Post Reply
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Firefighters, Architects & Engineers Expose 9-11 from May 8, 2010
3 years ago  ::  Jan 25, 2011 - 8:47AM #31
Istvan
Posts: 124

Jan 24, 2011 -- 3:34PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:


It's a cicular arguement, you'll only consider it a possibility went there is proof(Yet if there was proof it would be a fact), and as there is no direct proof, so you'll never consider it a possibility.


It's not a circular argument. I consider the Inside Job theory extremely sketchy, vague, contradictory, and implausible. But if there were documentation of the planning and execution of the plot, that evidence would go a long way toward supporting the claim that certain parties in the Bush Administration or the military were in on it. Until I see such evidence, I'm sticking to my initial opinion.


The factoids that the 9/11 truthers have presented so far don't add up to anything. The way WTC7 collapsed is not evidence. Hani Hanjour's flying skills aren't evidence. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan aren't evidence. These are just random data points that aren't organized into any coherent context.


I do not say they did it, fact. I simply say there are lots of things about 9-11 that beg questions.


Truthers have been asking these questions for ten years now. If you're not satisfied with the answers you get, that's up to you. But at least admit that objective observers see a lot less problems with the Official Story than with the weird jumble of factoids that constitutes the Inside Job theory.


-Istvan

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 25, 2011 - 5:17PM #32
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

Jan 25, 2011 -- 8:47AM, Istvan wrote:


Jan 24, 2011 -- 3:34PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:


It's a cicular arguement, you'll only consider it a possibility went there is proof(Yet if there was proof it would be a fact), and as there is no direct proof, so you'll never consider it a possibility.


It's not a circular argument.




Ofcourse is it, I am not saying it was a conspricy, I said there is suggestive evidence that brings up questions. You refuse blindly to consider any possiblity of a conspriacy, except when there is correspondence and a paper trial, that would in effect prove it in a factual manner.


You're saying "I'll consider the possibility of a conspricy when there is proof". If their was proof it would be a fact, and not need proving.   


If you do not see problems with the offical story, and there are so many, what can I say?


Is it, or is it not possible, that "they" could have carried out such and attack on purpose to gain political and ecconomic advantage and a greater position of streangh in this world? would those in power be prepared to carry out such an attack?


The answer is yes to both.


Proving it, is another story altogether, and if they did do it, one that will not be easy at all.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 26, 2011 - 9:07AM #33
Istvan
Posts: 124

Jan 25, 2011 -- 5:17PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:

You refuse blindly to consider any possiblity of a conspriacy, except when there is correspondence and a paper trial, that would in effect prove it in a factual manner.


You're saying "I'll consider the possibility of a conspricy when there is proof". If their was proof it would be a fact, and not need proving.   


I don't "refuse blindly" to consider any possibility of an Inside Job, and I never said I needed "proof." What I said is that the Inside Job theory is extremely vague and implausible. I said I'd consider a paper trail much more convincing than factoids like the hijackers are still alive or WTC7 was a controlled demolition. If you don't have evidence of the planning or execution of the plot, that's your problem, not mine.


If you do not see problems with the offical story, and there are so many, what can I say?


If you don't see that the Inside Job theory raises many more questions than it claims to answer, then what can I say? At least the official story is coherent and simple: well-funded terrorist cell hijacks planes and flies them into enormous buildings. How is that impossible?


Is it, or is it not possible, that "they" could have carried out such and attack on purpose to gain political and ecconomic advantage and a greater position of streangh in this world? would those in power be prepared to carry out such an attack?


The answer is yes to both.


Sure, but a motive isn't evidence. Is it possible that you think nothing of making accusations of mass murder and treason with no evidence to back them up? Is it possible this isn't about objective research but venting your frustration and suspicion?


The answer is yes to both.


-Istvan

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 26, 2011 - 9:44AM #34
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

Jan 26, 2011 -- 9:07AM, Istvan wrote:


Jan 25, 2011 -- 5:17PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:

You refuse blindly to consider any possiblity of a conspriacy, except when there is correspondence and a paper trial, that would in effect prove it in a factual manner.


You're saying "I'll consider the possibility of a conspricy when there is proof". If their was proof it would be a fact, and not need proving.   


I don't "refuse blindly" to consider any possibility of an Inside Job, and I never said I needed "proof." What I said is that the Inside Job theory is extremely vague and implausible. I said I'd consider a paper trail much more convincing than factoids like the hijackers are still alive or WTC7 was a controlled demolition. If you don't have evidence of the planning or execution of the plot, that's your problem, not mine.


If you do not see problems with the offical story, and there are so many, what can I say?


If you don't see that the Inside Job theory raises much more questions than it claims to answer, then what can I say? At least the official story is coherent and simple: well-funded terrorist cell hijacks planes and flies them into enormous buildings. How is that impossible?




It's not impossible, I find it, rather strange thou, considering the mass surveilence that is carried out by the state, much of that survelience the average person is not aware of, and a forigen group wouldn't have been aware of it either.


That includes realities like the fact that they can listen in to a mobile phone while not being used, and and lot more besides.


 


Jan 26, 2011 -- 9:07AM, Istvan wrote:


Is it, or is it not possible, that "they" could have carried out such and attack on purpose to gain political and ecconomic advantage and a greater position of streangh in this world? would those in power be prepared to carry out such an attack?


The answer is yes to both.


Sure, but a motive isn't evidence. Is it possible that you think nothing of making accusations of mass murder and treason with no evidence to back them up? Is it possible this isn't about objective research but venting your frustration and suspicion?


The answer is yes to both.


-Istvan





No the answer is no to both. I dont need 9-11 to acuse those in power of mass murder, there are plenty of other things those in power have done and continue to do, that amount to crimes against humanity. It's what they do, I do not like that reality, I find it repugnat but that is the world of today, the systems of power today just as with the corporations work to insultate those reponsible from prosicution, it's a lovly little set up they have.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 26, 2011 - 4:36PM #35
Hatman
Posts: 9,634
Shem-
You may find this essay quite informative; i have verified it's content from multiple sources over many years, and this author is quite meticulous with his annotations in his books(albeit not in this essay).

www.silverbearcafe.com/deception.html

Look especially for the "Agitate - Insulate - Facilitate" strategy, in the sections concerning deceiving the People into fighting their wars and making the PtB barrels o' dough.

There are just so many things that the "911 Commission"(meet the Warren Commission---in hell, you bastards) failed to even address, much less prove or disprove, e.g. the seismic recordings from that day that showed additional explosions just prior to each collapse, the aerial infrared photography which showed pools of molten metal under the Trade center buildings for WEEKS after the demolition(even though it's rather common knowledge now that jet fuel canNOT melt steel), the military-grade therMATE dust which was found in the wreckage(therMITE is usually used to cut through steel columns like butter; therMATE burns faster and hotter), the DIAGONAL CUTS visible in some of the main support beams(visible in photography from the sites), the IDENTICAL collapse of Building Seven into IT's own footprint, and on and on and on.

With goodwill to all the People-

Hatman
"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 26, 2011 - 6:51PM #36
JoliverJOLLY
Posts: 440

Jan 26, 2011 -- 4:36PM, Hatman wrote:


Shem- You may find this essay quite informative; i have verified it's content from multiple sources over many years, and this author is quite meticulous with his annotations in his books(albeit not in this essay). www.silverbearcafe.com/deception.html Look especially for the "Agitate - Insulate - Facilitate" strategy, in the sections concerning deceiving the People into fighting their wars and making the PtB barrels o' dough. There are just so many things that the "911 Commission"(meet the Warren Commission---in hell, you bastards)




 what can I say to that?


Jan 26, 2011 -- 4:36PM, Hatman wrote:


failed to even address, much less prove or disprove, e.g. the seismic recordings from that day that showed additional explosions just prior to each collapse, the aerial infrared photography which showed pools of molten metal under the Trade center buildings for WEEKS after the demolition(even though it's rather common knowledge now that jet fuel canNOT melt steel), the military-grade therMATE dust which was found in the wreckage(therMITE is usually used to cut through steel columns like butter; therMATE burns faster and hotter), the DIAGONAL CUTS visible in some of the main support beams(visible in photography from the sites), the IDENTICAL collapse of Building Seven into IT's own footprint, and on and on and on. With goodwill to all the People- Hatman



Thankyou Hartman

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 26, 2011 - 7:47PM #37
Istvan
Posts: 124

Jan 26, 2011 -- 4:36PM, Hatman wrote:

Shem- You may find this essay quite informative


Uh, no, I found it rambling and incoherent.


