What Truthers Believe

Discussion in '9/11' started by Shinebox, May 4, 2018.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Considering there was hundreds of tons of material in a huge pile, far wider than 600 feet, there is nothing special about that one anyways.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2018
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it didn't HAVE TO BE, it could have been UFOs or gremlins or pixie dust or some jerk that carried multiple 4 ton debris on his back and placed it 600 feet away just to confuse everyone. Or it could have been planes, damage, fire or a combination plus gravity. Or it could have been ??? (take your best guess Gamo, I'm still waiting for one from you that you're so terrified to guess at). Then again, there are well over 100 (I think at least 150+) credible eyewitness claims of seeing, hearing, feeling and being injured by EXPLOSIONS. And as already well documented, NO INVESTIGATION for any of these or any official record of even interviewing any of these eyewitnesses by either the 9/11 Commission or NIST (the primary source for the OCT).

    Nope, I don't have one handy that would identify a specific piece and its exact location. Perhaps YOU could use Google to find such a photo yourself not that you're really interested. I can readily point to these documented claims and photos though (they're not mine, I didn't invent any of these):

    http://www.911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Debris_Field_Distribution
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  3. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, as usual,

    You have nothing.
     
  4. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So why are your 150 eyewitnesses credible, and the 150 at the Pentagon are not.
     
  5. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Do I really?!?

    Constructing the towers required digging down more than 60 feet to place the building on bedrock, consequently the towers had 6 basement levels. So I presume the debris from the towers fell onto many feet of gravel and dirt around the towers. This generated seismic vibrations that were detected miles away.

    https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/09/06/a-morning-that-shook-the-world/

    But it still only qualified as a minor quake and I don't see why it should have done structural damage to nearby buildings unless they were hit by the horizontal flying debris that struck some buildings.
     
  6. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have asked many times if the buildings were connected by tunnels.

    why is everyone afraid to answer.
     
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But you sure don't want to speak about it again, and you don't want to repeat what you claim to have spoken about before. You're bluffing, and thereby evading any efforts anybody else might make to engage in adult conversation.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Not from enough explosives to eject a 4 ton steel assembly 600 feet. Do you know how LOUD that would have to have been? Yet there is not one recording of an explosion that loud. You have absolutely no clue.
     
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Exactly. You just parrot the crap that agrees with your beliefs. You just admitted that you didn't even research it. You just believe there was a 4 ton steel assembly that was ejected at 600 feet.

    Your research isn't science based at all as has been shown.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course there is. The recording of the tower being blown apart was captured video and audio, not to mention at least one eyewitness claim that it sounded like a deafening freight train. Regardless, your point changes nothing about the 150+ eyewitness claims of explosions or the video evidence or the fact that multiple 4 ton structural components were discovered 600 ft distant and some embedded into adjacent buildings. NIST also denies explosions at WTC7 but the video evidence shows NIST is lying.



    At 1:37 and further.

    Besides 150+ documented accounts there are multiple videos of eyewitness claims of explosions. This is just one of these.



    Deny and pretend all you want, you don't matter, you are nobody, what really matters are the documented FACTS.

    Of course I admitted no such thing. If that were true I would have never mentioned it. I have no reason to lie and nothing to gain, and even less reason to prove anything to you. Nothing I post is for your benefit.

    Your opinion is as much trash as all your posts. The reality is YOU do know exactly everything I posted above is true as much as you try to deny and obfuscate the facts. You likely have done as much research as I have in order to try to contradict ALL the facts about 9/11 that bring into question or contradict the OCT. Your denying claims are irrelevant, you are not interesting in the least bit phony one.

    I never said it was, I've written not one peer reviewed paper and have no intention of doing so. Much of the analysis and papers I post is science based however. The OCT that you defend 24/7 is certainly not science based, it's a proven criminal fraud. And there is not one thing you post that's science based so your hypocrisy is noted. You have yet to even post a guess of how multiple 4 ton structures got to 600 feet from the towers. Why are so scared to post your best guess? It's just a guess, not science.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
  11. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    quit playing your troofer games E ... I am more than willing to talk about this issue but you are not ... when are you going to address this honestly? ... I want to talk about the lateral forces when the buildings hit the ground ... psikey has already said that seismic forces were detected miles away ... is this not proof of energy expanding laterally? ...

    please be reminded that this has nothing to do with objects being ejected during the collapse but rather the last seconds of the collapse when the mass of the towers hit the ground ... where did that energy go E? ... according to the seismic events, it had to go lateral through the ground ... why do you struggle with a very simple physics event? ...
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why? I have yet to hear the "logic" behind this pretend curiosity of yours. But of course you refuse to talk about the lateral forces of WTC1 and WTC2 from the point the building first destroyed itself to the time it completed its self destruction. That would entail genuine curiosity. NIST agrees with you, no investigation required, it was "inevitable".
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2018
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't understand seismic events and how they are recorded. Gordon Ross and Craig Furlong showed years ago how the seismic record works to contradict the official story.

    There are a few things you don't understand, but that is often the hallmark of a person still under the spell of mainstream media.

    The comical part is that it took you all these posts to finally get out "I want to talk about the lateral forces when the building hit the ground." It took you days to be able to formulate that thought. LOL Though dishonest, you are a funny poster.
     
  14. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the comical part is you are not figuring in the upward pressure, not even mentioning it, as though it does not exist.
     
  15. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was very clear from the beginning but you have no desire to discuss it so you keep dodging to avoid the subject ... I don't suppose you have a link to this Ross and Furlong thing? ...

    psikey showed a post with evidence of seismic events being recorded miles away ... were those events recorded in the ground or in the air? ... be honest and answer a direct question for once in your life ...
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's more on the 4 ton ejections for those interested in the subject:



    And an image that IMO is unclear:

    [​IMG]

    To be fair, the argument that it wasn't caused by explosions can be found here:

    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-wtc-multi-ton-steel-sections-ejected-laterally.t1739/

    Although Gamo refuses to post his best guess as to how it might have happened (and even denies it happened), the opposing theory (in summary) is that forces (gravity + interaction between the falling debris) caused these structures to "bounce" up to 600 feet away and perhaps even impale themselves into adjacent buildings. But the problem with this theory (among many) is that it's only a theory and it's one used as a pretense that it's fact and should automatically discount any notion that explosives might have been the cause. Worse is that it is used as a pretext to dismiss the fact that there was no legitimate investigation into 9/11 that should have of course investigated for explosions and incendiaries.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2018
  17. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bob, you don't even look at what you are posting sometimes ... it says right in the picture Single Pressure Wave ... do you know what causes that? ...
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually it's YOU who fails to read what I post:

    Right above the photo. It's not up to me to interpret the photo for the readers, it is strictly up to the individual, for the same reason I posted a link to another discussion/theory that serves to defend the OCT. What I personally endorse is strictly up to me, no one else. The same is true for everyone else, including YOU. Get it yet Shiner?
     
  19. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    but you don't want to discuss pressure waves Bobby ... you want to go with the narrow minded gravity + falling debris nonsense ... you do know that gravity with mass will cause pressure waves right Bobby? ... so let's discuss that ... shall we? ..

    or shall we go back to you and your youtube videos and me defending the OCT 24/7? ...
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep, so do explosions.

    Why?

    You can do as you please and I have the same prerogative.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2018
  21. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    because you are afraid of real science Bobby ... now go crawl back under a rock until you are ready to discuss science ... tired of playing your silly troofer games ...
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not only is that false, it's not even an answer.

    That's exactly what I mean about assessing another poster's level of intellect. The above is only one but it is a perfect example (there are so many more) of why I've assessed yours as barely adequate. It's certainly not the level of intellect one would expect of someone who claims to be an engineer. It's also why that "engineer" claim of yours has no credibility.

    There are literally hundreds of posts I've written where I've encouraged other posters to discuss 9/11 issues on a technical/scientific basis. For example, Dr. Hulsey's preliminary report that you and other OCT defenders have so far refused to discuss. The excuse has generally been that you're waiting for the final report, as if that's a valid excuse. Another more recent example is when I tried to discuss the Coste videos with you and you only wanted to discuss some selective issues and avoid others. And even more recently when I wanted to discuss your "concern" about energy that went "lateral". You never explained why it matters to you (aside from the fact that NIST never touched on it) and you only wanted to limit the discussion to the "foundation" of the building when it really applies much more to the actual destruction of the building. You even tried to change the subject to WTC7 when your initial post was a clear reference to the twin towers. So it's really YOU who's afraid of real science.

    So again, why do you want to discuss "pressure waves" with me and in what context? Is this such a difficult question for you to answer that you need to post such drivel?
     
  23. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what a crock Bob ... you had already formed your opinion on the Coste vids by chapter 1 ...

    and i asked a very simple question for which you still refuse to answer ... where did the energy go when the buildings slammed into the ground? ...

    the Hulsey prelim report is only speculation ... I want to see the full report ...
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again you're posting false **** about me that you want to believe. What is true is that much of the first of videos agree with what I had already assessed well before I ever knew these videos existed. I also had my own personal opinion about the Pentagon as well prior to viewing these videos. This is made clear in the very post I wrote to create the thread The Pentagon on 9/11. If I wanted to stop there I would have done so and never watched the remaining videos or even posted the links to them to dishonestly avoid discussion. Once I viewed ALL the videos, my opinion did change with respect to being more inclined to believe a large airliner did crash into the Pentagon on 9/11. That however did not change many other opinions I held. I posted the link to those videos exactly for the purpose of having a genuine and honest discussion about them with whoever wanted to discuss them in that manner, something YOU refuse to do.

    In fact it's YOU who still refuses to answer MY question. Why does it matter to YOU and in what context do you want to discuss this with me? Why is the question such a stumbling block for you? Are you that terrified to answer?

    Having said that, it may be a simple question to you but the answer is not that simple, it requires a thorough forensic investigation, not guessing and not an answer I can readily provide to you. IMO most of the energy that destroyed the building was exhausted by the time the destructive wave reached the bottom of the building. So you were correct when you inadvertently blurted that you believe the energy went lateral. I told you I agree with that and the video evidence and the physical evidence fully supports that. But again, that's strictly my opinion and not necessarily fact.

    That's completely false. The report was formulated following a tremendous amount of detailed technical research (as well explained by Hulsey) and uses the NIST report and data as its focal base. Although Hulsey admits he doesn't know why NIST did what they did and didn't do what they were supposed to do (he refuses to speculate), he does use their data and their conclusion to arrive at his own conclusions using 2 computer programs to cross check the analyses.

    You keep saying that and I do as well but that's a BS excuse (a copout) used for your refusal to discuss the details of the preliminary report. This is not legitimate reasoning on your part.
     
  25. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are afraid of "explaining" how gravitational forces moved massive pieces laterally. :applause:
     
    Bob0627 likes this.

Share This Page