9/11 attacks weren't a US plot !!

pablo_escobar

and btw, those CT debunking sites are worthless to me.

so they offer an alternative hypothesis and you think that's evidence?

oh dear..

meglome

pablo_escobar wrote: »

FAQ #2

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

Hearing the testimony of firefighters in that video, the above NIST statement is clearly a contradiction would you not agree?

I can try to explain again. On the day of 911 several people (at least) heard what sounded like explosions, NO ONE disputes this. You on the other hand and many of the CT followers equate explosion with explosives. Even though those words mean different things (look in the dictionary if you don't believe me). Many many things can explode in the right circumstances. There is absolutely no contradiction whatsoever.

meglome wrote: »

What do you think the plane hits sounded like?
What do you think the debris hitting the ground sounded like?
How many things do you think might explode in a big fire in a big building?
Are the people in the video who described 'explosions' also claiming they were caused by explosives?
How many of the NYFD firefighters are supporting the CT?

So all you need to do is answer these questions rather than ignoring them.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

and btw, those CT debunking sites are worthless to me.

so they offer an alternative hypothesis and you think that's evidence?

oh dear..

meglome wrote: »

From a CT site: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
From a 'debunking' site: http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

I've yet to see anyone explain all this away, not even close.

The top link is a famous CT site and has a very detailed list of clearly why it was a plane. There's plenty of things I disagree with on that site but I can't find any fault with this. Ignore the 'debunker' site and just tell me exactly what's wrong with the CT site info? Though i suspect you can't.

pablo_escobar

meglome wrote:

I can try to explain again. On the day of 911 several people (at least) heard what sounded like explosions, NO ONE disputes this. You on the other hand and many of the CT followers equate explosion with explosives. Even though those words mean different things (look in the dictionary if you don't believe me). Many many things can explode in the right circumstances. There is absolutely no contradiction whatsoever.

meglome, i neither believe nor disbelieve 9/11 was an inside job...

i'm on middle ground but i can fully understand why you'd have a problem with that since you believe something can only be true or false.

Here's what I see and why I rarely bother discussing 9/11

1) CT followers argue there were testimonies from people on the ground that day who heard explosions.
CT followers argue these testimonies support the demolition theory.

2) Pseudo-sceptics like yourself argue that the sound of explosions could have been anything, that just because people on the ground heard what they described as explosions, doesn't mean that's what they were.

I don't quite see the difference between the 2 arguments TBH since neither offers an answer to what the "explosions" were.

Nobody can prove they were or were not explosions.
That's where it ends for me.

And I don't need you to "explain" anything further, thanks all the same.

What do you think the plane hits sounded like?

I wasn't there that day so I really can't comment, were you there?
Do you know what it was? apart from "it coulda been this...coulda been that"
Have you anything better?

not really convinced by the "coulda been.." theory.

What do you think the debris hitting the ground sounded like?

Again, I wasn't there so I don't know.
Unless you were there, you can't explain it either.

How many things do you think might explode in a big fire in a big building?

Not enough to demolish 3 buildings in 1 day, all conveniently owned by Mr.Silverstein.

Are the people in the video who described 'explosions' also claiming they were caused by explosives?

Didn't you watch the video? obviously not with a stupid question like that.

How many of the NYFD firefighters are supporting the CT

Certainly, FDNY employees have supported the theory 9/11 was an inside job.

I can only assume you read on one of those sh!t debunking sites "no FDNY worker supports the CT" and gladly accepted this as fact.

clearly, anyone on the ground that day claiming to hear explosions are utter morons who need their hearing tested.

The top link is a famous CT site and has a very detailed list of clearly why it was a plane. There's plenty of things I disagree with on that site but I can't find any fault with this. Ignore the 'debunker' site and just tell me exactly what's wrong with the CT site info? Though i suspect you can't

I was never arguing 9/11 was an inside job...but i'm open to the possibility.

There's too much bullsh!t on the debunking pages to copy/paste in this thread but basically it offers no definitive answer, just more of the same theories which deviate from 9/11 being an inside job.

personally, I feel there are too many inconsistencies with the official story but again, I'm neither believing nor disbelieving 9/11 was an inside job.

i'm open minded on the issue, unlike some people.

SisterTrip

meglome wrote: »

From a CT site: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html
From a 'debunking' site: http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

I've yet to see anyone explain all this away, not even close.



The question would be is it normal for all evidence to be released immediately. The answer to which is no.



I may be sounding like a broken record to some people here but absolutely no one is saying there were no sounds like explosions. Personally in my life I have heard numerous things that sounded like explosions but only twice was this caused by explosives. What do you think the plane hits sounded like? What do you think the debris hitting the ground sounded like? How many things do you think might explode in a big fire in a big building? I really cannot understand the issue. Are the people in the video who described 'explosions' also claiming they were caused by explosives? (Not as far as I can tell) How many of the NYFD firefighters are supporting the CT? (It's none btw).

Hi guys, good to be back.. I'm talkies missus Talkie is such a wonderfully well endowed beutiful man.. ahem :P

Megalome oh and king mob, as much as you annoy me, you both I will be respectful to you for this post.. It will probably be my last here (mob rule and what not).
Anywho Meg, I hope it ok to call you meg, I'm love Meg Ryan..
In the interest of fairness and research of ALL the evidenceThrow your eye on this clip/ I have read some ppls theories suggesting that it the explosions may be due to electrical transistors or something.
THis is quite obvious to most, even pre viewing this clip.. some others are slower to catch on... bless

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ehAI9cUkM

FOR THE RECORD, I AM TALKIES WIFE, I HAVE HAD THIS OUT WITH MODS B4 AND THEY OK'D IT.

meglome

SisterTrip wrote: »

Hi guys, good to be back.. I'm talkies missus Talkie is such a wonderfully well endowed beutiful man.. ahem :P

Megalome oh and king mob, as much as you annoy me, you both I will be respectful to you for this post.. It will probably be my last here (mob rule and what not).
Anywho Meg, I hope it ok to call you meg, I'm love Meg Ryan..
In the interest of fairness and research of ALL the evidenceThrow your eye on this clip/ I have read some ppls theories suggesting that it the explosions may be due to electrical transistors or something.
THis is quite obvious to most, even pre viewing this clip.. some others are slower to catch on... bless

FOR THE RECORD, I AM TALKIES WIFE, I HAVE HAD THIS OUT WITH MODS B4 AND THEY OK'D IT.

If i'm annoying you by showing the many things that are obviously false to be false then I'm a content person. If less people are taken in by bullshít I'm a happy person.

Did you actually look at the footage? So there appears to be a handful of broken windows. The broken glass is lying directly outside the windows, not all the glass is even knocked out. Worse than that a lot of the glass is lying directly inside the building. Otherwise the lobby looks perfect, the plant pots aren't even moved or the plants damaged. I have no idea what broke those windows but it doesn't look like an explosion of any kind. (Though if i had to guess I'd say the plane impact caused these very big windows to shatter). Unless I'm supposed to believe an explosion broke heavy plate glass windows, lightly dropped the glass both inside and outside the building, didn't knock leaves off the plants or do any other damage whatsoever in the lobby. Magic explosives again obviously.

pablo_escobar

meglome, you haven't proved anything to be false, you've just expressed a different opinion on what caused the explosive sounds.

if you can explain exactly what the cause of those explosive sounds were, then you'd have proved they weren't bombs, but you haven't done that....

You've proved absolutely nothing, that's the reality.

SisterTrip

meglome wrote: »

If i'm annoying you by showing the many things that are obviously false to be false then I'm a content person. If less people are taken in by bullshít I'm a happy person.

Did you actually look at the footage? So there appears to be a handful of broken windows. The broken glass is lying directly outside the windows, not all the glass is even knocked out. Worse than that a lot of the glass is lying directly inside the building. Otherwise the lobby looks perfect, the plant pots aren't even moved or the plants damaged. I have no idea what broke those windows but it doesn't look like an explosion of any kind. (Though if i had to guess I'd say the plane impact caused these very big windows to shatter). Unless I'm supposed to believe an explosion broke heavy plate glass windows, lightly dropped the glass both inside and outside the building, didn't knock leaves off the plants or do any other damage whatsoever in the lobby. Magic explosives again obviously.

Ok my apologies for being a bit sharp with you.
Ok, I get ya but.. THe lobby windows were 2/3 inches thick, it would take a hugh amount of energy to blow them all out, energy that does not necessarily have to burn or even be hot. To suggest the plane cause the damage in the lobby is kind of wild. To some degree the tower would have been wind or even earthquake proof and so the impact of the plane would have little or no effect on the lower levels. There are other many other clips of firefighters stating explosion in the lobby, basement etc.
With respect.. What more evidence do you need ? There are no videos of anyone explicitly stating that "there were no explosions in the lobby/basement", well, none that are not biased and I still have not come across those ones.
Elextrical explosion ? I think not. As do witnessess on the scene.
It about time to drop this argument. If you want proof of bombs, you have it. Many times but you choose to ignore it either because of obvious reasons.

meglome

pablo_escobar wrote: »

i'm on middle ground but i can fully understand why you'd have a problem with that since you believe something can only be true or false.

Obviously lots of different things happened on the day. But logic would dictate that individual events either happened or they didn't. They can't half happen.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Here's what I see and why I rarely bother discussing 9/11

1) CT followers argue there were testimonies from people on the ground that day who heard explosions.
CT followers argue these testimonies support the demolition theory.

2) Pseudo-sceptics like yourself argue that the sound of explosions could have been anything, that just because people on the ground heard what they described as explosions, doesn't mean that's what they were.

hehe pseudo-sceptics, haven't been called that name in ages - it's total bull btw. I didn't think anyone was arguing about the sound of explosions, I thought that was a given. The sound of explosions could indeed have been anything. An electrical transformer, glass breaking, a water heater. Look at every single controlled demolition video on the internet. There are hundreds of these and they all sound almost exactly the same. None of these sounds were recorded on 911 even with all the numerous recordings.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

I don't quite see the difference between the 2 arguments TBH since neither offers an answer to what the "explosions" were.

Nobody can prove they were or were not explosions.
That's where it ends for me.

We either prove there was explosions (caused by explosives) or there weren't. We know that in an incident like 911, or in any big fire things do explode. Plenty of video on the internet of that too. So this is not under debate, by anyone other than the CT's that is.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

And I don't need you to "explain" anything further, thanks all the same.

I wasn't there that day so I really can't comment, were you there?
Do you know what it was? apart from "it coulda been this...coulda been that"
Have you anything better?

not really convinced by the "coulda been.." theory.

That's what the very detailed NIST reports are for. They spent years and millions of dollars producing it. It makes perfect sense too. If it was just my opinion I'd understand.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Not enough to demolish 3 buildings in 1 day, all conveniently owned by Mr.Silverstein.

Well he was the lease holder, not sure why it was convenient that he owned the buildings though. He's just some random businessman. Unless of course you're referencing the fact he happened to be Jewish.
If you look at some of the links in the 'debunking' sites they have articles from before and after 911 which show Silverstein is really unlikely to have been involved and has lost a crap load of money from it. But why bother with fact.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Didn't you watch the video? obviously not with a stupid question like that.

As I've said I have no issue with video where people say they heard what they thought was explosions. Or on the day, in the confusion, they thought it might be explosives. How many of those same people, after the confusion has passed, still think there was explosives involved?

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Certainly, FDNY employees have supported the theory 9/11 was an inside job.

I can only assume you read on one of those sh!t debunking sites "no FDNY worker supports the CT" and gladly accepted this as fact.

Which NYFD people support the inside job? I'd genuinely like to know.

I'm fascinated you have such a low opinion of 'debunking' sites when they offer all the details. They don't misquote anyone, they don't take quotes out of context, they use references for all of the things they publish, they show all the available evidence. I can't seem to fault that. You are calling these sites shít but won't explain why, maybe you'd help me out here?

pablo_escobar wrote: »

clearly, anyone on the ground that day claiming to hear explosions are utter morons who need their hearing tested.

You know I'm worried about my mental health, I really don't know how many times I can point out that the word explosions and the word explosives mean different things. I'll take a little break.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

I was never arguing 9/11 was an inside job...but i'm open to the possibility.

Not impossible that is was, just lacks evidence.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

There's too much bullsh!t on the debunking pages to copy/paste in this thread but basically it offers no definitive answer, just more of the same theories which deviate from 9/11 being an inside job.

hehe okay if you say so. I would have thought it'd be simple to show that to me but whatever.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

personally, I feel there are too many inconsistencies with the official story but again, I'm neither believing nor disbelieving 9/11 was an inside job.

What are they?

pablo_escobar wrote: »

i'm open minded on the issue, unlike some people.

Should I be open minded on the tooth fairy as well? Take a look at that link in my sig.

meglome

pablo_escobar wrote: »

meglome, you haven't proved anything to be false, you've just expressed a different opinion on what caused the explosive sounds.

if you can explain exactly what the cause of those explosive sounds were, then you'd have proved they weren't bombs, but you haven't done that....

You've proved absolutely nothing, that's the reality.

I watched the events of 911 unfold on the day. In fact I watched the events on the internet and then live on TV within 30 minutes of the first plane hitting as a friend of mine was on the internet to a friend of his in NY and told me straight away. There's an official report and I'm saying I agree with it. The people making the claims about 911 need to back them up. See I'm not trying to prove there were explosions, the CT's are. All I'm trying to do is show there are logical reasons for explosions other than explosives.

SisterTrip wrote: »

Ok my apologies for being a bit sharp with you.
Ok, I get ya but.. THe lobby windows were 2/3 inches thick, it would take a hugh amount of energy to blow them all out, energy that does not necessarily have to burn or even be hot. To suggest the plane cause the damage in the lobby is kind of wild. To some degree the tower would have been wind or even earthquake proof and so the impact of the plane would have little or no effect on the lower levels. There are other many other clips of firefighters stating explosion in the lobby, basement etc.
With respect.. What more evidence do you need ? There are no videos of anyone explicitly stating that "there were no explosions in the lobby/basement", well, none that are not biased and I still have not come across those ones.

But you're proving my point. If that glass is 2/3 inches thick it would take a considerable explosion to break them. How could this blast just drop the glass below the windows, not even break all the glass and do no other damage to the lobby. It didn't even do any damage to the plants.

That fire-fighter in the video has arrived at the scene after the fact and is surmising that something bad has happened because "the windows were blown out". But the video clearly shows the windows were not blown out, so he has made an incorrect assumption.

SisterTrip wrote: »

Elextrical explosion ? I think not. As do witnessess on the scene.
It about time to drop this argument. If you want proof of bombs, you have it. Many times but you choose to ignore it either because of obvious reasons.

The most obvious thing would be the plane hit on the building. The building would be rocked far more than it had ever been previously, causing heavy plate glass to fracture. That would explain how the some of the glass has just fallen out of it's frame and nothing else is damaged.

I'm just using simple logic here, it could not be a blast. But feel free to explain this to me if my logic is faulty.

pablo_escobar

meglome wrote: »

Obviously lots of different things happened on the day. But logic would dictate that individual events either happened or they didn't. They can't half happen.

There are different types of logic.

hehe pseudo-sceptics, haven't been called that name in ages - it's total bull btw. I didn't think anyone was arguing about the sound of explosions, I thought that was a given. The sound of explosions could indeed have been anything. An electrical transformer, glass breaking, a water heater. Look at every single controlled demolition video on the internet. There are hundreds of these and they all sound almost exactly the same. None of these sounds were recorded on 911 even with all the numerous recordings.

Yes, "coulda been" answer coming up again is undeniable evidence that there were no explosives used... :rolleyes:

I don't consider you to be a real sceptic.

skeptic: someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs

Conspiracy theories are not accepted beliefs.

We either prove there was explosions (caused by explosives) or there weren't. We know that in an incident like 911, or in any big fire things do explode. Plenty of video on the internet of that too. So this is not under debate, by anyone other than the CT's that is.

That's exactly my point.

Earlier you were trumpeting on having proved no explosives were used yet still unable to explain what exactly caused the "explosions"

The reality is it cannot be proven or unproven explosives were used.

That's what the very detailed NIST reports are for. They spent years and millions of dollars producing it. It makes perfect sense too. If it was just my opinion I'd understand.

Just because NIST uses the "Coulda been.." explanation still doesn't prove anything.

Well he was the lease holder, not sure why it was convenient that he owned the buildings though. He's just some random businessman. Unless of course you're referencing the fact he happened to be Jewish.
If you look at some of the links in the 'debunking' sites they have articles from before and after 911 which show Silverstein is really unlikely to have been involved and has lost a crap load of money from it. But why bother with fact.

He didn't lose money though, did he? he made money, but why bother with fact and instead try insinuate i have a prejudice against jewish people.

As I've said I have no issue with video where people say they heard what they thought was explosions. Or on the day, in the confusion, they thought it might be explosives. How many of those same people, after the confusion has passed, still think there was explosives involved?

So what caused the sounds of explosions?
Simply accept you don't know the answer.

Which NYFD people support the inside job? I'd genuinely like to know.

From the top of my head, Paul Isaac
He claims there were bombs in the towers, an inside job.

Surely, it can't be that difficult for you to search this information yourself?
I'm not posting links for you, that's lazy of anyone who demands it on such a huge subject.

I'm fascinated you have such a low opinion of 'debunking' sites when they offer all the details. They don't misquote anyone, they don't take quotes out of context, they use references for all of the things they publish, they show all the available evidence. I can't seem to fault that. You are calling these sites shít but won't explain why, maybe you'd help me out here?

Debunking websites offer no more than an alternative hypothesis to what CT sites offer, I see no difference in either because neither prove anything.

Although, you're under some delusion debunking websites offer the truth. :pac:

You know I'm worried about my mental health, I really don't know how many times I can point out that the word explosions and the word explosives mean different things. I'll take a little break.

As i reviewed the words I predicted you'd answer me with this kind of drivel.

You should stop being so pedantic for a start, you know exactly what I meant.

Not impossible that is was, just lacks evidence.

Lacks evidence? .. there are many inconsistencies well documented.
Strange you wouldn't know about them.

hehe okay if you say so. I would have thought it'd be simple to show that to me but whatever.

Debunking websites consist of opinions, the same as CT websites.
There's no difference between the 2, as I said.

What are they?

Too many to mention.

Should I be open minded on the tooth fairy as well? Take a look at that link in my sig.

The problem is your understanding of logic, meglome.

You don't accept 9/11 could possibly have been an inside job, how exactly is that open minded?

It's like the question I put towards Kaiser earlier on that ignorant video he posted which you funnily enough use as your signature.

Explain the logic of "you're either for us or against us"

Can I abstain? do I really have to pick sides here?
Am I forbidden from accepting 2 possibilities or maybe even 3 or 4 as the answer?

Perhaps I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, why is that difficult for you to accept?

pablo_escobar

meglome wrote: »

I watched the events of 911 unfold on the day. In fact I watched the events on the internet and then live on TV within 30 minutes of the first plane hitting as a friend of mine was on the internet to a friend of his in NY and told me straight away. There's an official report and I'm saying I agree with it. The people making the claims about 911 need to back them up. See I'm not trying to prove there were explosions, the CT's are. All I'm trying to do is show there are logical reasons for explosions other than explosives.

Earlier you said you'd proved no explosives were used, based on the "coulda been.." answer.

That's not evidence or proof, just an opinion that deviates from 9/11 truther and CT sites.

meglome

pablo_escobar wrote: »

There are different types of logic.

No I'm pretty sure there isn't.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

I don't consider you to be a real sceptic.

skeptic: someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs

Conspiracy theories are not accepted beliefs.

Good that you know me so well... oh wait..

Some things in life are fairly self evident. I can't prove gravity exists but I'm pretty confident that if I jump out my window I will fall the three floors to the ground below. So I'm general sceptical of things that lack proof, doesn't mean I go around being an idiot.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

That's exactly my point.

Earlier you were trumpeting on having proved no explosives were used yet still unable to explain what exactly caused the "explosions"

The reality is it cannot be proven or unproven explosives were used.

Just because NIST uses the "Coulda been.." explanation still doesn't prove anything.

As I've said I'm not making claims as such. The NIST report is full of evidence and science and I believe it. No NIST were not gods and can only report using the best information available. You should probably look up how a court of law works though as you don't seem to know. All I'm doing here is putting forward other logical explanations for what the CT'ers are claiming. I only need to show alternatives, reasonable doubt if you will.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

He didn't lose money though, did he? he made money, but why bother with fact and instead try insinuate i have a prejudice against jewish people.

Well if you read the articles written before 911 and after it really doesn't look like he made money or was involved. Course they are on a 'debunker' site which your superior powers tell you are not worthy. Here's a link anyway. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

pablo_escobar wrote: »

So what caused the sounds of explosions?
Simply accept you don't know the answer.

Of course I don't know. However since there is no evidence of explosives I can surmise what the sounds were. Then again I'm not making any claims about explosives.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

From the top of my head, Paul Isaac
He claims there were bombs in the towers, an inside job.

Surely, it can't be that difficult for you to search this information yourself?
I'm not posting links for you, that's lazy of anyone who demands it on such a huge subject.

Yeah you're right I should. This Paul Isaac's?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7440129306993364432&pl=true#
From 6:48 to about 12:00.

Anyone else?

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Debunking websites offer no more than an alternative hypothesis to what CT sites offer, I see no difference in either because neither prove anything.

Although, you're under some delusion debunking websites offer the truth. :pac:

But the 'debunking' site are not making the claims, the people making the claims need to prove them not the other way around. The 'debunking' sites also believe the NIST reports and show the errors and lies in what the CT'ers are claiming.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

As i reviewed the words I predicted you'd answer me with this kind of drivel.

You should stop being so pedantic for a start, you know exactly what I meant.

Drivel? Pedantic? Either it can be proved the explosions were caused by explosives or it can't. The CT'er need to support their claims. There is no evidence for explosives. All the talk about explosions in the lobby and with one video it can be seen there was absolutely no explosion in the lobby - fact.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Lacks evidence? .. there are many inconsistencies well documented.
Strange you wouldn't know about them.

Oh with your superior knowledge you should be able to help me out?

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Debunking websites consist of opinions, the same as CT websites.
There's no difference between the 2, as I said.

Actually I gave you links to the pentagon attack, which have eye witness testimonies, pictures of the plane parts and other details. So not opinion at all, provable fact.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Too many to mention.

You'll go into these long posts but won't even mention one. O-k-a-y.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

The problem is your understanding of logic, meglome.

No I'm pretty confident my understanding of logic is fine. I understand that the people making claims should back them up. Simple really.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

You don't accept 9/11 could possibly have been an inside job, how exactly is that open minded?

You must have missed above where I said I didn't rule it out but there is no evidence. Innuendo and nit picking are not evidence of anything.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

It's like the question I put towards Kaiser earlier on that ignorant video he posted which you funnily enough use as your signature.

Why is the video ignorant. It logically explains that not believing in any auld shíte isn't closed minded.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Explain the logic of "you're either for us or against us"

Can I abstain? do I really have to pick sides here?
Am I forbidden from accepting 2 possibilities or maybe even 3 or 4 as the answer?

Not at all. But specific events either happened one way or another, logic dictates this. You claim you've not made up your mind but at the same time you don't appear to believe the NIST report. The people putting forward the alternatives to the NIST reports are mostly CT'ers so this would suggest you do have a side.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Perhaps I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, why is that difficult for you to accept?

It's not even slightly difficult for me to believe but I've asked you for specifics and you won't give me any.

pablo_escobar

No I'm pretty sure there isn't.

Maybe it was debris that sounded like an explosion when it hit the ground, maybe it was a bomb, maybe those people imagined hearing an explosion which was really just someone slamming a door. :P

Who really knows?

Some things in life are fairly self evident. I can't prove gravity exists but I'm pretty confident that if I jump out my window I will fall the three floors to the ground below. So I'm general sceptical of things that lack proof, doesn't mean I go around being an idiot.

People believe in the concept of love, does lacking scientific evidence mean it doesn't exist?

As I've said I'm not making claims as such. The NIST report is full of evidence and science and I believe it. No NIST were not gods and can only report using the best information available. You should probably look up how a court of law works though as you don't seem to know. All I'm doing here is putting forward other logical explanations for what the CT'ers are claiming. I only need to show alternatives, reasonable doubt if you will.

It's funny you mention court when it was actually a lawsuit which forced NIST to hand over 3TB of data used in their investigations they previously refused to release for analysis.

And before you predictably argue "that makes sense" - tell me with your own superior knowledge when they planned to release it.
I'm a little lost on that one..

Well if you read the articles written before 911 and after it really doesn't look like he made money or was involved. Course they are on a 'debunker' site which your superior powers tell you are not worthy. Here's a link anyway.

silverstein stands to make a huge profit from the damages of 9/11
he made a deal to lease the trade center for 99 years at a cost of $3.2 billion.

he was already awarded $4.1 billion for the insurance but is looking for a further $8.8 billion in damages with court date set for next year.

So while he probably has lost money, he stands to make a huge sum which dwarfs those losses if the court rules in his favour next year, i'm pretty sure they will.

in regards to the cost of rebuilding, arguing he will lose money..only a percentage of damages will go towards rebuilding the towers, the rest will come from liberty bonds.

for example, WTC 7, silverstein was awarded $800 million damages but only $450 million will go towards rebuilding the proposed $1.86 billion project.

the rest of the money will come from tax payers...he hasn't lost anything, he's gained.

I'm not saying he was involved, but he stands to make a lot of money should the court rule in his favour next year.

Yeah you're right I should. This Paul Isaac's?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...64432&pl=true#
From 6:48 to about 12:00.

Anyone else?

I fail to see the significance of this video clip but I knew you'd lift it straight off some crap debunking blog or website.

All he says in the video is that the authors of loose change are being disrespectful trying to promote their film during a time of memorial for the 347 FDNY workers who died that day.

He feels it's insensitive to the victims families accusing the government of being involved, that's all..nothing more.

He doesn't once say that he disagrees with the CT, just that their cause is hopeless.

What was I supposed to see exactly?

Drivel? Pedantic? Either it can be proved the explosions were caused by explosives or it can't. The CT'er need to support their claims. There is no evidence for explosives. All the talk about explosions in the lobby and with one video it can be seen there was absolutely no explosion in the lobby - fact.

I think you're stealing my argument now

I've already made it clear umpteen times it cannot be proven or unproven explosives were used on 9/11.

Many people said they heard "explosions" - that's all we know.
If you argue there were no explosives used, prove it.

King Mob

pablo_escobar wrote: »

I've already made it clear umpteen times it cannot be proven or unproven explosives were used on 9/11.

Many people said they heard "explosions" - that's all we know.
If you argue there were no explosives used, prove it.

And you give out to meglome for "not understanding logic".

You see his argument (which would also be my argument) is that there is no evidence for explosives.
Your counter argument is "explosives are the only explanation for what the witnesses report."
So all meglome has to do to counter that is show another viable explanation.
Which he has done.

So now we are left with two explanations: demolition explosives or random things blowing up due to fire etc.
We know for a fact that there was plenty of stuff in the building that would explode if it was burned, tranformers etc.
However there is nothing at all to show that there where any explosives any where in the building or as you put it: "it cannot be proven or unproven explosives were used on 9/11."

So one explanation has evidence supporting it, one does not.
The logic would be pretty clear here.

Oh and also the pattern of explosion in not consistent with the pattern seen at real demolitions.

Sunnyisland

A senior member of the Australian trade union movement has come under fire after he claimed that the terrorist attacks on Sept 11, 2001 were part of an American conspiracy.

Kevin Bracken, who is the Victorian secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia and president of the Victorian Trades Hall Council, called in to talkback radio in Melbourne to say that "the official story doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny".

His call was prompted by an ongoing debate in the Australian parliament over the war in Afghanistan.

Mr Bracken told ABC Radio 774 that Australia should instead hold an inquiry into the events of 9/11, claiming that elements of the former Bush administration, US military and security services were involved in the attacks and that the motive was related to a large insurance policy that had been taken out on the Twin Towers.

"There are so many unanswered questions," he said.

"The fact is that aviation fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steel and no high rise steel frame building before or after September 11 has ever collapsed due to fire.

"I stick to scientific facts. In my mind the buildings were imploded."

Mr Bracken has expressed similar views in the past. In 2006 he told The Australian newspaper that the attacks were only effective because the American government was in some way involved.

Jon Faine, the radio programme's host, was so surprised by the call that he initially asked if it was a hoax, before telling Mr Bracken that the views were "so absurd and so ridiculous".

Mr Bracken went on to suggest that the men debate on "what really happened on 9/11", but Mr Faine said it would be like "having a debate on whether the earth was flat and said that it was "a nutter theory".

His reaction was echoed by Julia Gillard, the prime minister, who said that Mr Bracken's statements were "obviously stupid and wrong".

The opposition has since called on Ms Gillard, whose party has close links to the unions, to take disciplinary action against Mr Bracken.

Union leaders have distanced themselves from the controversial remarks, saying that they reflect the opinions of Mr Bracken alone.

- Bonnie Malkin

seannash

realies wrote: »

"There are so many unanswered questions," he said.

"The fact is that aviation fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steel and no high rise steel frame building before or after September 11 has ever collapsed due to fire.

I seriously cannot take anyone serious that still makes the melted steel claim.

This is not the reason it fell and anyone who states that aviation fuel cant melt steel as a reason it didnt fall has not done there homework,no matter who they are.

Also there have been numerous steel framed buildings that have collapsed from fire before 9/11 as has been documented before in this thread

pablo_escobar

King Mob wrote: »

And you give out to meglome for "not understanding logic".

You see his argument (which would also be my argument) is that there is no evidence for explosives.
Your counter argument is "explosives are the only explanation for what the witnesses report."
So all meglome has to do to counter that is show another viable explanation.
Which he has done.

No.

Clearly I have pointed out and i'll do it again for your benefit.

Nobody knows what caused the sound of those "explosions" therefore you cannot assert no explosives were used.

I'm not using any linguistic trickery here, either you know what caused the sounds or you don't.

So do you know? no, you don't. Neither do I, nobody does.

So now we are left with two explanations: demolition explosives or random things blowing up due to fire etc.
We know for a fact that there was plenty of stuff in the building that would explode if it was burned, tranformers etc.
However there is nothing at all to show that there where any explosives any where in the building or as you put it: "it cannot be proven or unproven explosives were used on 9/11."

what is there to prove there were no explosives?

So one explanation has evidence supporting it, one does not.
The logic would be pretty clear here.

Oh and also the pattern of explosion in not consistent with the pattern seen at real demolitions.

What is your evidence? your own opinion?

Speculation is not evidence i'm afraid, King Mob.

King Mob

pablo_escobar wrote: »

No.

Clearly I have pointed out and i'll do it again for your benefit.

Nobody knows what caused the sound of those "explosions" therefore you cannot assert no explosives were used.

I'm not using any linguistic trickery here, either you know what caused the sounds or you don't.

So do you know? no, you don't. Neither do I, nobody does.

I don't "know" but we can determine what is a more likely explanation based on the evidence available.
That's kinda how all knowable knowledge works.

So what do you think is the most likely explanation for the explosions and what evidence leads you to this?

pablo_escobar wrote: »

what is there to prove there were no explosives?

And again the irony that you accused Meglome of not understanding logic....

To illustrate your mistake, why don't you explain why you don't have to (and can't) prove it wasn't electrical transformers.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

What is your evidence? your own opinion?

What evidence do I need to supply exactly?
That there where normal random things like electrical transformers in the building?
That these things blow up when they are on fire?

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Speculation is not evidence i'm afraid, King Mob.

No it's not, when did I claim it was? When did I try to pass off speculation for evidence?

pablo_escobar

King Mob wrote: »

I don't "know" but we can determine what is a more likely explanation based on the evidence available.
That's kinda how all knowable knowledge works.

So what do you think is the most likely explanation for the explosions and what evidence leads you to this?

I don't know what caused the explosions and i've no evidence to be right or wrong.

I'm open to the idea 9/11 was an inside job because many people have made a lot of money from the event.

Other than this, I don't know and neither do you yet you try argue it wasn't explosives when you can't assert what it was.... just guess.

And again the irony that you accused Meglome of not understanding logic....

Really? why? because i don't accept your opinions? who's "open minded" now?

You are arguing that your opinions are evidence, would you allow a CT person to use their opinion as evidence? :pac:

To illustrate your mistake, why don't you explain why you don't have to (and can't) prove it wasn't electrical transformers.

i have only argued that nobody knows what caused the explosions, you are arguing it was transformers based on your opinion.

Fact: You don't know.Get over it.

What evidence do I need to supply exactly?
That there where normal random things like electrical transformers in the building?
That these things blow up when they are on fire?

So the plane crashed into the bottom of the building? or how did the fire in the bottom of the building start? please explain.

Eye witness testimonies said they heard explosions in the basement, so how did the fires start there?

Not guesswork mind you, we need scientific evidence to show how they started.

No it's not, when did I claim it was? When did I try to pass off speculation for evidence?

You just have, again and i've no doubt you'll do it again in your next post.

Just accept that not everything in life is absolute.
You do not have all the answers.

King Mob

pablo_escobar wrote: »

I don't know what caused the explosions and i've no evidence to be right or wrong.

I'm open to the idea 9/11 was an inside job because many people have made a lot of money from the event.

Other than this, I don't know and neither do you yet you try argue it wasn't explosives when you can't assert what it was.... just guess.

And notice how you didn't answer the question at all.

My argument is, based on the available evidence that there are other, more likely explanations than explosives.

Now which explanation is more likely? Or do you consider them both equally as likely?

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Really? why? because i don't accept your opinions? who's "open minded" now?

You are arguing that your opinions are evidence, would you allow a CT person to use their opinion as evidence? :pac:
i have only argued that nobody knows what caused the explosions, you are arguing it was transformers based on your opinion.

Fact: You don't know.Get over it.

No because you've made a very silly logical mistake.
One you can't even actually point out. When it's used against you...

pablo_escobar wrote: »

So the plane crashed into the bottom of the building? or how did the fire in the bottom of the building start? please explain.

Eye witness testimonies said they heard explosions in the basement, so how did the fires start there?

Not guesswork mind you, we need scientific evidence to show how they started.

I can offer you explanation that are much much more likely as they are actually supported by evidence.

How exactly do you explain it, if you're not asserting that there where explosives?

pablo_escobar wrote: »

You just have, again and i've no doubt you'll do it again in your next post.

So it's clear you don't understand what opinion actually is...

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Just accept that not everything in life is absolute.
You do not have all the answers.

Thanks for the irrelevant and largely silly philosophy lesson.

pablo_escobar

We could continue this conversation all night I suspect.

The conclusion which has been clear for some time now is that nobody knows what caused those explosions.

Feel free to speculate more and pass your opinion off as "evidence"

I'm only repeating myself so i've nothing else to add.

King Mob

pablo_escobar wrote: »

We could continue this conversation all night I suspect.

The conclusion which has been clear for some time now is that nobody knows what caused those explosions.

Feel free to speculate more and pass your opinion off as "evidence"

I'm only repeating myself so i've nothing else to add.

Again it's very clear you don't actually understand what opinion is.

The simple facts are there are two explanations are being put forward.
One requires explosives to be present. Another requires the presence of the usual stuff you find in a building.
We know that there is the usual stuff you find in a building present.
There is not a jot of evidence for the presence of explosives.

So it's not opinion that one explanation is more likely than the other...
But if you can dismiss it as opinion, I suppose it's much easier than actually facing facts.

meglome

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Maybe it was debris that sounded like an explosion when it hit the ground, maybe it was a bomb, maybe those people imagined hearing an explosion which was really just someone slamming a door. :P

Of course it could have been a lot of things they heard. However explosives will leave evidence behind, specific damage to steel and residue of the particular explosive. No evidence was found for this, none. We know there were things in the buildings that would explode if burned, we know the sounds of the planes hitting and debris falling would sound like an explosion. So what's the most likely explanation.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

People believe in the concept of love, does lacking scientific evidence mean it doesn't exist?

So was it a magic unicorn that knocked down the towers? I can't prove they exist either though.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

It's funny you mention court when it was actually a lawsuit which forced NIST to hand over 3TB of data used in their investigations they previously refused to release for analysis.

And before you predictably argue "that makes sense" - tell me with your own superior knowledge when they planned to release it.
I'm a little lost on that one.

So all the people making the claims need to do is show it's odd that the data wasn't handed over sooner. Although since they handed over the data I'm not really seeing the big problem.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

silverstein stands to make a huge profit from the damages of 9/11
he made a deal to lease the trade center for 99 years at a cost of $3.2 billion.

he was already awarded $4.1 billion for the insurance but is looking for a further $8.8 billion in damages with court date set for next year.

So while he probably has lost money, he stands to make a huge sum which dwarfs those losses if the court rules in his favour next year, i'm pretty sure they will.

in regards to the cost of rebuilding, arguing he will lose money..only a percentage of damages will go towards rebuilding the towers, the rest will come from liberty bonds.

for example, WTC 7, silverstein was awarded $800 million damages but only $450 million will go towards rebuilding the proposed $1.86 billion project.

the rest of the money will come from tax payers...he hasn't lost anything, he's gained.

I'm not saying he was involved, but he stands to make a lot of money should the court rule in his favour next year.

He might make some money eventually. But it's been ten years so far, ten years of grief, tens years of losses. And if you look at the articles I linked he didn't want to take out terrorism insurance, and when he was forced to take it out he tried to get a lower amount. Not the actions of a man that was in on it.

pablo_escobar wrote: »

I fail to see the significance of this video clip but I knew you'd lift it straight off some crap debunking blog or website.

All he says in the video is that the authors of loose change are being disrespectful trying to promote their film during a time of memorial for the 347 FDNY workers who died that day.

He feels it's insensitive to the victims families accusing the government of being involved, that's all..nothing more.

He doesn't once say that he disagrees with the CT, just that their cause is hopeless.

What was I supposed to see exactly?.

To be fair I did the CT'er distraction technique there. His views seem in some debate on the net so I'm not sure what he actually believes. Certainly didn't seem to like the Losses Change guys.

Maybe you can give me another NYFD guy?

pablo_escobar wrote: »

I think you're stealing my argument now

I've already made it clear umpteen times it cannot be proven or unproven explosives were used on 9/11.

Many people said they heard "explosions" - that's all we know.
If you argue there were no explosives used, prove it.

I keep trying to explain this to you I'm not making claims. All I'm doing is putting forward other explanations for other people's claims. That's all I need to do. No evidence of explosives... lots of things which can explode or sound like an explosion. Very very simple.

The video that was posted to prove an explosion in the lobby clearly shows there wasn't, even though the fire-fighter says "the glass was blown out". So he's mistaken, no doubt about it. Course I'm not taking the confused eyewitness reports on a confused day as gospel.