9 11 John Kerry Admits that WTC7 Was Brought Down By Controlled Demolition!

Discussion in '9/11' started by Eadora, Nov 20, 2015.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Circular logic, I say Santa is real, if you don't believe it YOU have the burden of proof.

    I never said anything about planted, pay attention. Non sequitur.

    I don't have a "story", the US government does, they claim it was AA77. No proof exists that it was AA77 to my knowledge, the burden of proof lies with the US government. No eyewitnesses have proved or can prove it was AA77 that crashed into the Pentagon. None of them have the capacity to do so, none are trained in forensic airline crash investigations. No parts were ever identified as parts from AA77.

    Yet another non sequitur, this is strictly about proving it was AA77.

    Still more nonsense and non sequiturs, the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the claimant. My ONLY point is that the US government has never forensically identified any of the parts as belonging to any of the 4 alleged planes. If you know of any legitimate document that matched the alleged parts found via their serial numbers to the exact claimed flights and was verified, please provide it and I'll be satisfied

    I don't need to do any such thing. You have no clue how this works. Try that in a court of law and the judge will silence you in 2 seconds and tell you to go back to law school.

    Same repetitive nonsense.
     
  2. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's not how it works and you know it. Please stop with the silly stuff ok? You still have the burden and you can't weasel out of it.

    Not if you note the first word 'if'. This is just a game because if you don't believe they are authentic as you seem to evince, then they must have been put there. Revise simple logic and enough with the games already.

    And not just the US government, let's not forget that point ( I know it's fashionable to hate on 'da' gubmint', but as you know, it has gone well beyond the US government despite your myopia). Let me rephrase it for you then, what do you believe if you don't believe AA77 hit the Pentagon?

    So do the eyewitnesses; the insurance companies; the airlines and the manufacturers.

    You have set the standards way too high for anyone to able to prove this to you, so any further discussion is pointless. Why don't 9/11 truth apply the same impossible standards to themselves? Hypocrisy?


    And I was adding to the point. It is not a non-sequitur (revise fallacies).

    No non-sequiturs (please use these terms accurately) and no nonsense. If you don't believe the evidence then disprove it. Just braying and bleating on insignificant political sites that you 'don't believe it' is unproductive and unimaginative.


    Why do you dispute the evidence? If you want this have you lodged an FOIA request to the airlines? Note, you should try the airlines first and not bother with the government. I have already been in touch with Pratt & Whitney who were very helpful a few years back. Have you tried these avenues? It's not up to me to spoon feed truthers-if you don't know look, and if you can't find it, ask. Oh, I forgot, you have an irrational hatred of 'da Yooess gubmint', so we must forget everyone else.

    Yeah, you do. I know truthers are lazy but seriously? Get off your ass and do something.

    Yes, two degrees and one with honours makes me an idiot regarding academic processes. Please dispense with the stupid remarks, ok?

    This, and the public forum is not a court of law and don't confuse the two. You still have the burden of proof if you don't believe CJ's blog, and he owes you nothing as the information is readily accessible.

    Try again.

    Well stop posting stupid junk and I won't have to repeat myself to the uneducated. Simple.
     
  3. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I forgot to add the following, we KNOW Santa (Saint Nicholas) existed in mediaeval Anatolia, and we know that people don't live for centuries right?

    Therefore, Santa no longer exists. A given.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ad nauseum silliness, ignored.

    You brought it up for a reason (red herring time?), if or no if.

    The US government published an official story about 9/11, they own it. This is not about every other opinion out there, it's strictly about the OCT and in this case, AA77.

    It doesn't matter what I believe, what matters is what really hit the Pentagon. The US government claims it was AA77 and failed to provide indisputable evidence that would prove any of the alleged physical parts it claims it found are linked to AA77. It's not rocket science to match serial numbers to logs of parts that belong to a specific aircraft, it is one of the most basic procedural steps in any forensic airplane crash investigation. It's like in an autopsy, you first make sure you identify the physical body (fingerprints for example) and if you only have some body parts, DNA.

    Again, eyewitnesses do not have the capacity to identify the alleged physical crashed airplane as AA77 via its parts, neither do the insurance companies, the airlines (other than the investigative team) or the manufacturers (who must provide the parts logs to the investigative team). Only the forensic investigation team has that ability. Where is the EVIDENCE?

    The standards are not mine, they are standard forensic airplane crash investigation standards, stop trying to make this about me. I'm only questioning why this was not done, you're not and you're satisfied so move on. Nothing for you to see here.

    Ditto, this is NOT about anything other than the alleged identification of AA77.

    There is NO matching evidence. I can't disprove anything that has never been proven. Here we go again with nonsense.

    See above.

    This is information that if it exists, should have been made public. Did you check with the airlines? Did you file a FOIA petition? Did P&W provide you with the investigation results, specifically the parts matching list(s)? You don't care obviously and you're happy with whatever you were fed, so move on.

    Silliness and personal stuff ignored.

    It is a valid approach for a reason, because it is straightforward logic.

    One last time, CJ's blog is useless as it is based on a lie. There is nothing in it that proves anything about AA77 specifically. That's how this discussion started.

    Insulting garbage. Do it again and I will stop responding to your posts.
     
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,588
    Likes Received:
    2,324
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regarding any burden of proof, it is the official story that needs it, that lacks it, completely.

    The Pentagon changed its testimony in the Commission hearings like most folks change underwear. Credibility is ZERO
     
  6. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    the burden of proof is on you ... prove that something else happened ...
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,800
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep that's it, it's up to an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous discussion forum to not only come up with what really happened on 9/11 but to prove it. The US government doesn't have that burden, they can just claim what happened, no proof required, and "classify" the majority of it, it's nobody's business.
     
  9. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    yet you refuse to promote an alternate theory ...
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah and? Why do I need to "promote" an alternate theory? No one needs to do that to know the OCT is a massive fraud, not just because many aspects of the story are impossible but also because a cover-up exists by the government's own admission. It should be self explanatory to anyone with any amount of reasonable intelligence. Once one understands the OCT is a fraud, by definition it is untrue and that there an alternative that is true is the only possible alternative. The logic is as simple as it gets. Why do you need someone on the internet to prove it to you? You should have recognized that it's not for real a long time ago. Unless you have some kind of personal agenda to protect the OCT, you should be raising many questions. You never do, I only read posts from you that protect the OCT and always challenge those who don't believe it. You are not the topic though nor am I, 9/11 is the topic and more specifically, the OCT, ask some questions about that for a change. I'm much more interested in questions about the OCT than reading a defense of the OCT multiple times daily. Anyone can cite the OCT. Here it is:

    http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017
    http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

    There are also some intermediate official reports but the above is the heart of the OCT. Nothing about it has ever been revised since publication. NIST made some admissions about some "wrong" data (after the discovery by others) but NIST never corrected any of their reports to account for the corrected data. So the NIST report(s) with the faulty data remain OFFICIAL.

    The official report from the Senate Investigation on Torture plainly said that:

    1. Torture took place, despite Bush's claim that "we don't torture". Even Obama publicly claimed that "we tortured some folks". So who is LYING?
    2. That the many tortures yielded no useful intelligence. Of note is that the CIA deliberately destroyed the torture tapes despite demands that they be turned over to the court.

    Yet 25% of the 9/11 Commission Report's footnotes refers to information that comes from 3rd party accounts taken from those who were tortured. Some of it comes from a detainee who signed a "confession" obtained under torture that he wasn't allowed to read. The CIA never provided the 9/11 Commission with the torture tapes. Did anyone in the US government attempt to revise the 9/11 Commission Report as a result of the Senate Investigation on Torture's findings? The answer is NO, the 9/11 Commission Report was/is a fraud but it's still part of the OCT, the OFFICIAL story.

    There's so much more to the above but for any intelligent person not to recognize the massive fraud doesn't make any sense.
     
  11. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,588
    Likes Received:
    2,324
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you are unable to prove the official theory...
     
  12. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    there is plenty of evidence that backs the official "theory" which the truthers summarily dismiss ... you want to cherry pick small pieces and ignore the real evidence yet fail to provide the smoking gun evidence ... you promote nothing but lack of evidence, conjecture, biased confirmation and paranoia ...

    Let's start at the beginning yet again ... clear video proof that airliners hit 1 and 2 and the collapses started at the impact points .... looked nothing like controlled demo to any valid experts ...

    You can't with any credible proof explain this away ...

    None of you truthers can posit an alternate theory based on facts ... citing lack if evidence for the official story just doesn't cut ...

    The government lies ... no (*)(*)(*)(*) ... Tell me something I don't know ... I've lied about a blowjob too ...
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [video=youtube;WYh6OO61zdk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYh6OO61zdk[/video]

    [video=youtube;877gr6xtQIc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc[/video]

    Clearly you're not even an expert on valid CD experts. For bonus points though, please find me just one person who never saw the collapse of WTC7 before claim it looks like a collapse by fire upon seeing it for the first time. Or conversely, fail to recognize it as a controlled demolition.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh I forgot this:

    [video=youtube;05LRK-e3IDA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05LRK-e3IDA[/video]

    Yeah I'm sorry but Dan Rather is not a CD expert, he just says things that just about anyone would say that's so ****ing obvious.
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,588
    Likes Received:
    2,324
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course 2 airplanes hit the towers. I never suggested otherwise. The problem is that the 2nd one was NOT a United airliner, and it's highly probable that the first was not AA11. Yes airplanes hit the towers, but they were drones.
     
  16. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    really? ... evidence please ... I'm waiting ... this should be good ...
     
  17. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ad homs noted.

    You're being a jerk again. Please try to be more civil and focus upon the argument.

    So? You're missing the point by a mile, and I'm convinced you don't want to understand.

    So? Have you tried the airlines and manufacturers? Your whinging about 'da gubmint' is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dull.

    I couldn't have said it better.

    AA77 obviously, and you can't disprove it, so you need to use a fallacious argument in order to mask this failing.

    So, if the evidence is faulty, why do you think we heard nothing from American Airlines or Boeing? Your fixation with the gubmint is immaterial.


    Simple stuff. Before you get further bogged down in your irrational hatred, first you must consider the insurance payouts, the maintenance contracts, the Boeing contracts would not be fulfilled, the families of the victims etc.. your story is just silly beyond reason. I know you won't understand this and just scream 'Red Herring' or some such nonsense.

    *SIGH* Get back to me when you've started thinking. You are ignoring the empirical evidence in order to focus upon your hatred.

    *SIGH* Again you missed my point.

    Yep. Missed it by a mile. You're not really up to this are you?

    A lie. You don't know that.

    Here we go again with the evasions. Please try to raise the level of your responses a little.

    And?

    And there's that laziness again. As I mentioned earlier, I dealt with Pratt & Whitney on another canard. If you don't believe it, do the work. Lazy (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing on a forum is worthless, and I owe you nothing. Your final ad hom is just vapid.

    Laziness and puerility noted. Grow up Bob.

    Are we still discussing the burden of proof? If so, you have the burden to provide evidence to the contrary. CJ didn't make any outrageous claim, yet you do. The burden is yours.

    I know and you can't demonstrate your claim and that is why your opinion is worthless in this instance.

    As are all your response but hey, 9/11 truth and hypocrisy are concomitant.
    Please do, be my jest. :)
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We don't know what planes (or what kind of planes) hit the towers or what alleged planes hit the Pentagon or allegedly crashed at Shanksville because no legitimate forensic airline crash investigation ever took place. It would have been fairly easy to connect the parts found to the alleged planes by matching the serial numbers from the parts to the logs. This is as simple as it gets and a very basic step in any forensic airline crash investigation. We can only accept on faith that these alleged planes were AA11, AA77, UA175 and UA93 and the parts found were from those planes. If there was a switch (or planted parts), it would be quite easy to ascertain that the parts do not match. Failure to conduct such a standard investigation should raise red flags everywhere as is the failure to conduct any legitimate forensic investigation into 9/11 in general.

    So we can't really say it was highly probable that these were not the planes alleged by the US government, we simply don't know the facts and have no way to verify them. What we do know is that the US government did not conduct such investigations because as with everything else about 9/11, they covered it up. The evidence for the cover-up is massive, from the stonewalling to the fraudulent "investigations" to the deliberate destruction of key evidence to the pretentious classification of vast amounts of documents/data to the blatant lies by all sorts of officials all the way up the chain of command to the administration itself. We also know via FOIA that NIST committed scientific fraud by omitting key structural components in order to try to make its column 79 theory plausible. With those components included, their column 79 theory is rendered impossible. We only have NIST's word (via a spokesman) that any correction would not affect their theory. This is coming from the same entity that admitted that certain data was incorrect and that the components were missing from its "investigation". These components were in the WTC7 Frankel structural drawings that NIST had full access to and that were publicly released via FOIA request. NIST however, refused to actually redo its "investigation" with the correct data. It not only makes no scientific sense but no logical sense that the addition of these parts would have no effect.

    Cheney & Bush Asked Tom Daschle Not To Investigate 9/11 AT ALL

    (see at 3:30 & 7:50)

    [video=youtube;ePOIhhd9Jr0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePOIhhd9Jr0[/video]
     
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,588
    Likes Received:
    2,324
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To understand it, one must be willing to confront a most uncomfortable truth. I suspect you are not capable.
     
  20. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,588
    Likes Received:
    2,324
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bob

    We do know with certainty that the second airplane to strike the towers, the presumed UA175, was NOT that flight. We know that because the many photos of the airplane show fairings and other issues that were not on any airliner in service.

    There is a site called Pilots For 911 Truth, and I bet you have heard of it. They treat that matter there.

    No airliner at Shanksville, no airliner at the pentagon. If one needs a statement from Dick Cheney to that effect before it is considered "proved", well.....
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,163
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I'm fully aware of just about every 9/11 site out there, even the several self admitted "debunker" sites. I would not characterize that we know with certainty what that airplane was because science, logic and due process requires absolute verifiable proof. Absolute proof unfortunately is hard to come by. I'm aware of the "fairings" or whatever those extraneous parts may have been from photos. I'm also aware of the many disputable issues at Shanksville, then again, everything about the OCT is open to dispute. It doesn't mean anything can be classified with absolute certainty it only raises extreme doubt and we can characterize many (if not most) of these official claims as highly unlikely to impossible depending on the issue raised. IMO, it is highly unlikely those planes were the planes officially claimed. The number of issues, even if we ignore the fact that there was no attempt to match parts found to actual planes, are incredibly large.
     
  22. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,503
    Likes Received:
    3,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was present @ ground zero, NYC, World Trade Center on 9/11/01 participated in the rescue effort and recovery effort, and briefings etc....
    Anyone else on this forum participate with us then ?
     
  23. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have the burden of proof. Please stop with that mendacious tactic of trying to reverse the burden. Bob does it too and it is just fallacious.
     
  24. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obviously you cannot answer his question therefore you have to resort to this type of nonsense. Debating 9/11 truth on this site is so lowbrow.
     
  25. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bob knows Rob Balsamo from another site, and Bob has also watched his slaughter at the hands of a single video. It was beautiful to watch that drunken crop duster eat his own lies.
     

Share This Page