• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

News Flash: There was no Controlled Demolition of any building on 9/11/2001

BmanMcfly said:
If there was any "source" nation, it was primarily Saudi Arabia.

The government bush was talking to said they would extradite bin laden if they were shown the evidence against him... Bush preferred war.

It's enough to destroy your claim that a demolitions expert would laugh.

Picked up on the fact that you are just spouting learned rhetoric...

I told you that I would be happy to go frame by frame in detail, where you see, the outside wall crumples ejecting flames from the column, then, skips the next floor, and then about 6-8 frames later, instead of colliding with floor, let's say 72, the projection comes out of floor 71. 3 frames after the next two floors blow out simultaneously.

The problem is that in the best case, the limit is 6 photos per post, but then you just insinuate that it's not from the same video... And, I'm telling you, EVERY TRAIT that you express as being a sign of cd is present, even the sound.

I am limited in my capacity to show you in this medium, and you don't seem interested in looking for yourself. All that is required is to look closely at the collapse... Remember that any sound is at least 2 seconds away (or more).

I can't help someone to see when they intend to remain willingly blind.
Click to expand...

1. You don't have any demolition "experts" on your side. You have a dead Dutchman who after watching an edited video of the collapse of 7 WTC with the audio track removed decided it was a CD but who also believed the Twin Towers WERE NOT CD and a low-level assistant who worked for CDI on a whopping 5 projects over 2 years and makes several glaring errors in the interview you provided.

2. You are not addressing the big picture.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Oh, I guess you weren't there when we went over the details of how the FBI supplied the explosives, and did not arrest the group as planned. the FBI informant built the bomb for them. The only reason he's a free man is that he recorded the conversation.
Click to expand...

Still touting this nonsense, eh? Why? Even YOUR links do not support the claim "FBI supplied the explosives", yet you keep throwing it out there.

WHERE do you get these ideas?

BmanMcfly said:
The rest of those, are bin laden... Who you still try to deny is a cia asset, or would sock puppet be the more appropriate jargon?
Click to expand...

Still touting this nonsense too. Why?

WHERE do you get these ideas?

BmanMcfly said:
Even saddam Hussein would not have got in power without cia influence... A trend of gathering allies to stab in the back later once they have outlived their usefulness.
Click to expand...

No, no, no..... The CIA may have been in on the 1963 coup but there was a counter coup by the Ba'athists later. And Saddam did not come into any sort of power until 1968.

Another history fail.

WHERE do you get these ideas?
 
BmanMcfly said:
No, it's completely relevant... Every major terrorist attack in recent time has been the result of cia / FBI / corporate interests. The same groups that also have the best capacity and resources to downplay, if not outright conceal involvement and push the narrative.
Click to expand...

OH REALLY? SHOW ME.

USS Cole? 1998 Nairobi embassy bombing? 2004 Madrid train bombings? 2008 Mumbai attacks? 7 July 2005 London bombings?

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF?

BmanMcfly said:
Hint: check for yourself what happened to the team that was involved in the bin laden raid and burial. You either won't get the point or won't admit it anyway.
Click to expand...

HINT: You do k=not know what you are talking about. The members of the Bin Laden raids WERE NOT the guys that went down in the helicopter....

WHERE DO YOU GET THESE IDEAS?

BmanMcfly said:
The significant difference; one of the planes was used to hit the military (pentagon). So, it's treated as an act of war... What happened in New York ensures that the people will be enraged and push for military action.
Click to expand...

So if Flight 77 was flown into the ground prior to hitting the Pentagon everything would be OK....? Really?

An Act of War is an Act of War. Whether or not the Pentagon was hit.

A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack. Whether or not the Pentagon was hit.

WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF?
 
BmanMcfly said:
If there was any "source" nation, it was primarily Saudi Arabia.

The government bush was talking to said they would extradite bin laden if they were shown the evidence against him... Bush preferred war.

It's enough to destroy your claim that a demolitions expert would laugh.

Picked up on the fact that you are just spouting learned rhetoric...

I told you that I would be happy to go frame by frame in detail, where you see, the outside wall crumples ejecting flames from the column, then, skips the next floor, and then about 6-8 frames later, instead of colliding with floor, let's say 72, the projection comes out of floor 71. 3 frames after the next two floors blow out simultaneously.

The problem is that in the best case, the limit is 6 photos per post, but then you just insinuate that it's not from the same video... And, I'm telling you, EVERY TRAIT that you express as being a sign of cd is present, even the sound.

I am limited in my capacity to show you in this medium, and you don't seem interested in looking for yourself. All that is required is to look closely at the collapse... Remember that any sound is at least 2 seconds away (or more).

I can't help someone to see when they intend to remain willingly blind.
Click to expand...

Blind to what exactly? You haven't made an intelligent claim....

You have GISHED.... You have made accusations... But nothing in the way of a cogent fact-driven theory.

Heck... Many of your "proofs" of CD make zero sense for a REAL CD.

You have shown near zero understand of explosives. Yours is a comic-book level of understanding. Or perhaps a Wile E. Coyote level of understanding.

Have you EVER been in close proximity to High Explosives at work? I have. Up close and personal. Worked with them for 20+ years. Got to see what they do one a rather regular basis.

You? Let me guess. Matrix movies or other action flicks where all the cars fly in the air and all the explosions resemble fuel fireballs....
 
Mark F said:
I've seen your explanation for "8 stories of free-fall" at 7 WTC.

No you haven't.
Click to expand...

Lmao... you've shown that you do not grasp concepts like the center of mass / gravity. This is a concept you would have learned in high school physics class... This alone makes the point that you should not be attacking me on that.

I should point out that you have now devolved to where you can no longer address the argument and are now resorting to the ad hom.

Mark F said:
1. You don't have any demolition "experts" on your side. You have a dead Dutchman who after watching an edited video of the collapse of 7 WTC with the audio track removed decided it was a CD but who also believed the Twin Towers WERE NOT CD and a low-level assistant who worked for CDI on a whopping 5 projects over 2 years and makes several glaring errors in the interview you provided.
Click to expand...

Tripling down on the ad hom... more arguments you can't address, so you address the person.

Side note; what was edited in the video?

2. You are not addressing the big picture.
Click to expand...

This is so generic that there's no indication of what picture you are looking at...

So, let's look at the scoreboard:
- I tackled your op, demonstrating how on every point you were wrong.
- you took one point out of the response to try and dispute

(You're losing ground)

- I showed how this was not a valid rebuttal and what to look for in the videos (yes, ALL of them)

- you stooped back to the talking points you learned at the debunker sites

- I pointed that out...

- you devolved back down to the addressing people not arguments...

so, I suggest you just concede that you lost the argument. I know you won't even look at the video's as I suggested, because you know that when you see the collapse wave skip a floor, that the top block was mostly pulverized as it was toppling over, meaning there was no longer the 40 floors of mass to act like a pile driver...

Then you link to videos with no sound, and the ones with sound show the sound of demolition starting as the building collapses (sound travel to street level is +/- 2 seconds) meaning that the sound was of collapse began about 2 seconds before the collapse started. This having been verified with the audio analysis.

So, on every point you raised to deny controlled demolition, that point was present with the towers collapse.
 
BmanMcfly said:
<snipped the nonsense>.
Click to expand...

Bman,

Your repeated insistence that there were explosives is, well, admirable in it's persistence.

But totally lacking in logic, facts, evidence, reality and everything else that makes for a compelling theory.

Your constant rambling filled with disparate accusations show that your are prone to believe a whole slew of things that make absolutely no sense and are in fact refuted by the evidence.

The $2.3 Trillion, the earlier WTC bombing, Seal Team Six, etc.

All Conspiracy ACCUSATIONS that do not stand up to the facts.

WHERE do you get this nonsense from?
 
Fledermaus said:
Bman,

Your repeated insistence that there were explosives is, well, admirable in it's persistence.

But totally lacking in logic, facts, evidence, reality and everything else that makes for a compelling theory.

Your constant rambling filled with disparate accusations show that your are prone to believe a whole slew of things that make absolutely no sense and are in fact refuted by the evidence.

The $2.3 Trillion, the earlier WTC bombing, Seal Team Six, etc.

All Conspiracy ACCUSATIONS that do not stand up to the facts.

WHERE do you get this nonsense from?
Click to expand...
I'm only persistent because I am right, and none of you has even seriously tried to refute it.
 
BmanMcfly said:
I'm only persistent because I am right, and none of you has even seriously tried to refute it.
Click to expand...

Now you are simply playing games.

I have refuted it.

Mark has refuted it.

The EVIDENCE refutes it.

Reality refutes it.

BTW - You never answer where you get your *special* knowledge from.

The Iraq coup?

The "missing" trillions?

The FBI giving explosives to the 1993 bomber?

The claim "Every major terrorist attack in recent time has been the result of cia / FBI / corporate interests"?
 
Fledermaus said:
Now you are simply playing games.

I have refuted it.

Mark has refuted it.
Click to expand...

Speaking just for myself, not really. There was never truly a case to refute (more to follow on that).
 
Mark F said:
Speaking just for myself, not really. There was never truly a case to refute (more to follow on that).
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.

I for one like to think I have refuted the poorly thought out ramblings of a Conspiracy minded person who cannot form an intelligent counter theory and tends towards Gishing accusations...
 
Fledermaus said:
I stand corrected.

I for one like to think I have refuted the poorly thought out ramblings of a Conspiracy minded person who cannot form an intelligent counter theory and tends towards Gishing accusations...
Click to expand...

but psychologists agree debunkers are the 'real' nutters!




Psychologists Say: ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ SANE, Government Dupes CRAZY and Hostile!

Laurie Manwell, Univ of Guelph; anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing beliefs.

Univ of Buffalo Prof Steven Hoffman; anti-conspiracy people prone to using irrational mechanisms (such as the “Conspiracy Theorists” label) to avoid personal conflict.

Extreme irrationality of those who attack “Conspiracy Theorists's” exposed by Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State Univ. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article.

Now pro-conspiracy voices are more numerous and rational than anti-conspiracy ones and anti-Conspiracy Theorist people are like hostile, paranoid cranks.
 
Fledermaus said:
Now you are simply playing games.

I have refuted it.

Mark has refuted it.

The EVIDENCE refutes it.

Reality refutes it.

BTW - You never answer where you get your *special* knowledge from.

The Iraq coup?

The "missing" trillions?

The FBI giving explosives to the 1993 bomber?

The claim "Every major terrorist attack in recent time has been the result of cia / FBI / corporate interests"?
Click to expand...
NONE of it has been refuted.

I refuted the wall of Gish that was the op... POINT BY POINT.

The closest was Mark trying to call into question one (1) of those rebuttals... followed closely by your attempts that would barely qualify as counter arguments.

Mark F said:
Speaking just for myself, not really. There was never truly a case to refute (more to follow on that).
Click to expand...

Lmao. .. keep stroking it if it makes you feel special.

I remember a time when I was like that; more ego than sense.
 
BmanMcfly said:
NONE of it has been refuted.

I refuted the wall of Gish that was the op... POINT BY POINT.

The closest was Mark trying to call into question one (1) of those rebuttals... followed closely by your attempts that would barely qualify as counter arguments.



Lmao. .. keep stroking it if it makes you feel special.

I remember a time when I was like that; more ego than sense.
Click to expand...

You posted nonsense.

A gathering of ignorant claims and illogical conclusions.

You demonstrated ZERO understanding of explosives, their limitations and their uses.

You "theory" bounced around like a pinball.

And you are, yet again, running from questions about your *special* take on history....

The Iraq coup?

The "missing" trillions?

The FBI giving explosives to the 1993 bomber?

The claim "Every major terrorist attack in recent time has been the result of cia / FBI / corporate interests"?
 
Fledermaus said:
Bman. Have you ever seen explosions out side of the movies and TV?
Click to expand...

Note how many of the claims and accusations we see from CTists resemble the plots of crap movies. I really think that the movie industry has a huge influence on some of the irrational speculation we see in this sub forum.
 
Fledermaus said:
I stand corrected.

I for one like to think I have refuted the poorly thought out ramblings of a Conspiracy minded person who cannot form an intelligent counter theory and tends towards Gishing accusations...
Click to expand...

If there is no case to answer there can be no refutation. One can only correct errors of logic, fact and/or reason. Bman relies on borrowing heavily from just about every Truth meme out there, then flinging it all at the wall in classic Gish style to see what sticks. If you actually try to organize and piece together his claims into a logical narrative (a project I am currently enduring) this shotgun rather than well-reasoned approach becomes painfully obvious.
 
Mark F said:
If there is no case to answer there can be no refutation. One can only correct errors of logic, fact and/or reason. Bman relies on borrowing heavily from just about every Truth meme out there, then flinging it all at the wall in classic Gish style to see what sticks. If you actually try to organize and piece together his claims into a logical narrative (a project I am currently enduring) this shotgun rather than well-reasoned approach becomes painfully obvious.
Click to expand...

why do de'bunkers have to constantly try to deceive people by mischaracterizing everything?

material evidence is not a meme
 
Mark F said:
If there is no case to answer there can be no refutation. One can only correct errors of logic, fact and/or reason. Bman relies on borrowing heavily from just about every Truth meme out there, then flinging it all at the wall in classic Gish style to see what sticks. If you actually try to organize and piece together his claims into a logical narrative (a project I am currently enduring) this shotgun rather than well-reasoned approach becomes painfully obvious.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes... He has prattled about Seal Team 6, Iraq, bin Laden being CIA, the "missing $2.3 Trillion", the FBI, etc.

And yet couldn't come up with anything logical in regards to the collapses.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Note how many of the claims and accusations we see from CTists resemble the plots of crap movies. I really think that the movie industry has a huge influence on some of the irrational speculation we see in this sub forum.
Click to expand...

It definitely colors his idea of explosives....

Huge fireball = Explosives. Only in Hollywood.

Along with the cannons under the cars to launch them spinning into the air. (Watch for it when your favorite action movie shows a car flipping)
 
Fledermaus said:
Oh, yes... He has prattled about Seal Team 6, Iraq, bin Laden being CIA, the "missing $2.3 Trillion", the FBI, etc.

And yet couldn't come up with anything logical in regards to the collapses.
Click to expand...

Every bit of it I backed up, you look at the evidence provided and and just say "no, that's crazy." (Or other equally nonsensical comment), and pretend that holds water...

The sad part is that almost everything on that list is not quite what I said...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom