Understood that government crime is "nonsense" to you, it isn't to me.

You can say it many more times, you still don't speak for everyone and it's irrelevant that you don't take me seriously.

No kidding? Let's see, the worst terrorist attack in US history must have been committed by, er, er, yes, that's it! Terrorists. Well unlike you who just accepts what you're fed, I'd like to know who ALL these terrorists were/are.

Something? You mean many things. That's correct, it also doesn't prove elements within government did not but it is a major red flag nonetheless.

Yes your all purpose demons "9/11 Truth". Those nasty people are all the same aren't they? They look alike, dress alike, think alike and all have the same "plot". Well regardless, you don't know what the plot is, do you? No one does except those who participated in the plot and even then, many only know parts of the plot.

The rest, once again, is your suggestion of what I should do. That belongs where I flush what I expel.

I have no clue what, if anything, the NSA has to do with 9/11, other than commit crimes using 9/11 as its pretext. And that's exactly what I keep saying about the importance of finding the truth about 9/11. To try to throw a monkey wrench into government's sinister agenda.

Bob, forgive me but from where this observer sits I think your real purpose is obvious. You don't want to find out what happened on 9/11, you want to prove the government was involved. By your own admission you don't want to make this a discussion about what actually happened. You want to make this a discussion about the official story, not even understanding that the 9/11 Commission and NIST could be wrong about everything and that still doesn't prove terrorists didn't do 9/11.

When a 2-bit attorney writes a grossly unprofessional and threatening letter regarding an allegation over a technical claim WAY outside his area of expertise you don't ask if the allegation is even true or relevant - in the court of Bob the conviction is already in and you immediately start screaming fraud, lies and coverup.

If someone tells you David Chanlder forced the NIST to change its report do you find out of the claim is true or relevant? No, you run with the claim and cry fraud and coverup. In the court of Bob the conviction is already in.

If someone says they heard explosions or things that sounded like explosions do you found out if the claim is true or relevant? No, you assume explosions = explosives and cry fraud and coverup.

If someone says free-fall can only happen in CD do you bother to find out if the claim is true or relevant? No, you assume CD occurred and that must mean da gubmint did it (because no one else can blow up a building, right?).

Someone tells you that 2,000 "experts" believe there was a CD at the WTC do you bother to find out if the claim is true or relevant? Nope. You take it as gospel.

If someone disagree's with you on some detail do you bother to find out if they are right and if it is relevant? No, you accuse them of being in denial and of mindlessly swallowing the official story.

Anomaly hunting and trying to poke holes in the official story is the proven path to epic fail, especially if you are going to keep going about it like this. If you want to make a real case then come up with a better story and then go about proving it.