There are just so many things that the "911 Commission"(meet the Warren Commission---in hell, you bastards) failed to even address, much less prove or disprove, e.g. the seismic recordings from that day that showed additional explosions just prior to each collapse, the aerial infrared photography which showed pools of molten metal under the Trade center buildings for WEEKS after the demolition(even though it's rather common knowledge now that jet fuel canNOT melt steel), the military-grade therMATE dust which was found in the wreckage(therMITE is usually used to cut through steel columns like butter; therMATE burns faster and hotter), the DIAGONAL CUTS visible in some of the main support beams(visible in photography from the sites), the IDENTICAL collapse of Building Seven into IT's own footprint, and on and on and on.


Can I assume you're an expert on structural physics? on combustion of incendiary chemicals? So you know exactly how we should expect a building to collapse after being hit by a fuel-laden jet?


-Istvan

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 26, 2011 - 8:29PM #38
Hatman
Posts: 9,634

Jan 26, 2011 -- 6:51PM, JoliverJOLLY wrote:

Jan 26, 2011 -- 4:36PM, Hatman wrote:


Shem- You may find this essay quite informative; i have verified it's content from multiple sources over many years, and this author is quite meticulous with his annotations in his books(albeit not in this essay). www.silverbearcafe.com/deception.html Look especially for the "Agitate - Insulate - Facilitate" strategy, in the sections concerning deceiving the People into fighting their wars and making the PtB barrels o' dough. There are just so many things that the "911 Commission"(meet the Warren Commission---in hell, you bastards)



 what can I say to that?


Did you read the linked essay?

Jan 26, 2011 -- 4:36PM, Hatman wrote:


failed to even address, much less prove or disprove, e.g. the seismic recordings from that day that showed additional explosions just prior to each collapse, the aerial infrared photography which showed pools of molten metal under the Trade center buildings for WEEKS after the demolition(even though it's rather common knowledge now that jet fuel canNOT melt steel), the military-grade therMATE dust which was found in the wreckage(therMITE is usually used to cut through steel columns like butter; therMATE burns faster and hotter), the DIAGONAL CUTS visible in some of the main support beams(visible in photography from the sites), the IDENTICAL collapse of Building Seven into IT's own footprint, and on and on and on. With goodwill to all the People- Hatman


Thankyou Hartman


You're welcome, but there's no "r" in "Hatman."

Warmest regards-

Hatman(no r)

"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2011 - 2:33AM #39
Hatman
Posts: 9,634

Jan 26, 2011 -- 7:47PM, Istvan wrote:

Jan 26, 2011 -- 4:36PM, Hatman wrote:

Shem- You may find this essay quite informative


Uh, no, I found it rambling and incoherent.


Curious.
"There is a principle which is a bar to all information, proof against all arguments, and is guaranteed to keep a man in everlasting ignorance; that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
~Herbert Spencer.

There are just so many things that the "911 Commission"(meet the Warren Commission---in hell, you bastards) failed to even address, much less prove or disprove, e.g. the seismic recordings from that day that showed additional explosions just prior to each collapse, the aerial infrared photography which showed pools of molten metal under the Trade center buildings for WEEKS after the demolition(even though it's rather common knowledge now that jet fuel canNOT melt steel), the military-grade therMATE dust which was found in the wreckage(therMITE is usually used to cut through steel columns like butter; therMATE burns faster and hotter), the DIAGONAL CUTS visible in some of the main support beams(visible in photography from the sites), the IDENTICAL collapse of Building Seven into IT's own footprint, and on and on and on.


Can I assume you're an expert on structural physics? on combustion of incendiary chemicals? So you know exactly how we should expect a building to collapse after being hit by a fuel-laden jet?




Only if i can assume you care nothing for discussion of factual information that can be seen even by the blind.

With goodwill to all the People-

Hatman

"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 27, 2011 - 6:06AM #40
Istvan
Posts: 124

Hatman,


No need to be petulant. I'm just wondering how seriously I should take your pronouncements on highly technical issues like structural steel failure, jet fuel combustion, and controlled demolition.


Like I asked before, where did you train in these highly specialized disciplines? Do you have a degree in structural engineering? Do you have experience in preparing a building for deliberate demolition? How is it that you know exactly what we should expect when a fuel-laden jet hits a steel-framed skyscraper? How is it that you can differentiate between a building collapsing due to steel structural failure and controlled demolition?


-Istvan

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook