Because his goal is not substantive discussion, back and forth, but rather his goal is to stir the pot?
Just trying to figure out why the "planners" would risk detection by planting roadway light poles. Just trying to figure out why the "planners" would risk detection by planting a cab that was not hit by light poles Just trying to figure out why the "planners" would risk a cab driver spilling the beans about the conspiracy. That you guys have no answers is very telling. Your incredibly lame answer of it being "theatrics" is the only answer so far. Scott just links to another link somewhere in the ether. He's too scared to simply type out his answer because it's probably dumber than yours (if possible). If that is "stirring the pot"--asking you to explain this gaping hole in your story...sorry.
All the light poles on the asphalt proves, without independent and public investigation which is not an option, is that light poles are on the asphalt and in that windshield of the taxi/limo. Without much more facts and evidence, they prove nothing else. Given that AA77 did not strike the pentagon, that no airliner struck the building, the light poles prove nothing except their own existence. Given that the FBI quickly confiscated any and all video cameras from the surrounding area, the FBI was hiding something. Given the record of deception by the pentagon at the 911 Commission, the pentagon was hiding something, and/or was very confused about what really happened that day. Who gives a damn about the light poles? I don't.
It's not about the light poles, it's about a poster trying his damnedest to derail the thread (i.e. troll). There is another thread all about the Pentagon yet he insists on posting in this thread asking everyone questions who question or contradict the OCT.
So there were no reports of light poles being out/down before AA77 hit the Pentagon, no reports of a cab with a smashed in windshield until AA77 slammed into the Pentagon...and no large generator on fire outside of the Pentagon before hand. That there were no reports is evidence in and of itself. Surely such spectacular occurences as a cab with a windshield being smashed in and light poles being staged on roadways and in medians would be reported--much less the fire outside the Pentagon. If the 9/11 Commission were claiming it was a missile, you wouldn't point out that a missile cannot take down 5 light poles that were not in a straight line???? BS. But AA77 did strike the Pentagon. Witnesses saw it. Air traffic controllers tracked it into the Pentagon Passenger DNA was found at the Pentagon The traffic light poles prove it was an aircraft since the wings of a plane were quite obviously what could have taken down the traffic light poles on either side of the highway. Speculation. There is no record of deception. Since they pop a missile-sized gaping hole in your argument...you should. Now, go back to the drawing board and try again.
So anyway, an OCT QUESTION or more. NIST claims the fire at WTC7 was started by burning debris from the collapse of WTC1. There is no supporting evidence that this is true. There are no known videos or clear photos that I'm aware of that clearly show that to be true. Furthermore, no fire was noticed at WTC7 until at least one hour after the collapse of WTC1. WTC7 was sandwiched between the Verizon and Post Office buildings, neither of which caught fire or collapsed despite being pelted by debris as well. There was no arson investigation for WTC7, among many other official failures. In any case that alone makes NIST's WTC7 fire claims not credible. But that's only scratching the surface of the OCT claims. So the OCT question is: If NIST's investigation was a fraud (see http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html ) and NIST's official publications comprise a major portion of the OCT, then the entirety of the OCT is in question. Another major portion of the OCT is the 9/11 Commission Report. It is discussed initially at the first post in thread. The NIST reports and the 9/11 together comprise the heart and the majority of the OCT. The remaining portion (I guess the "brains") is the official and MSM propaganda supported by these two entities and their official publications.
There are many elements to the OCT, and not a single one is true. Those attempting to defend it, OCT apologists, really have nothing to work with but their own cognitive dissonance and/or complete ignorance of the details.
I'm not so sure that's true, even though I'm hard pressed to find what is not questionable about the OCT. In most cases propaganda is not all lies, it's usually a mixture of some truth liberally sprinkled with lies, deceptions, disinformation and omissions. "Withholding information is the essence of tyranny. Control of the flow of information is the tool of the dictatorship." - Bruce Coville "Sins of omission are more dangerous than lies." - George Orwell "Whoever controls the media, controls the mind." - Jim Morrison "The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it." - John F. Kennedy "There is approximately 570 cubic feet of textual records. A large percentage of the Commission's records are national security classified files." - 9/11 Commission Most regular posters in this section of the forum are not ignorant of the details because there are a tremendous amount of factual/verifiable details posted here that contradict or question the OCT. They just choose only those details that lend support to the OCT and make all sorts of excuses for those details that contradict/question it. For example, "explosions don't necessarily mean explosives", "it was really molten aluminum" or "pull IT means pull the firefighters out of the building".
Very few questions concerning the OCT ... I thought NIST was a bit sloppy but the preponderance shows that the "OCT" is exactly what happened ... not a single piece of physical evidence contradicting the "OTC" ... no witnesses of planted material or explosive residue ... whistle blowers? ... pffft ... at best, the amateurs enforce LIHOP which is circumstantial and dubious considering the sources ...
You failed to state what any those "few" questions are about NIST (I presume) and the rest of your post is off topic. If in your opinion NIST was "a bit sloppy" then their conclusion is not scientifically valid. There is no room for sloppiness in a scientific investigation, especially not for an event such as 9/11. Anything inaccurate invalidates any result. In my profession it's called GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out). If my systems analysis and/or programming was "sloppy" for any commercial application I was involved with and even one line of code was incorrect and I submitted it as complete, it could potentially cost $millions if put into production and I would be fired. In engineering sloppiness could cost lives. In NIST's case, the evidence that they committed outright fraud (not just "sloppiness") is overwhelming: http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html Characterizing how NIST conducted their "investigation" as "sloppy" is IMO simplistic, disingenuous and cowardly.
The topic is not about questioning me or anyone else, why is that so difficult for you? I had nothing to do with 9/11 or the aftermath. There is plenty of evidence, it's pretty clear to me, NIST is a fraud, so is the 9/11 Commission, that's not even debatable IMO. Neither are credible. I use the present tense because they are both still responsible for the OCT, that will never change. You used the term "sloppy" so you're obviously defending NIST, that term does come within sniffing distance for me. What really happened on 9/11 is not in either the 9/11 Commission Report or the NIST reports. That's why this thread exists, to question the OCT, not to question me or anyone else. You have still failed to provide one single question about the OCT in this thread. Are you that scared to ask one significant question?
I think the 9/11 truthers are ignorant of the simple fact that humankind doesn't know every law of the universe yet. Wikipedia has a whole page devoted to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics Simply put; there are things the scientific community simply does not know. For 9/11, we have two jumbo jets being intentionally steered into two buildings. That by itself is incredibly rare since almost all crashes have happened when the pilot was trying to avoid crashing. So the fate of an airplane actively trying to destroy something using its mass as a weapon is an unknown phenom. Then you consider how much gas was in the tanks; what percent blew up. How much of a fire was started and on what floors? I imagine the impact of the plane alone was enough to move cars out of their parking spots--wasn't there but I have seen explosions that have done that to cars that were not too close to it. Then you have two of these events. On top of that, then you have not one but two buildings collapse on top of WTC7 not to mention the unique put together of WTC7. Sloppiness is one way to put it. I think it is more accurate to call it incomplete simply because there some things that cannot be explained with current knowledge.
I have no significant questions except for the financing (which was obviously Muslim ... remember those 28 redacted pages you finally got Bob?) ... it's pretty obvious to the sane people of the world what happened that day ...
The 28 pages are part of the OCT and were "classified" for years just like a huge portion of the OCT still is that no one has any clue about, including you. So what "significant" questions do you have about the financing? You have yet to post one significant question. Yeah a good part of lower Manhattan was destroyed and blanketed with toxic dust and a chunk of the Pentagon was destroyed. There are the official reports that were published based on fraudulent "investigations", the mountain of evidence/documents that are still "classified" that no one has any clue what's contained in them and the destroyed evidence. The only thing obvious to "sane people" is the coverup. Beyond that, what could possibly be "obvious" as to what happened that day? The OCT is far from obvious, that's obvious to the "sane people of the world" and this thread wouldn't exist if the entirety of 9/11 was "obvious", that's also obvious. Furthermore, if you have questions about what was hidden for years, why would you have no significant questions about the reams of documents/evidence that are still being hidden?
The "OCT" is very obvious Bob ... not a single shred of physical evidence suggesting otherwise ... but please continue ... you're very entertaining ...
Repeating yourself is still not a question. You claim you have questions about the financing but you haven't posted one. Are you terrified of asking even one question? Again, this thread is NOT about me, stick to the topic.
From a prior post you said it was "obviously Muslim", so what exactly are you asking? What makes you believe it was "Muslim" (I'm assuming you believe it was only Muslim)? Off topic and irrelevant.
you were clamoring for your 28 redacted pages ... you got them ... deal with it or pull another rabbit out of the hat ...
One more time, this thread is NOT about me no matter how much you want to try to make it about me. The above also doesn't answer my question. I'll try again even though I'm sure it's a waste of time trying to have an adult discussion with you where you actually stick to the subject:
You seem to be trying to bury the evidence so we have to keep linking to it to thwart you. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=489503&p=1066947142#post1066947142 If you want to discuss some of it, let's go to an appropriate thread.
I found an appropriate quote from someone far brighter than you or I. The difference is I've been fully aware of the point for decades before 9/11. "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted in important matters." - Albert Einstein
