9-11 Truth Movement is dead

Discussion in '9/11' started by Ronstar, May 24, 2016.

  1. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All just accusation by innuendo and not proof. No-one has proved that the omissions would alter the outcome. The molten steel claims are stupid and prove nothing. Hell, you can't even prove your premise on that, and you can't do it here either with regard to fraud.

    Moronic rant noted. Yes, you've omitted where you need to prove intent. You've gone from step 1 to step 3 and that is fallacious.

    A outright lie.

    A stupid claim designed to reverse the BOP. 9/11 truth need to disprove the NIST report and dispense with the infantile attacks on the institution. Psst! There are those double standards again!

    False dichotomy therefore fallacious.

    CD is 'most likely'?????????????????????????????????? :roflol:

    Now you're getting it. Just saying there was a CD doesn't make it true. It's moronic and as dumb as no-planes, and like no-planes, there is no evidence for a CD. It's just a belief system held by members of the cult and not real.

    Argument from incredulity/ignorance fallacy.

    LOLOL, Oh the pain, the pain....LOLOL
     
  2. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    13,302
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I stay away from the 9-11 conspiracy theories threads, but since it is you who started this one. I make an exception. I stay away because it is all so fantasy land stuff. Then I might say something I shouldn't because I do not live in fantasy land or never never land. As an 8 year old I dreamed of flying away with Peter Pan, but then I got wiser and learned the difference between fantasy, fiction and reality.

    There are those who have to believe in fantasy. That about says it all.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Skipping the irrelevant.

    The technical discussion on the above is in the thread titled: The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    There are several videos that show how and why the omissions do not support NIST's column 79 collapse initiation theory, rendering it impossible as described by NIST. Regardless, omitting key structural components, even if somehow they don't alter the outcome, is fraudulent.

    There are numerous molten steel claims by eyewitnesses, one by an eyewitness that claims he saw "the melting of girders on 9/11" and another by Leslie Robertson. If to you all these claims are "stupid" and "prove nothing" then are you saying that these eyewitnesses are stupid? And if they "prove nothing", why do you suppose they made these claims, some looking like they were shocked by it?

    There's no lie, NIST admitted to their numerous errors in letters, see the aforementioned thread, it's incontrovertible. By failing to apply the correct data and revising their report/theory as a result (and as NIST also admits), NIST falsified data in order to concoct a theory based on fallacious data. There's no other way to characterize it that makes sense.

    It's actually quite valid, If the only known way to take down a building globally and in seconds is CD and no other known way exists, the burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise.

    That's 100% correct. That's why investigating for explosions, explosives and exotic accelerants is critical and required by NFPA fire investigation protocol (NFPA 921) in a terrorist attack with high order damage. That was never done as admitted to by NIST and is a fraudulent omission.
     
  4. fifthofnovember

    fifthofnovember Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,553
    Likes Received:
    854
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The reason the truth movement failed is that it began with the faulty assumption that the CIA does its own dirty work. Plausible deniability is much better served when you act through a proxy. Al Qaeda was that proxy. This is why we never held the Saudis responsible, and why we let the Bin Ladens fly out while you and I and the rest of the country was grounded; they were sanctioned. And now we are once again openly in league with Al Qaeda in Syria- and the government calls them "moderates". How moderate did they seem on 9/11?
     
  5. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Don't blame me - I voted for Kodos."

    Love it!
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    86,064
    Likes Received:
    19,359
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meh, believing in unfounded rumors leads you down weird paths.
     
  7. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The movement isn't dead, why else would there be such volume of discussion on not only this but many forums on the internet?
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hear that nonsense all the time from OCT defenders. Always trying to marginalize the millions of people who haven't bought the OCT. Recently, I heard that 50 architects signed the AE911T petition to investigate 9/11 on the first day of the AIA convention on May 21,2016. I have never heard of one single person retracting his/her signature from the petition.

    “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated” - Mark Twain
     
  9. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOLOL....Wow. Millions??????
     
  10. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That dumb sh*t just confirmed my views, and it has all been addressed previously. You have nothing to prove intent to defraud. :deadhorse:

    Irrelevant and you missed the point yet again.:roll: I've already demonstrated that you cannot prove your contention behind the molten steel, therefore the canard can be dismissed as junk. Please try to raise your response to my level.

    Fallacious. A false conclusion borne of confirmation bias. You cannot prove intent to defraud.

    That is a vapid response. Obviously, when a building is heavily damaged, and suffers fires that went unfought for seven hours, it can collapse. You are trying to limit the possibilities fallaciously in order to strengthen your point, but I always catch you out.

    NIST wasn't able to investigate the site and you know it. Why do you need to lie all the time? Your agenda is based upon lies that are obvious. Why are you trying to fool those who know the subject? This mendacity is so transparent, yet you have the temerity to produce it repeatedly. Why do you need to be dishonest to present your case?

    Is it because it is false? I suspect so.This is a lame attack and 9/11 only resort to such tactics because they cannot disprove the report-that much is blatantly obvious to all with an education.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, you're right, I'm being conservative, it's probably more like tens of millions in the US and hundreds of millions on the planet. Personally, I don't believe there are too many Muslims who bought the OCT, but I could be wrong. And you know of course the number of Muslims is in the billions. If you check any poll you like, in the US, the minority believe the OCT. But even if 50% believe the OCT, that means 160 million don't buy it. Take away the kiddies and the mentally incompetent and be generous with what you take away and that still leaves 80 million who don't buy it. But go to any 9/11 article, read the reader comments and you can see from the comments that the vast majority don't buy the OCT. Anyone can check for themselves, your feigned sarcasm doesn't help change the facts.
     
  12. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are also social pressures to prevent an accurate accounting,
    Some people in the middle of a social situation, if the subject of 9/11/2001 comes up, they take great effort to make sure they are not associated with the "tinfoil hats" .....
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Skipping the irrelevant, as usual. A lot of the below has already been addressed in the other thread.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    There's nothing irrelevant about the many molten steel eyewitness claims corroborating each other, especially since just the claims are unprecedented. I don't need to prove anything, the eyewitness claims speak for themselves. I didn't make any of it up, it's all documented. Whether YOU dismiss it as "junk" or not is what's irrelevant, it doesn't change the facts.

    I don't need to, this isn't a court of law, it's a discussion forum. The facts are being listed in the other thread, they're there for everyone to judge for themselves, as you judge for yourself. You don't see fraud? That's ok with me, I don't care.

    That may be insofar as your personal opinion, however, there is nothing "obvious" about that even if it's "possible" since it has never happened prior to or after 9/11 to any steel frame high rise. Some that have burned intensely for 3 times that length of time and with much more intensity, one that was damaged by multiple missiles on more than one occasion and caught fire as well. The Usce Tower was rebuilt and is currently in use.

    How convenient for NIST and your beliefs (if they really are that). Whether they were or weren't able to investigate the site doesn't change the fact that:

    1. NIST admitted they didn't investigate for explosives, explosive materials or accelerants. NIST also never described any interviews with any of the hundred+ documented eyewitness claims to have seen, heard, felt and/or were injured by explosions.

    2. NIST claimed they didn't have any physical evidence to work with but there's an infamous photo of John Gross standing on a mountain of evidence, smiling. He's holding a steel girder that looks corroded.

    DSCN0398_Iwankiw.jpg
     
  14. DoctorSmith

    DoctorSmith Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2016
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    There are people here on these forums who, no matter what smoking gun is presented, they will still insist that there is no evidence at all for anything even suspicious about 9/11. Have it your way guys, even if the secret police could by magic kill off every single "truther", could they kill the TRUTH?
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truth is absolute, it never changes. Lies change all the time.
     
  16. Object227

    Object227 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,772
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    The primary claims of the 9-11 Truthers I have seen is:
    1) The US Government used explosives to destroy the towers
    2) The US Government attacked their own Pentagon with a missile disguised as a Jet.

    I once suggested that if 9-11 is an inside job (I know it isn't by the way) then these claims would be circulated by the government itself. In other words the 9-11 truthers on this site who are spreading the demolition/no plane conspiracy theory would be dupes of the very government they think they are exposing.

    Here's what an actual inside job would have been:
    1) The US government recruited, financed and trained Arab (mostly Saudi) terrorists to hijack Jets and hit the towers and the Pentagon

    Again, I know this didn't happen but at least this type of conspiracy theory incorporates the known facts about the method of the attack and the people who executed that attack. Such a theory would have gained more traction.
     
  17. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    None of that BS means a damn thing. The truther claim is that molten steel = CD, that much is a given, and I demonstrated effectively that 9/11 truth cannot prove this premise.

    I hope that clears up your confusion yet again. Please think before you post as you rarely respond to the subject in question.

    As I always say, it is mere libel. You haven't proved a damn thing except that you can distort information to suit your needs. There is nothing to indicate fraud except your belief system, as you can't present a prima facie case.

    Well, the first time in history canard is moronic, and only fools keep pushing that silliness. The fact is the the events of the entire day were the first time in history therefore the claim is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with opinion, and everything to do with truthers' overuse of fallacies.

    And? More incredulity?

    >>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

    Bullsh*t. Read the appendix dealing with the modelling for explosives.>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

    So? Explosions occur in fires and controlled demolition is the belief system of the uneducated, as it is practically implasusible. Why check for something that only loonies bleat about? I don't think academia gives a flying F*ck about the opinions of a few ignorant internet slacktavists.

    Yes, the NIST gained all the information from the FEMA report. You should investigate this subject as you clearly have little knowledge, and are arguing from ignorance.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was really trying to find something of value in your post that I feel might be worth addressing but honestly, I can't find anything of value, sorry. Maybe next time.
     
  19. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course you can't. If you did read it and note the points, you wouldn't have a reason to troll. That much is obvious.

    Anyway, I merely exposed more of your lies, so there's no wonder you can't find anything to respond to. You're probably embarrassed by the exposure of your mendacity, yet again. You really should stop trying to be deceitful because I catch you every time. Try this for a change, be honest-it's not difficult if you don't have some agenda. Most of all, be honest with yourself. It's not a valid argument if you have to talk yourself into it, and then lie to yourself as well as others in order for it to work (here's a tip: it's NOT working).

    You see, you can't hide the fact that one of your core claims was impossible (the claim the NIST didn't check for this or that), and YOU know it, yet you still post it over and over again knowing full well it is a lie. That tells me all I need to know about you, and your lack of honesty.

    If you were in front of me, I'd urinate on your pants to quell the flames.

    Oh, and get off your backside and read the NIST's report as you make erroneous claims regarding the document constantly, such as the lie they didn't investigate the use of explosives. That's just WRONG and you know it, as you've been told this often enough by many individuals across three sites. You were even given the link by Oz, FFS! Before you parrot groupthink, you should fact check.

    Again, why do you need to be dishonest? Is your story that weak you need to lie to give it credibility?
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't have a "story", you do, and it's usually filled with name calling and insults (see mod edits). I made my point(s) and I started a thread that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that NIST committed scientific and criminal fraud. I intend to expose a lot more, what I already posted is just the beginning. I challenged you to show how and why, in technical terms, anything posted might not be correct and so far, all you can do is post unsupported opinion, just like you do here. I stand by what I posted in post #113 in this thread and there's nothing you responded to that challenges it that makes any sense or is even on an adult level, that's what I meant by "something of value".
     
  21. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can't be bothered with any of that dreck. Suffice it to say, I've caught you lying yet again regarding the NIST report. Why do you need to lie to pursue your agenda?
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's pretty obvious you can't show in technical terms what is incorrect about what experts have demonstrated in intricate detail is impossible with NIST's theory. And you can't defend how and why highly qualified NIST experts would manipulate data to try to make their theory workable. All the song and dance routines you display in your posts (which it seems is your only expertise), name calling, insults, personal attacks, accusing me of lying etc. doesn't change any of the facts. You are quite transparent. I don't need to ask you what your agenda is and I don't care.
     

Share This Page