• 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!

Thinking about 9/11

Mr Person said:
Naturally. The truther schtick is to announce that if an official report (which they reframe as an official narrative) is true, then they personally would expect to see things A,B, and C in it. This is generally pulled from their colons. They then argue that because those things were not in the report, the report cannot be true. This then justifies rampant speculation.

When challenged on the complete lack of positive evidence for what they're saying, they treat the lack of that evidence as evidence of the conspiracy: the evidence for their theory isn't there because the conspirators hid it. (Remember truthers going on about how the WTC rubble was supposedly cleared away faster than they demanded, thereby 'proving' a coverup?).

Of course, many other truthers instead switch to simply insulting their questioners. This may be by announcing that the truther has superior analytic skills, or by naming the questioner a "sheep" for not questioning the official report instead.




The one thing they never do is say: this is what the conspiracy was, these are the goals it served, this his own it met those goals, this is who is in on it, and here is positive evidence that it was done, A,B,C --> Z.
Click to expand...

For years I have been asking truthers for their full alternative 911 theory. None have been forthcoming.
 
mike2810 said:
Has Prager modeled the use of mini neutron bombs?
Click to expand...

I'd love to see that. The funny bit is that a neutron bomb is designed to minimize blast damage and maximize neutron radiation in the immediate blast vicinity. It wasn't for blowing up buildings or anything like it. It was for wiping out divisions of troops, especially armored troops.

It would quite literally be the dumbest way to try to hide an intentional destruction of a building, especially the biggest buildings, in NYC.
 
Mr Person said:
I'd love to see that. The funny bit is that a neutron bomb is designed to minimize blast damage and maximize neutron radiation in the immediate blast vicinity. It wasn't for blowing up buildings or anything like it. It was for wiping out divisions of troops, especially armored troops.

It would quite literally be the dumbest way to try to hide an intentional destruction of a building, especially the biggest buildings, in NYC.
Click to expand...

Not to mention hiding the thousands and thousands of dead bodies in the area.
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, it didn't explain it perfectly well, and you know it.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, for I have read the relevant sections, while some have merely been told it is incorrect by sites that reflect their confirmation bias. All Gage's attempts to discredit the paper have failed, so that speaks volumes regarding the review process and the report's strength.

Many including AE911 have shown the many ways it fails.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You really need to start looking at both sides and assessing the evidence against the claims of the truther clique. However, I don't believe you are capable of that in light of your adherence to the irrational. Tony failed, The Three Stooges failed (Harrit et al), the current university review has been delayed over and over again suggesting that they have not been able to challenge the NIST's findings.

For this layman, it fails because common sense demands that ALL the observed damage, including 3 months worth of molten iron, including the lateral ejection of massive pieces, including the many pictures taken by Kurt Sonnenfeld, could not possibly have been caused by gravity and office fires.
Click to expand...

Common sense does not dictate that nukes or explosives were deployed owing to a lack of evidence. Common sense tells me that your story is absurd for the government already had all the reasons it needed to invade Afghanistan, so the motive is not even there as claimed. The molten iron story has been proven false, the lateral ejection of column sections has been demonstrated by Bazant IIRC, and your incredulity is evidence of nothing more than your ignorance. The Nano-Thermite fairy tale has been put to bed by Chris Mohr's investigation. 9/11 truth has nothing left.

There is a reason Sonnenfeld became persona non grata. Like Edward Snowden, he told the truth.
Click to expand...

So confirmation bias allows you to assume.

The truth is what you and Mike, the government and the mainstream media, simply cannot handle.
Click to expand...

And there's the usual truther debate style.
 
Last edited:
zyzygy said:
Not to mention hiding the thousands and thousands of dead bodies in the area.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, and probably tens of thousands more inexplicably dead in buildings a couple blocks away (compared to millions for a full-sized neutron bomb).


Think only three of the things were ever made but I could be wrong.
 
Mr Person said:
Well, yes, and probably tens of thousands more inexplicably dead in buildings a couple blocks away (compared to millions for a full-sized neutron bomb).


Think only three of the things were ever made but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Trutherism is dead but we should speak good of the dead. Trutherism is dead. Good.
 
mike2810 said:
Yes, you many times dodge and post your unsupported claims. If asking questions that exposes the flaws and weakness in your belief is stirring the pot is really showing you know you have nothing to offer.

So I will ask again, who is correct. Gage/Jones or Prager?

You would rather sit in the dark and ignore the reality that you have been conned.
Click to expand...

I don't give a GGD who is correct Mike. In fact, there are elements of truth in each man's analysis. I am an independent thinker more concerned with the Big Picture. Such analysis does not always require an either/or solution. Some do, some don't.

The over-riding point is that the official narrative is absurd and impossible from every perspective.

I was conned in 2001 just like you still are. I am able to admit how gullible I was, but that is brought into perspective by the fact that professional propagandists were and still are at work. Yes, it was a magnificently done deception, impossible without the bully pulpit of the state and its media.

Life goes on Mike. The truth DOES set one free.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I don't give a GGD who is correct Mike. In fact, there are elements of truth in each man's analysis. I am an independent thinker more concerned with the Big Picture. Such analysis does not always require an either/or solution. Some do, some don't.

The over-riding point is that the official narrative is absurd and impossible from every perspective.

I was conned in 2001 just like you still are. I am able to admit how gullible I was, but that is brought into perspective by the fact that professional propagandists were and still are at work. Yes, it was a magnificently done deception, impossible without the bully pulpit of the state and its media.

Life goes on Mike. The truth DOES set one free.
Click to expand...


Irony meters explode!!!!!
 
Thoreau72 said:
I don't give a GGD who is correct Mike.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't! Just another excuse to cower behind so you don't have to answer to you absurd nuke theory that you believe in.

Thoreau72 said:
In fact, there are elements of truth in each man's analysis.
Click to expand...
And there are elements that are incorrect/lies. But you're willing to overlook that right? I thought truthers were about the truth Thoreau72?

Thoreau72 said:
I am an independent thinker more concerned with the Big Picture. Such analysis does not always require an either/or solution. Some do, some don't.
Click to expand...
More excuses to hide behind.

Thoreau72 said:
The over-riding point is that the official narrative is absurd and impossible from every perspective.
Click to expand...
And part of the reason you believe this is because you believe in lies and incorrect information yet refuse to discuss them because you know they ARE absurd.

Thoreau72 said:
I was conned in 2001 just like you still are. I am able to admit how gullible I was, but that is brought into perspective by the fact that professional propagandists were and still are at work. Yes, it was a magnificently done deception, impossible without the bully pulpit of the state and its media.

Life goes on Mike. The truth DOES set one free.
Click to expand...
What a crock!
 
Thoreau72 said:
I don't give a GGD who is correct Mike. In fact, there are elements of truth in each man's analysis. I am an independent thinker more concerned with the Big Picture. Such analysis does not always require an either/or solution. Some do, some don't.

The over-riding point is that the official narrative is absurd and impossible from every perspective.

I was conned in 2001 just like you still are. I am able to admit how gullible I was, but that is brought into perspective by the fact that professional propagandists were and still are at work. Yes, it was a magnificently done deception, impossible without the bully pulpit of the state and its media.

Life goes on Mike. The truth DOES set one free.
Click to expand...

You can have your opinion and beliefs, no matter how misguided and wrong they are.
 
Having doubts about something as complex as the total collapse of a massive, let alone 3... sky scrapers is perfectly normal. This is a something unseen. On the other hand the sort of damage inflicted is also something never seen... wide body planes full of fuel slamming in the the building, no sprinklers or fire fighting... and I would add structural designs which were vulnerable to runaway progressive collapse.

It is impossible to model the collapses on a perfect matching basis because this requires enough real time data to use in the model. All those who have attempted to model / describe the collapses in an detail are forced to used data assumptions... which of course would have to be reasonable and consistent with established science and engineering "law". And even that allows for multiple collapse sequence scenarios leading to complete collapse.

I suspect the NIST sequences/scenarios may be possible. But I also believe that they may likely not be THE scenarios/models describing the sequences leading to collapse. It is impossible to prove one sequence/model correct and rule out all others.

Gravity causes ALL collapses... regardless of what TRIGGERS the collapse. And once triggered the collapse is a PROCESS.... runaway and rapidly progressing as more and more integrity of the structural system is lost. As such it is import to understand the structures... and how their capacity to support themselves and super imposed loads are transferred to the foundations... and how a compromised structure fails in this task.

Disbelief and ignorance of the engineering and physics is not a basis to speculate on explosive devices. And this is exactly what AE911T has been doing for more than a decade. Any explanation has to match the observations and data available.. regardless of how limited. There was no molten steel. And there were no steel columns forcibly ejected laterally. Asserting this is intellectually dishonest.
 
SanderO said:
Disbelief and ignorance of the engineering and physics is not a basis to speculate on explosive devices. And this is exactly what AE911T has been doing for more than a decade. Any explanation has to match the observations and data available.. regardless of how limited. There was no molten steel. And there were no steel columns forcibly ejected laterally. Asserting this is intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
And this is the issue right here.

Truthers, no matter which conspiracy theory they believe, are ALL out for one thing. To blame the government and hold on to the thought that it was they who committed some planned, heinous crime for their benefit. They cry from the mountaintops that they are all about the truth and that those that believe the "OCT" have been either duped or are paid shills. Yet when you try and discuss the theory THEY believe in, they either move the goal posts to avoid discussion or put you on ignore. Truthers praise those in the truth movement for being brave and providing "proof" of their respective theory, but when pointed out that certain theories contradict others, they clam up.

There is one example in this very thread that proves this:
Thoreau72 said:
I don't give a GGD who is correct Mike. In fact, there are elements of truth in each man's analysis. I am an independent thinker more concerned with the Big Picture. Such analysis does not always require an either/or solution. Some do, some don't.

The over-riding point is that the official narrative is absurd and impossible from every perspective.

I was conned in 2001 just like you still are. I am able to admit how gullible I was, but that is brought into perspective by the fact that professional propagandists were and still are at work. Yes, it was a magnificently done deception, impossible without the bully pulpit of the state and its media.

Life goes on Mike. The truth DOES set one free.
Click to expand...

The number of lies and incorrect pieces of evidence that have been provided by Thoreau72 is ridiculous. He's been challenged on all fronts, yet refuses to discuss them. I for one, will continue to point out these lies and misinformation whether he chooses to address them or not. His lack of response speaks volumes though.
 
Thoreau72 said:
In fact, there are elements of truth in each man's analysis. I am an independent thinker more concerned with the Big Picture.
Click to expand...
How about the truth in YOUR "analysis"?

Let's start with an easy one Thoreau72. How about this claim made by you:
Thoreau72 said:
The proper use of specially designed nuclear devices would also render boiling iron.
Click to expand...

Boiling iron?! That's a temperature of 5,184°F?! Iron MELTS at 2,800°F. Show us your evidence of temperatures at/around 5,184°F. My prediction is that you'll cower behind the ignore list like usual.
 
mike2810 said:
You can have your opinion and beliefs, no matter how misguided and wrong they are.
Click to expand...

That applies to us all Mike.

Some opinions are informed and based on fact, while others are based upon falsehoods and propaganda, but yes, they are like elbows and belly buttons.
 
Thoreau72 said:
That applies to us all Mike.

Some opinions are informed and based on fact, while others are based upon falsehoods and propaganda, but yes, they are like elbows and belly buttons.
Click to expand...

You demonstrate this every single day
 
Thoreau72 said:
That applies to us all Mike.

Some opinions are informed and based on fact, while others are based upon falsehoods and propaganda, but yes, they are like elbows and belly buttons.
Click to expand...

Your claim of "boiling iron" is based on "facts? Show us these facts.
Your claim that "vehicles were strangely burned" is based on "facts"? I can provide photo of cars having the same exact burn patterns from normal fires?
Your claim that "massive steel pieces were laterally ejected is based on "facts"? I can provide proof that a simple parabolic trajectory from pieces high up the structure can produce what you saw.
Your claim that "Matt Tartaglia" is dead" is based on "facts"? I did a search and found nothing regarding his supposed death. Where are your "facts" regarding this?
Your claim that "four total nukes went off" in WTC1/2 is based on "facts"? Where are those "facts"?
Your claim of people suffering "radiation sickness" is based on "facts"? I can show you firefighting procedures for decontamination after firefighting and that cancer is caused by fighting fires and the toxic environment those fires can create.

You mean THOSE "facts"?
 
Thoreau72 said:
That applies to us all Mike.

Some opinions are informed and based on fact, while others are based upon falsehoods and propaganda, but yes, they are like elbows and belly buttons.
Click to expand...

What I find interesting is that you are ok with cherry picking certain points from Prager's and AE911T. That means much of what else they say is false or misleading. No different than your opinion of the Government reports and other non government that came to the same conclusions.

Care to tell us how Rodriquez escaped without getting sick from radiation?

Instead of reading some author why not read the research reports written by those who did the studies. You will find that your nuke conclusion is wrong.
 
Last edited:
mike2810 said:
What I find interesting is that you are ok with cherry picking certain points from Prager's and AE911T. That means much of what else they say is false or misleading. No different than your opinion of the Government reports and other non government that came to the same conclusions.

Care to tell us how Rodriquez escaped without getting sick from radiation?

Instead of reading some author why not read the research reports written by those who did the studies. You will find that your nuke conclusion is wrong.
Click to expand...

It is safe to say at this point, that you will never be able to comprehend how independent thinkers operate.
 
Thoreau72 said:
It is safe to say at this point, that you will never be able to comprehend how independent thinkers operate.
Click to expand...

Still won't answer questions. It is safe to say at this point you will never understand where you went wrong.
 
mike2810 said:
Still won't answer questions. It is safe to say at this point you will never understand where you went wrong.
Click to expand...

For the most part, I don't respond to or answer poor quality questions.
 
Thoreau72 said:
For the most part, I don't respond to or answer poor quality questions.
Click to expand...
You don't respond to people calling out your lies and incorrect information either. Let's be honest Thoreau72.
 
Thoreau72 said:
For the most part, I don't respond to or answer poor quality questions.
Click to expand...

For the most part you use that as an excuse to not answer the question. Especially when they show how your view is wrong.
 
gamolon said:
You don't respond to people calling out your lies and incorrect information either. Let's be honest Thoreau72.
Click to expand...

He cant admit he is wrong and cant defend his claims so he never ever will answer any questions about them

Truthers hate the truth
 
Quag said:
He cant admit he is wrong and cant defend his claims so he never ever will answer any questions about them

Truthers hate the truth
Click to expand...

T72 has claimed my questions are poor quality before. The statement is made when I ask questions that challenges his views. Like asking why Rodriquez has not come down with cancer being that close to a nuclear event. Or asking how some firefighters who never worked the WTC site have come down with similar illnesses. That includes wildland firefighters.

T72 will never change. He wants to believe the government (some fraction of it) carried out 9/11. Evidence does not matter.

Can't wait for the Dr. Leroy Hulsey study to come out regarding 9/11. The one that started with a conclusion of it can't be fire therefore it was a controlled demolition. It will be interesting to read how he justified the modeling he did. Bottom line, not all fire scenarios were modeled. The modeling done was more simplistic that the models done by the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom