• 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!

Unanswered questions in regards to 9/11[W:762]

Kanzaki said:
If the reason you're asking for a new investigation is because you think the buildings were blown up as a controlled demolition, then there's absolutely no justification to have it because the documentation of the trade center site during and after the events show beyond reasonable doubt that there were no explosives used to bring the buildings down beyond the makeshift use of aircraft as missiles. The result of my case study with you, showed that your only justifications are based on your preconceived delusion that the evidence exists and people somehow ignored it. In fact you've gone as far as fabricating arguments, libel, and accusing opponents of plagiarism and disregarding those opinions that don't agree with you off hand to make the latter point.

Now, I'm not opposed to an investigation if the code recommendations have either gone too far or not far enough, but my suspicion is you will dismiss that since it doesn't deal with the kind of investigation you would rather have.
Click to expand...

Such sophistry you offer. Enough to gag a mule.
 
Henry David said:
Such sophistry you offer.
Click to expand...
You have never been one to participate in lengthy technical discussions since I became active here, so I honestly have no idea what you consider to be sophistry. But if the sight of honest answers sickens you, then you should consider getting checked out by a doctor as soon as possible, because gagging is not good for your health. If you only intend to post these kinds of responses to me, I'll simply advise to you what I have told Bcman and Koko previously; save yourself the time, and don't bother responding at all, because in this case the response did nothing but reinforce my earlier post's points at your own expense; and that's not particularly ideal for an individual such as yourself who likes to portray critics as senile sheeple.
 
Last edited:
Henry David said:
Such sophistry you offer. Enough to gag a mule.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who can look at a claim like mini-nukes took down the Twin Towers and say, "yeah, that makes total sense."
 
Kanzaki said:
If the reason you're asking for a new investigation is because you think the buildings were blown up as a controlled demolition, then there's absolutely no justification to have it because the documentation of the trade center site during and after the events show beyond reasonable doubt that there were no explosives used to bring the buildings down beyond the makeshift use of aircraft as missiles. The result of my case study with you, showed that your only justifications are based on your preconceived delusion that the evidence exists and people somehow ignored it. In fact you've gone as far as fabricating arguments, libel, and accusing opponents of plagiarism and disregarding those opinions that don't agree with you off hand to make the latter point.

Now, I'm not opposed to an investigation if the code recommendations have either gone too far or not far enough, but my suspicion is you will dismiss that since it doesn't deal with the kind of investigation you would rather have.
Click to expand...

Good way to dodge the question... And originally I added the caveat that I was asking with full expectation that there was never going to be a new investigation. I also notice the arguments you fabricated about me... I'm flattered that you care enough to make stuff up.

The reason I would want a new investigation is because the investigation that was done, was inadequate, to say the least... Not just because the buildings were demolished. Although, it's the anti-truth people that ensured that the political will to force a new investigation would never grow, within a time frame where such a thing would have been feasible.

But my question was why are the debunkers so vehemently opposed to a new investigation, especially given the confidence in the position with the simultaneous rejection of the actual investigation?

It makes no logical sense, some brought up the money issue... It would have cost less than 1 or 2 hellfire missiles, and would have resolved many of the unanswered questions. But, the only thing is the result probably would have led to an end to the wars and so there would have been a decrease in the numbers of missiles sold (without mention of the other economic effects of these wars).
 
BmanMcfly said:
Good way to dodge the question...
Click to expand...
So:
  • Defining the motivation you hold for a new investigation as an example of unwarranted revisitation
  • and defining an example where one may be rightfully acceptable

is dodging the question, according to you?

BmanMcfly said:
I also notice the arguments you fabricated about me...
Click to expand...
Hmm.... you mean the derails you committed from the "NiST Fraudulent Report thread" do not exist in spite of the fact that they are a written record of your activity? I'll remember to bring those up in the future should you need reminding.

BmanMcfly said:
It makes no logical sense, some brought up the money issue... It would have cost less than 1 or 2 hellfire missiles, and would have resolved many of the unanswered questions. But, the only thing is the result probably would have led to an end to the wars and so there would have been a decrease in the numbers of missiles sold (without mention of the other economic effects of these wars).
Click to expand...
Hmmm, no not really. Money is secondary. The brick wall to the kind of investigation you regard as acceptable has more to do with the evidence to justify it. Your personal position is prefaced by a combination of ad hominems to your critics and inexperience with building design related discussions, which thanks to our previous exchange I have plenty of readily available examples to cite as support for that. Though Henry above provides another example of this. There would be plenty of sense in dealing with building codes if the need arose, for sure, I consider that an acceptable grounds for continued evaluation, however as to the need to investigate for demolition of buildings with explosives, nay. The evidence simply doesn't warrant it at this point, you're essentially asking for an investigation to be done for the hell of it all to satisfy a minority of people whose positions are based on flawed thought processes. We call that "pork" expenses in politics.
 
Last edited:
505 said:
WTF are you talking about? The screencap came directly from the video that I linked. So you can go **** yourself with your accusations of me lying about it. Frankly, You seem pretty unhinged in general and should check your ****ing facts before even trying to come at me with such lame nonsense.
Click to expand...

He's not unhinged, he is an attention-seeking POE who will say anything to attract the attention that he so obviously needs. There is an ignore button handy.
 
Kanzaki said:
There would be plenty of sense in dealing with building codes if the need arose, for sure, I consider that an acceptable grounds for continued evaluation, however as to the need to investigate for demolition of buildings with explosives, nay.
Click to expand...

Well then you got some splainin to do.

all that is needed to reopen ANY investigation is a question of fact and there are volumes

you got 2 choices;
1) explosives
2) crashing down floors.

what made all those floors from the bottom all the way to the top of the tilting top section collapse at the same time before it even started descending?




So which is it?

Explosives? (nuff said)

Crashing floors? (you better start explaining how those floors came crashing down in the whole top section at once.)
 
zyzygy said:
There is an ignore button handy.
Click to expand...


yes that is the 'final solution' for people who get all butthurt when the trash they post has to be constantly corrected.
 
Mark F said:
Says the guy who can look at a claim like mini-nukes took down the Twin Towers and say, "yeah, that makes total sense."
Click to expand...

I would wager he is informed about Li6 and Li7 and understands how to it applies and, you didnt/dont.
 
505 said:
WTF are you talking about? The screencap came directly from the video that I linked. So you can go **** yourself with your accusations of me lying about it. Frankly, You seem pretty unhinged in general and should check your ****ing facts before even trying to come at me with such lame nonsense.

It was incorrect from the beginning. You posted some crap that was deceptive. I called you out on it. ****ing deal with it.

Go to the timeclip I stated and you'll see black smoke from the north tower plane. In real time. Not some cherry picked gif like you constantly spam on here.

Yeah and you still wont post the source of the plane crash vid in your gif because both you and I know it shows that you edited/manipulated it. That's why you've dodged it 3 times now. **** off with this nonsense. You're nothing. Your movement is nothing. You have nothing. Go slink off into obscurity where you belong.
Click to expand...

and these wtc1 have identical color and shading to the beginning of your video.



yours was so piss poor I didnt even recognize it.

None of that gif above was materially modified by me to misrepresent or mischaracterize the point I was making

I am not a shill so I dont have to materially misrepresent anything, if you think I have 'prove' it.

However you really should have your eyes checked if you purport to having any sort of subject matter understanding of what you are posting, since it appears you do not.



Lets see if you do.

What 2 elements are required to see very black smoke with regard to an aircraft incident that uses JPxx style fuel?

Did the alleged wtc planes possess those elements? /\i

Everyone duck! Here comes 10 rounds of over the top indignance!
 
Last edited:
Kanzaki said:
So:
  • Defining the motivation you hold for a new investigation as an example of unwarranted revisitation
  • and defining an example where one may be rightfully acceptable

is dodging the question, according to you?
Click to expand...

The fact that you made up claims as to why I would want an investigation, rather than answering why you were so fundamentally opposed to the idea.

Hmm.... you mean the derails you committed from the "NiST Fraudulent Report thread" do not exist in spite of the fact that they are a written record of your activity? I'll remember to bring those up in the future should you need reminding.
Click to expand...

Sure... Whatever you say.

Hmmm, no not really. Money is secondary. The brick wall to the kind of investigation you regard as acceptable has more to do with the evidence to justify it. Your personal position is prefaced by a combination of ad hominems to your critics and inexperience with building design related discussions, which thanks to our previous exchange I have plenty of readily available examples to cite as support for that. Though Henry above provides another example of this. There would be plenty of sense in dealing with building codes if the need arose, for sure, I consider that an acceptable grounds for continued evaluation, however as to the need to investigate for demolition of buildings with explosives, nay. The evidence simply doesn't warrant it at this point, you're essentially asking for an investigation to be done for the hell of it all to satisfy a minority of people whose positions are based on flawed thought processes. We call that "pork" expenses in politics.
Click to expand...

right, so, because the official investigation ignored all sorts of evidence, that ignored evidence is sufficient to prevent examining that evidence.

Very convincing.
 
KokomoJojo said:
Lets see if you do.

What 2 elements are required to see very black smoke with regard to an aircraft incident that uses JPxx style fuel?

Did the alleged wtc planes possess those elements? /\i
Click to expand...

What is the plane crash in your gif? 4th time asking. Until you answer that, you can forget about me answering another question of yours.
 
505 said:
What is the plane crash in your gif? 4th time asking. Until you answer that, you can forget about me answering another question of yours.
Click to expand...

Oh so you dont care about that OTHER 8 PLANE CRASHES in second gif, that show the same exact thing as the first, just that one plane crash :roll:

Both gifs show how ridiculous your counter was. Frankly I really could care less if you ever respond to anything I post since your responses were all strawmen bull**** that added no value and only served to distract and bog down the thread.
 
Yep. Won't provide the source because it would expose him for deceptively manipulating the source material.

"truthers". :roll:
 
BmanMcfly said:
Yes, I know... That's why i said it.

To some that have difficulty with reading ability might say it does not relate. However, read the question, then the response, then the clarification of the question without being explicit, then reread the response.

If you are honest, you will see that the response was not to the actual question, but to a similar but distinctly different question.
Click to expand...

Try reading again....

ou do know we can look at the responses you gave and conclude you are, once again, wrong.
 
Fledermaus said:
Well...

Why DO you want another investigation?
Click to expand...
I cannot recall anyone claiming to be a truther ever posting a well defined subject or topic for another investigation.

And that is ONLY a clearly stated WHAT they want investigated.

BEFORE they even attempt supporting reasoned argument showing WHY they want it investigated - whatever "it" may be which they cannot specify..

If they cannot say WHAT they want and WHY they want it why should anyone listen? Ball in their court to get serious and stop game playing.

This was the OP:
Fledermaus said:
What unanswered questions in regards to 9/11 are there?

And do they undermine the core concepts of what some call the "Official Conspiracy Theory"?
Click to expand...
390 posts have gone and not a single truther or pretender has identified a single question which is:
A) Not answered; AND
B) undermines a core concept.


BTW 390 is nowhere near the record.

One member on JREF actually OP'ed a thread - "Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas"

..that one reached 1416 posts when I gave up. And the OP had still not even identified what he regarded as 'key areas' let alone proved that NIST was wrong on any of them.

I don't think any of our local trolls has OP'ed a thread and - nearly 1500 posts later - is still stonewalling to avoid defining his own OP.
 
ozeco41 said:
I cannot recall anyone claiming to be a truther ever posting a well defined subject or topic for another investigation.

And that is ONLY a clearly stated WHAT they want investigated.

BEFORE they even attempt supporting reasoned argument showing WHY they want it investigated - whatever "it" may be which they cannot specify..

If they cannot say WHAT they want and WHY they want it why should anyone listen? Ball in their court to get serious and stop game playing.

This was the OP:
390 posts have gone and not a single truther or pretender has identified a single question which is:
A) Not answered; AND
B) undermines a core concept.


BTW 390 is nowhere near the record.

One member on JREF actually OP'ed a thread - "Major_Tom Disproves NIST Claims in a Number of Key Areas"

..that one reached 1416 posts when I gave up. And the OP had still not even identified what he regarded as 'key areas' let alone proved that NIST was wrong on any of them.

I don't think any of our local trolls has OP'ed a thread and - nearly 1500 posts later - is still stonewalling to avoid defining his own OP.
Click to expand...

thats a pack of 's

molten **** all by itself that has not been accounted for is all that is needed.

Oh btw I get a kick out of MT correcting your ass backwards burden of proof, seems the whole world knows but.......... seven years later and you still cant seem to get it right.
 
BmanMcfly said:
The fact that you made up claims as to why I would want an investigation, rather than answering why you were so fundamentally opposed to the idea.
Click to expand...

To avoid any possibility of confusion in future you should probably just make your case for what it is that requires a new investigation and why.

Problem solved.
 
Mark F said:
To avoid any possibility of confusion in future you should probably just make your case for what it is that requires a new investigation and why.

Problem solved.
Click to expand...

the investigators for starters.
 
Yeh I asked this question before and you must have missed it, but here is a jet actually going in to compare it to.

If there is anything you do not understand about the reasoned logical question by all means let me know and I will explain any details you need to know.

KokomoJojo said:
well I have a question that is unanswered. you know using reason.




how come the deflagration looks like anfo instead of jet fuel?

:lol:
Click to expand...



So with all the talent on this board no one can answer my unanswered question,

-WHY does the smoke look like ANFO smoke instead of JPx smoke?



Oz said he had lots of demolition experience, how about it Oz, why dont you weigh in on this one and explain why the smoke is white instead of 'very' black like every other jet incident that fulfills the 2 requirements to make really black smoke?

I am sure all the readers are very interested in knowing why the smoke is whitish instead of very black? /ob


-WHY does the smoke look like ANFO smoke instead of JPx smoke?


ozeco41 said:
STATUS:

Koko does not make a claim. Nothing to discuss.

..and he needs to make 9 more nonsense posts before my ROEs allow me to respond. ;)
Click to expand...


its really very simple Oz,

Koko claims it looks like ANFO, that is in FACT a claim and something to discuss! /\ob


-WHY does the smoke look like ANFO smoke instead of JPx smoke?

I assume you know that JPx is a type of fuel right? Do you need the exact fuel to answer the question? If you do I will be very happy to look it up for you but I am pretty sure its JP6 now days.
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
The investigators who?

The FBI?

The FAA?

The NTSB?

The NYPD?

The FDNY?

The ASCE?

The military?

All the other organizations?
Click to expand...


who said any thing about organizations, oh and you missed the main one fled, NIST :lamo

since you are en expert on explosives why dont you help Oz since he cant answer my simple question about ANFO versus Jet Fuel.

Got any evidence it was jet fuel?
 
KokomoJojo said:
who said any thing about organizations, oh and you missed the main one fled, NIST :lamo

since you are en expert on explosives why dont you help Oz since he cant answer my simple question about ANFO versus Jet Fuel.


Got any evidence it was jet fuel?
Click to expand...

They ALL investigated.

Ergo they were INVESTIGATORS.

What was jet fuel?

Please be clear and concise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom