ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 12th December 2016, 04:27 PM   #41
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,154
Hell yeah I like looking at your comments on this stuff
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 05:18 PM   #42
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Why are the fires in these other structures [~WTC 5 & 6] not supposedly suspicious?
WTC 5 & 6 stood between WTC 7 and the Twin Towers.

Though suffering far more impact damage than WTC7, as well as suffering from long lasting major fires, WTC 5 & 6 did not collapse.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 05:37 PM   #43
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 13,991
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
WTC 5 & 6 stood between WTC 7 and the Twin Towers.

Though suffering far more impact damage than WTC7, as well as suffering from long lasting major fires, WTC 5 & 6 did not collapse.
They were also built differently.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 06:07 PM   #44
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 478
mumble mumble - its own footprint

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Beyond "It looks like CD", "mumble, mumble freefall mumble" and "ITS OWN FOOTPRINT!!!!!", has this ever actually been done?
The topic "In or on its footprint for the three towers -wtc1 wtc2 wtc7-" was illuminated in threads five and a half years ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...98#post7378798
Quote:
After 15 years, AFAIK, we have
  • No trace of explosives in the debris.
NIST FAQ
Q. Was the WTC debris tested for traces of explosive residues ?
A. No

Quote:
Cosmic Yak : Tony Did I miss something ? I really want to know
Fonebone < Now you know
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time __Bovee

Truth once elicited never dies -Bancroft

twoofers versus twidiots , twaitors , twusters and boil-thuckers

Last edited by Fonebone; 12th December 2016 at 06:10 PM. Reason: correct punctuation
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 06:11 PM   #45
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
The topic "In or on its footprint for the three towers -wtc1 wtc2 wtc7-" was illuminated in threads five and a half years ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...98#post7378798
NIST FAQ
Q. Was the WTC debris tested for traces of explosive residues ?
A. No

Fonebone < Now you know
What would you have tested for explosive residues?

There was no evidence of explosives at all.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 06:35 PM   #46
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 13,991
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
What would you have tested for explosive residues?

There was no evidence of explosives at all.
Funny how he left out the reason why NIST ruled out explosives. And it's the same 'reason' that Truthers never have a good answer for...
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 06:38 PM   #47
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,331
I was wondering if anyone wanted to debate the existence of oxygen with me in a one-on-one exchange. Anyone failing to answer within 97 minutes will forfeit and oxygen will no longer be an element.

Because this is how science is done, isn't it?
__________________
- I haven't refused to answer it; I just haven't been able to answer it...
Jabba

Do not pretend I support your argument and do not PM me.
- Nick Terry
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 06:44 PM   #48
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Funny how he left out the reason why NIST ruled out explosives. And it's the same 'reason' that Truthers never have a good answer for...
Exactly Twoofers wanted every speck of dust tested for explosives, that were not indicated for by the physical evidence.
Dr. Jones tried to pull a fast one with the thermite fantasy he knew, residue of thermal lances with Aluminum and steel wire would leave similar evidence to thermite.
What he forgot is that Columns cut while loaded with thermite are mushroomed by Gravity.
Physics has to be violated for CD, to be real.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 06:47 PM   #49
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
What would you have tested for explosive residues?

There was no evidence of explosives at all.
Flapdoodle ! You got a minute ?

exhibit A
http://themindrenewed.com/in-the-media/713-news156
documented accounts of explosions

exhibit B
An ABC television reporter N.J. Burkett was standing on west street
broadcasting LIVE with the two WTC twin towers in the background.
Suddenly he screamed into the camera--
--HUGE EXPLOSION !!! ...raining debris down on all of us --
as the WTC2 tower began to collapse.
https://vidsn.com/v/liveleak-9-11-fo...Tf5Q4Gc60.html
at 03:40

exhibit C
Firemen report explosions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time __Bovee

Truth once elicited never dies -Bancroft

twoofers versus twidiots , twaitors , twusters and boil-thuckers

Last edited by Fonebone; 12th December 2016 at 06:48 PM. Reason: insert punctuation mark
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 06:53 PM   #50
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,527
Tony, are you suggesting that "the NIST WTC reports (those involving WTC 1, 2, and 7) and what the public domain evidence points to as the reason for the collapses of these buildings" is a proposition for a plausible volitional plan of future action? It is no such thing.

Perhaps you're not understanding my point about the (only) kind of debate I'm interested in, a debate about a future deliberate measure (a change to be made, a law to be passed, a task to be undertaken...) that people can make a decision about, instead of about the unalterable past. Or perhaps you just want to disregard that preference and instead pretend that the words I used mean what you want instead of what I offered. Either way, that's not a promising start, but you're welcome to try again.
__________________
A zmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 12th December 2016 at 06:54 PM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 07:44 PM   #51
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,600
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... NIST reports have been shown to be non-explanatory and incorrect.
...
You have never show, thus this statement remains a lie. I would read the rest of your post, but one lie is all it takes to debunk a debate based on BS.

A lie about NIST, and CD is a fantasy made up by paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Big clue, fire did it, NIST was right. Look up the meaning of probable.

The fantasy of explosions, will that lie be in the debate?


Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
...
--HUGE EXPLOSION !!! ...raining debris down on all of us --
as the WTC2 tower began to collapse. ...
Big fail, he was hearing a building collapse. Simile, look it up.

No one heard an explosive on 9/11, they heard loud sounds. Bodies hitting the ground, and building falling, and stuff that blows up, but no explosives. Proof of no explosives, starts with the people trapped in the WTC stairs, who lived, and were not people with brains turned to mush by your fantasy explosives.

Simile, look it up. Did a train do it? Some people heard a freight train... simile

Have you been in an earthquake? What did you hear.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 12th December 2016 at 08:10 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 08:28 PM   #52
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,154
You know what's crazy? Some of the guys here are the only people who defend the official story while still understanding that the NIST WTC 7 report is completely incorrect and inadequate. Sometimes on reddit I'll try reasoning with a person calling the CD theory crazy, and they'll cite the NIST report, and totally dismiss me when I explain as clearly as possible that it's been soundly debunked, the last nail in the coffin being hammered in 2012 when the blueprints were released. They'll say "200 technical experts disagree, tin foil hat retard!!111", while in reality making themselves look foolish. But you guys understand. So, it doesn't bother you guys that the one and only official word on this controversial event is a proven fraud?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 08:57 PM   #53
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,069
I love how it went from "the NIST report has some errors and is incomplete" to "the NIST report is a proven fraud".

And no, that doesn't bother me, because obvious lies are obvious.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 09:12 PM   #54
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Tony, are you suggesting that "the NIST WTC reports (those involving WTC 1, 2, and 7) and what the public domain evidence points to as the reason for the collapses of these buildings" is a proposition for a plausible volitional plan of future action? It is no such thing.

Perhaps you're not understanding my point about the (only) kind of debate I'm interested in, a debate about a future deliberate measure (a change to be made, a law to be passed, a task to be undertaken...) that people can make a decision about, instead of about the unalterable past. Or perhaps you just want to disregard that preference and instead pretend that the words I used mean what you want instead of what I offered. Either way, that's not a promising start, but you're welcome to try again.
You have made it clear that you aren't genuinely interested.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th December 2016 at 09:14 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 09:15 PM   #55
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,544
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You have made it clear that you aren't genuinely interested.
Neither Are you
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 09:16 PM   #56
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
It looks like there are no takers and tfk seems destined to be the one and only JREF'er to ever have the nerve to leave the nest here and debate in a one-on-one situation.

Not really surprising that none of you are confident enough to venture outside of the moral support of the gang after seeing what happened to him. He was a star here.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 12th December 2016 at 09:21 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 09:20 PM   #57
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,544
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It looks like there are no takers and tfk seems destined to be the one and only JREF'er to ever have the nerve to debate outside of the gang here in a one-on-one situation.

Not really surprising that none of you are confident enough in either yourselves or the story you try to defend to leave your little nest and moral support after seeing what happened to him. He was a star here.
I'm game.
It's just that you lack the intellectual courage to even acknowledge my one and only rule, nevermind actually discuss it.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 09:23 PM   #58
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Neither Are you
Oh, I am certainly interested in showing that those who rabidly defend a fraudulent story are full of s..t.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 09:24 PM   #59
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,069
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Oh, I am certainly interested in showing that those who rabidly defend a fraudulent story are full of s..t.

And you wonder why no one is interested...
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 09:29 PM   #60
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
I love how it went from "the NIST report has some errors and is incomplete" to "the NIST report is a proven fraud".

And no, that doesn't bother me, because obvious lies are obvious.
Yup, total fraud. No better way to describe it. The fact that their website still promotes it as factual and complete proves that they are hucksters. Also recall how they took out the shear studs after Shayam Sunder said "We're having trouble getting a handle on Building 7".
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 09:44 PM   #61
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,050
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You have made it clear that you aren't genuinely interested.
You've made it clear you have no interest in debating the events of 9/11.

Let me know when you want to debate the entirety of that day, we'll start with Shanksville and do it on this forum. Let me know when you're ready , I have lots of time.

15 years of utter failure and counting...
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 10:01 PM   #62
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I don't know if you are right on the semantics, but you can call it whatever you like. It would be a discussion between two individuals with opposing points of view on the NIST WTC reports (those involving WTC 1, 2, and 7) and what the public domain evidence points to as the reason for the collapses of these buildings.
Illuminate me,,,, to what purpose?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 10:03 PM   #63
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,362
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I have some time right now and am wondering...[/i]
Hi Tony.

I am halfway through watching a youtube vid called "If you think you can handle the truth, well here it is folks"

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


which goes into historical commentary on various false flags and how things are heading toward a world government run by a group of wealthy families.

They talk about how various major catastrophes throughout modern history are linked to riling up the citizens to go to war. The video starts with Spain and the sinking of the American warship which created an excuse to start a war because the banks wanted control of the sugar business...it goes through Pearl Harbor, as well as other incidences which all led to America involving it's citizens in warfare.

Quite compelling stuff really. All that coincidence.

Basically though, what it is saying is that America doesn't have a government and Americans still think that they do and that is why they cannot bear the thought that any American government would purposefully murder its own citizens in order to start wars and conscript American's into fighting and dying in those wars. It is just too inconceivable.

Indeed they are correct. No Amercian government would do such a thing.

However, it is conceivable if indeed it is true that Americans are not governed by an agency which is directly speaking for what Americans want and is manipulating Americans through emotion psychology.

A proven formula which has been working for many decades now.

But *shrug* my take on this is that even if 911 wasn't an 'inside job', it may as well have been for all the BS which is going on in relation to protecting investing in and supporting of systems of disparity...if we don't work seriously to recognize this and change these, then 'our bad' because in that case...

...WE are the conspiracy.



What do I think? I think
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high oer the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 10:10 PM   #64
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
WTC 5 & 6 stood between WTC 7 and the Twin Towers.
Why does that matter? You can clearly see that WTC1 perimeter column trees fel all tge way accross WTC6. Very short distance from there to WTC 7. What are you telling me could not span that gap? Obviously WTC7 suffered major structural damage to at the very least, the SW corner. What started the fires in WTC6 that coukd not do so in WTC7?

Quote:
Though suffering far more impact damage than WTC7, as well as suffering from long lasting major fires, WTC 5 & 6 did not collapse.
Again, what exactly are you saying? Do you not believe that differences in construction technique could have such effect? Why exactly was WTC7 supposedly targeted? What evidence do you have to bolster the reason it was targeted?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 12th December 2016 at 10:27 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 10:14 PM   #65
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Flapdoodle ! You got a minute ?

exhibit A
http://themindrenewed.com/in-the-media/713-news156
documented accounts of explosions

exhibit B
An ABC television reporter N.J. Burkett was standing on west street
broadcasting LIVE with the two WTC twin towers in the background.
Suddenly he screamed into the camera--
--HUGE EXPLOSION !!! ...raining debris down on all of us --
as the WTC2 tower began to collapse.
https://vidsn.com/v/liveleak-9-11-fo...Tf5Q4Gc60.html
at 03:40

exhibit C
Firemen report explosions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
Wow, you have any sugar for that weak tea?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 10:20 PM   #66
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You know what's crazy? Some of the guys here are the only people who defend the official story while still understanding that the NIST WTC 7 report is completely incorrect and inadequate. Sometimes on reddit I'll try reasoning with a person calling the CD theory crazy, and they'll cite the NIST report, and totally dismiss me when I explain as clearly as possible that it's been soundly debunked, the last nail in the coffin being hammered in 2012 when the blueprints were released. They'll say "200 technical experts disagree, tin foil hat retard!!111", while in reality making themselves look foolish. But you guys understand. So, it doesn't bother you guys that the one and only official word on this controversial event is a proven fraud?
,,,and yet oddly enough AE911T, while promoting such drivel the world over, has utterly failed to garner the support of the supposed sound debunking of this NIST report from any professional engineering organization.
AND
yet another engineering report agrees with NIST on the premise that a long span girder failure was the initiating failure that began a progressive collapse ultimately involving the entire structure.
AND
AE911T has yet to produce any engineering report of the scope and detail of the NIST final WTC7 report.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 12th December 2016 at 10:23 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 10:25 PM   #67
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Oh, I am certainly interested in showing that those who rabidly defend a fraudulent story are full of s..t.
How would that further the cause?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 10:57 PM   #68
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
Hi Tony.

I am halfway through watching a youtube vid called "If you think you can handle the truth, well here it is folks"

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


which goes into historical commentary on various false flags and how things are heading toward a world government run by a group of wealthy families.

They talk about how various major catastrophes throughout modern history are linked to riling up the citizens to go to war. The video starts with Spain and the sinking of the American warship which created an excuse to start a war because the banks wanted control of the sugar business...it goes through Pearl Harbor, as well as other incidences which all led to America involving it's citizens in warfare.

Quite compelling stuff really. All that coincidence.

Basically though, what it is saying is that America doesn't have a government and Americans still think that they do and that is why they cannot bear the thought that any American government would purposefully murder its own citizens in order to start wars and conscript American's into fighting and dying in those wars. It is just too inconceivable.

Indeed they are correct. No Amercian government would do such a thing.

However, it is conceivable if indeed it is true that Americans are not governed by an agency which is directly speaking for what Americans want and is manipulating Americans through emotion psychology.

A proven formula which has been working for many decades now.

But *shrug* my take on this is that even if 911 wasn't an 'inside job', it may as well have been for all the BS which is going on in relation to protecting investing in and supporting of systems of disparity...if we don't work seriously to recognize this and change these, then 'our bad' because in that case...

...WE are the conspiracy.



What do I think? I think
Thank You for sharing that documentary. I hate that it brings Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing into the mix, but it's still a fun way to kill a couple of hours. The USS Maine had six separate investigations into what caused the explosion! Where are the six investigations for the WTC disaster?

Last edited by MicahJava; 12th December 2016 at 10:59 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 11:02 PM   #69
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,050
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Thank You for sharing that documentary. I hate that it brings Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing into the mix, but it's still a fun way to kill a couple of hours. The USS Maine had six separate investigations into what caused the explosion! Where are the six investigations for the WTC disaster?
9/11 was the most investigated event on the planet ever, have you been living under a rock for the last 15 years?
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 11:20 PM   #70
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,418
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Oh, I am certainly interested in showing that those who rabidly defend a fraudulent story are full of s..t.
This is where you've failed.

There isn't just a single story here, not a single "Official Story". NIST did their reports on the Twin Towers, and later WTC7, but other reconstructions have been done. There are individual final reports on 9-11 from at least 12 Federal and State Government agencies which cover the scope of the events of that day. Some conflict on specific details but not one report suggests Controlled Demolition.

I'd love to see you debate the NIST recommendations at the ends of their reports on WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 because they are where the ultimate truths about the collapses are revealed. See, my paranoid former CTer brain reads those recommendations as quiet condemnation for NYC changing their building codes to allow the complex to be built in the first place. I see hints that they think corners were cut because the Port Authority decided to go into the real estate game, thus green-lighting code changes to get the Twin Towers up. This is not to say that the buildings were death-traps, far from it, because nobody in the 1960s could anticipate the fun bunch at Al Qaeda.

But you won't debate their recommendations because they suggest that the buildings lacked fire suppression, and a strong central core (among other points).

I would love to see someone argue how long the towers might have stood if each floor had Halon (or equivalent) fire suppression, and how WTC7's fires would have been limited to the damaged floor(s). I honestly don't think the towers would have lasted the day, but more people would have escaped with the added time afforded.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 11:23 PM   #71
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,161
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I have some time right now and am wondering if anyone here who supports the conclusions of the NIST reports, for the three high-rise collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, would want to debate me one-on-one as I contend that these NIST reports have been shown to be non-explanatory and incorrect.

The debate would take place on the 911 free forum, like the one I did with tfk, and the rules would be the same as those for that debate shown below.

1. The debate is restricted to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7 in NYC on September 11, 2001, the NIST reports on these events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them.

2. Each person shall make an opening statement (of no more than 500 words) explaining what they believe caused the collapse of WTC 7 and briefly stating what they believe are the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition, as "Controlled Demolition vs. No Controlled Demolition" is the heart of the debate.

3. tfk will go first after both participants make an opening statement on June 21, 2016.

4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.

5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited his turn & the other person will proceed with his next statement.

6. Individual posts are limited to 1,000 words. If it is deemed necessary to exceed that limit, justification shall be provided by the person wanting to exceed it and agreement to by the other participant received prior to doing so. This should be done by private messaging, so as not to interrupt the flow of the debate, and should be the exception rather than the rule.

7. Each post will discuss one principle topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. Person A will state a topic post, Person B replies, Person A counters, then Person B counters, and that topic is closed. Person B then leads off the next sequence.

8. Every point that either person brings up must be addressed in some manner by the other. Both parties will do their best to stay focused on the original topic point.

9. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Each person shall bring only technical arguments to the debate. If any derogatory comments are used they shall be addressed to arguments only, not to individuals.

10. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination, or whenever either participant decides to stop responding.
A debate won't work in your case because you have failed to produce a single shred of evidence that CD explosives were used to demolish WTC 7. You have to address the following facts before any debate is forthcoming.

For an example, you have:

1. Failed to produced video evidence that CD explosives were used

2. Failed to produced seismic evidence that explosives were used

3. Failed to produce audio evidence that explosives were used

4. Failed to produce CD explosive hardware evidence

5. Failed to produce direct physical evidence on steel structures that CD explosives were used

6. Failed to understand that demolition experts and cleanup crews found no evidence that CD explosives were used

7. Failed to account for the audible structural stress loads as stated by firefighters on the scene

8. Failed to account for structural load redistribution after the south facade of WTC 7 was gutted by debris from WTC 1 (no secondary explosions from explosives observed during that event)

WTC 7 did not fully collapse are free fall speed and the fact that WTC 7 tilted toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse was an indication that the structural integrity of WTC 7 was seriously compromised

9. Failed to account for additional structural load redistribution as uncontrolled fires continued to rage for hours within WTC 7 (no secondary explosions from explosives observed at any time as fires raged for hours)

10. Failed to address structural buckling of WTC 7 prior to its collapse, which should have told you that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse due to structural overload, which was clearly audible to firefighters on scene

11. Failed to produce visual evidence of explosive residue on structural steel

12. Failed to address how explosives could have been placed inside WTC 7 under strict secrecy

13. Failed to address how structural pre-weakening, which is required before explosives are attached to steel beams, could have been achieved in strict secrecy

14. Failed to understand why WTC 1 remained standing despite the detonation of a vehicle bomb beneath the building in 1993, which provides an indication just how ridicules the 9/11 CD theory is.

I may add to the list, but I think that you now have your hands full for the moment.

To sum it up, and as you can clearly see, you have no wiggle room to interpret or misinterpret documented facts and evidence as you see fit. The ball is now in your court to provide undeniable evidence that explosives or thermite, were used to demolish WTC 7. Anything short of that, you have no debate.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 12th December 2016 at 11:45 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 11:32 PM   #72
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,418
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The USS Maine had six separate investigations into what caused the explosion! Where are the six investigations for the WTC disaster?
FBI: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...iew-commission

CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0006184107.pdf

NYPD (via NY Times) : http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/27/ny...lice-dept.html

OSHA: https://www.osha.gov/as/opa/911/pg17...1-fall2001.pdf

https://www.osha.gov/as/opa/911/

FDNY: http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/mck...s_response.pdf

9-11 Commission: https://9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

There are more. The NSA's report is still classified, but you get the jist.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 11:55 PM   #73
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,154
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
That's not what I asked for, silly.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 12:23 AM   #74
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,161
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post

which goes into historical commentary on various false flags and how things are heading toward a world government run by a group of wealthy families.

They talk about how various major catastrophes throughout modern history are linked to riling up the citizens to go to war. The video starts with Spain and the sinking of the American warship which created an excuse to start a war because the banks wanted control of the sugar business...it goes through Pearl Harbor, as well as other incidences which all led to America involving it's citizens in warfare.

Quite compelling stuff really. All that coincidence.
About Pearl Harbor, an attack was expected as indicated in these headlines.


* Japanese May Strike Over Weekend

* Nation Ready For Battle


http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...rlprelude.html

https://pandorasbox2014.wordpress.co...-over-weekend/

Not to mention that it was the United States that fired the first shot when it sunk a Japanese sub before the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Not many people are aware that some of the battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor were repaired and eventually took out their vengeance on the Japanese navy during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, one of the largest naval battles in history which effectively destroyed the Japanese navy.

If the United States wanted an excuse to go to war, it could have used the sinking of American-flaged ships in the Atlantic Ocean, not to mention the sinking of an American destroyer, the USS Reuben James (DD-245), by a German U-Boat on October 31, 1941, weeks before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. German U-Boats were sinking ships just off the American eastern seaboard and yet, the United States remained out of the war. After the United States declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on the United States and rest is history.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 13th December 2016 at 12:25 AM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 12:29 AM   #75
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Flapdoodle ! You got a minute ?

exhibit A
http://themindrenewed.com/in-the-media/713-news156
documented accounts of explosions

exhibit B
An ABC television reporter N.J. Burkett was standing on west street
broadcasting LIVE with the two WTC twin towers in the background.
Suddenly he screamed into the camera--
--HUGE EXPLOSION !!! ...raining debris down on all of us --
as the WTC2 tower began to collapse.
https://vidsn.com/v/liveleak-9-11-fo...Tf5Q4Gc60.html
at 03:40

exhibit C
Firemen report explosions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
Thanks for proving you don't know what evidence of explosives are.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 01:23 AM   #76
Navigator
Philosopher
 
Navigator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,362
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
About Pearl Harbor, an attack was expected as indicated in these headlines.


* Japanese May Strike Over Weekend

* Nation Ready For Battle


http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/ar...rlprelude.html

https://pandorasbox2014.wordpress.co...-over-weekend/

Not to mention that it was the United States that fired the first shot when it sunk a Japanese sub before the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Not many people are aware that some of the battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor were repaired and eventually took out their vengeance on the Japanese navy during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, one of the largest naval battles in history which effectively destroyed the Japanese navy.

If the United States wanted an excuse to go to war, it could have used the sinking of American-flaged ships in the Atlantic Ocean, not to mention the sinking of an American destroyer, the USS Reuben James (DD-245), by a German U-Boat on October 31, 1941, weeks before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. German U-Boats were sinking ships just off the American eastern seaboard and yet, the United States remained out of the war. After the United States declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on the United States and rest is history.
From the video I linked, the story was that in order to get Americans demanding to go to war, an event of significant magnitude had to happen.

Also the Navy was ordered to pack its ships into the harbor and a high ranker protested the foolishness of doing so and wasn't listened to by Washington - but enough lives were lost as a result and this was enough to rally the public to get behind the war effort.

As I watched the video, I had my own opinion about what was going on and understand the pov of those interviewed - they want America to be like it was, and not become owned and operated by an oligarchy. I think they are way too late for that. This **** has been going on since way before any of us alive today, were even born I also understand it has to happen this way...people are far too distracted by their own BS and selfish concerns it has effectively been like taking candy off a baby...and well - we deserve it for agreeing with systems of disparity in the first place...or am I being too mean there? What else were we educated to believe in?

But no, we all have minds of our own, we just have to go deep to access the information buried under all the rubble of formal education...
__________________
Wild mingling with the howling gale, loud bursts of ghastly laughter rise high oer the minstrels head they sail and die amid the northern skies ~ Scott
There was I was where I ought - Examining my conscious thought ~ Navigator

Atheism is not skepticism

Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors. ~ ISF disclaimer

Last edited by Navigator; 13th December 2016 at 01:25 AM.
Navigator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 01:33 AM   #77
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,161
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Oh, I am certainly interested in showing that those who rabidly defend a fraudulent story are full of s..t.
Facts and evidence have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that no evidence of explosives and/or thermite exist. That explains why after 15 years, not one shred of evidence has been produced that 9/11 was an inside job.

I think those within government would have been smart enough not to use traceable explosives in order to conduct an inside job on the scale of 9/11. After all, how do you think we had determined that Libya was responsible for the downing of Pan Am 103 and that Timothy McVeigh was responsible for the Oklahoma bombing or who was responsible for the bombing of WTC 1 in 1993?

For what purpose would the government have for blowing up WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 while slamming three airliners into buildings and crashing a fourth airliner into a field?

* Did the United States go to war after terrorist bombed the USS Cole?

* Did the United States go to war after terrorist bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania?

* Did the United States immediately go to war with Iraq after an Iraqi missile struck the USS Stark in 1987?

* Did the United States go to war after North Korea shot down an EC-121 over international waters?

* Did the United States go to war after North Korea grabbed the USS Pueblo in international waters?

* Did the United States go to war after American Black Hawk helicopters were shot down in Somalia?

* Did the United States go to war after terrorist bombed a Marine barracks in Lebanon?

* Did the United States immediately go to war with Iraq after the Gulf War despite the fact that Iraq continued to violate 16 UN Resolutions and conditions that ended that war?

In regard to the attack by North Vietnamese gunboats on the USS Maddox, you can find that the North Vietnamese not only attack the U.S. naval vessel but admitted attacking that ship as well. I also served in Vietnam and know what explosions sound like, which is why I have stated for the record that I saw no evidence on video or on audio that explosives were used to bring down WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

I was retired from the USAF and working as a defense contractor during 9/11 and watched as the U.S. military went downhill because of 9/11 and I don't buy into the CT story that the 9/11 attack was used to facilitate going to war or to build up our military forces, which is ludicrous, to say the least.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 13th December 2016 at 01:41 AM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 02:03 AM   #78
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,161
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
From the video I linked, the story was that in order to get Americans demanding to go to war, an event of significant magnitude had to happen.

Also the Navy was ordered to pack its ships into the harbor and a high ranker protested the foolishness of doing so and wasn't listened to by Washington - but enough lives were lost as a result and this was enough to rally the public to get behind the war effort.

As I watched the video, I had my own opinion about what was going on and understand the pov of those interviewed - they want America to be like it was, and not become owned and operated by an oligarchy. I think they are way too late for that. This **** has been going on since way before any of us alive today, were even born I also understand it has to happen this way...people are far too distracted by their own BS and selfish concerns it has effectively been like taking candy off a baby...and well - we deserve it for agreeing with systems of disparity in the first place...or am I being too mean there? What else were we educated to believe in?

But no, we all have minds of our own, we just have to go deep to access Wthe information buried under all the rubble of formal education...
The Japanese blundered by attacking the Amerian ships in shallow water, which made it that much easier to recover the ships, and the Japanese blundered again by not attacking the dry docks. Had the ships sailed in order to meet the superior Japanese fleet head-on, chances are, those American ships would have been sunk and lost forever in deeper waters. General Short blundered when he bunched aircraft in a group, which is why so many were destroyed on the ground. He feared sabotage, which is the reason for his decision to do so.

I might also add that Pearl Harbor was not the only target attacked. The Japanese attacked Singapore, American forces in the Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaya, Guam and other targets in China within hours of the attack on Pearl Harbor. What amazes me is that the Japanese captain who led the attack on Pearl Harbor, Captain Mitsuo Fuchida, later became a Christian evangelist and created the Captain Fuchida Evangelistical Association based in Seattle, Washington and spoke full-time of his conversion to the Christian faith in presentations titled "From Pearl Harbor To Calvary".

Last edited by skyeagle409; 13th December 2016 at 02:06 AM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 02:15 AM   #79
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
It is clear that no individual here, who supports the present official story for how the three high-rises in NYC collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, is willing to leave the security of this group and defend what they claim to believe in a one-on-one situation.

That basically says that those of you who fit the above description have no faith in what you are actually saying and know it will not hold up to the heavy scrutiny which can and will be applied in a one-on-one situation where there is sufficient time for thoughtful responses.

I think one can guarantee that none here who fit the above description will venture out on their own after seeing what happened to the first to do so (tfk), who was a star and leader here. That is probably viewed as a gamble that didn't work out and won't be tried again.

The NIST has been contacted relative to the serious problems with the reports on the WTC they published. They will not engage in an honest discussion and simply say they stand behind their work while being protected politically and not forced to address the issues.

It would seem the function of the activity here is to maintain the charade that there is still support for the NIST explanations in the population and to denigrate those who have raised the serious problems with them and shown they are non-explanatory.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 13th December 2016 at 02:22 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 02:22 AM   #80
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,035
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Though suffering far more impact damage than WTC7, as well as suffering from long lasting major fires, WTC 5 & 6 did not collapse.
As I recall, WTC5 suffered a major internal collapse; due to its construction, the roof remained standing, so it wasn't obvious enough for anyone to pretend it was suspicious.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.