Unanswered questions about 9/11..

Discussion in '9/11' started by Cornergas, Apr 9, 2017.

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. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The debate is long over. Most anybody willing to talk about it face to face acknowledges the official story cannot be true. Obviously, some are so deeply in denial that they are not willing to talk about it, knowing their BP will go off the scale if they do start talking about it with somebody who knows the facts.

    Once the debate is lost, slander and ad homs become the tools of the loser.
     
    jack4freedom and Bob0627 like this.
  2. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes the debate is long over and you are wrong the conspiracy fools are the ones who have lost.

    None of your can provide the slightest scrap of evidence that the report is false or wrong you will not even read the report to find errors

    It is proven true by your own incompetence at challenging it,
     
  3. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So how do so many engineering schools and institutions of higher learning around the world manage not to resolve this experimentally in FIFTEEN YEARS?

    That is the issue NOW. The physics should have been resolved by January of 2003.

    psik
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All but one (University of Alaska Fairbanks), which is in the works now as far as I know, although there haven't been any updates in months.

    http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
     
  5. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Still no quotations from the 9/11 Commission Report.
    One would think that if there were inaccuracies and you’ve had nearly 15 years to read the damn thing, you would have found them.

    Pretty clear there are none.

    Carry on.
     
  6. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why not the NIST report, only 10,000 pages. You can't quote what ain't there. How much concrete was in the towers? They specify 200,000 tons of steel in 3 places, so why not the concrete?
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  7. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quote either report.

    You never read either one can have no evidence refuting them
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are outright lies, lies via partial truths and distortions, lies via unsupported claims and lies by omission. The 9/11 Commission and NIST reports fall into all those categories. They call it the "9/11 Omission Report" for a reason. You're absolutely right, you can't quote what ain't there. And quoting "inaccuracies" means quoting all the official reports in their entirety, they are all part of the OFFICIAL 9/11 SCAM. Regardless, some trolls will continue to troll these threads with claims that none of these reports have been quoted, no one has read them but the trolls and that if there are none, the reports are accurate (the intellectually bankrupt reverse burden of proof). It might make sense to a grade school child.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet thread after thread and post after post you CANNOT cite one of these outright lies partial truths distortions and omissions you refer to.

    Pretty much refutes your claim when you cannot back it up and you have never specifically backed up any of your claims.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A while back I posted some major unanswered general questions about 9/11. To refresh:

    Neither the 9/11 Commission nor NIST approached these 3 major, more specific questions either:

    1. There were numerous corroborating documented claims of hearing, seeing, feeling and being injured by explosions (including evidence of death by explosion). First, what was the cause of all these explosions? Second, why are none of these explosions mentioned in any official report (even denied by NIST), much less investigated?

    2. There were numerous corroborating documented claims of seeing molten metal, the majority of which were molten steel claims, unapproachable for about 3 months following 9/11. What was the cause of the molten metal/steel? Second, why are none of these molten metal/steel claims mentioned in any official report (the claims were denied by lead NIST engineer John Gross to even exist, he claims he never heard of any), much less investigated?

    3. All major commercial airliners are each equipped with 2 black boxes (an FDR and a CVR). The official claim is that none of these were found for 2 planes that crashed into the towers (“The CVRs and FDRs from American 11 and United 175 were not found” - 9/11 Commission Report - Page 46). This is disputed by firefighters who claim to have found 3 of them. First, how is this possible when these black boxes are nearly indestructible? And second, why have the claims by the firefighters never been officially mentioned, much less investigated?
     
    jack4freedom likes this.
  11. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How would you none of these claims were investigated or addressed? you are willfully unaware of what is contained in both reports and have never read them.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
  12. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You do not have to read the report to search it. The word concrete is used a little more than 3,000 times. Read every paragraph with that word and you will not find the quantity of concrete. IT AIN'T THERE. I have been telling people that for SIX YEARS!

    Not one person has found it and said where it is in the report. VERY SCIENTIFIC!

    Search for yourself! At least 400,000 tons of building and they can't say how much was concrete! LOL

    psik
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  13. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I have read and you never have you cannot quote one part which is false and show evidence that it is false.

    babbling about concrete is not a quote
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is only one of thousands of serious issues with the official reports. There's nothing scientific or legitimate about any of them
     
  15. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet you cannot cite one passage which is false or in error.

    Yes they are legitimate and scientific which you have failed to challenge
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    still posting [ill]framed delusional falacies as fact I see, keep up the good work, I occasionally drop in and read your posts for some comedic relief.
     
    Eleuthera and Bob0627 like this.
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    yeh the official conspiracy theorists saying the steel oxidized made me LMFAO, especially since that is precisely what a thermate cutter charge does to steel! (in microseconds too)

    [​IMG]
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfortunately comedy doesn't quite describe it. Pathetic incessant trolling is a much more accurate description IMO. If it was comic, I wouldn't have put the poster on ignore. The ignore feature filters out the repetitious garbage posts.
     
  19. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Still no direct quote which you can prove false
     
  20. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Not sure who you mean since I never said that.

    However there is no official conspiracy theory there was a conspiracy proven by fact which does not count as a theory.

    It is the twoofers with theory and no evidence.

    There has never been any evidence of any kind to show thermite was used either
     
  21. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was not a fallacy it was a fact.

    You cannot quote one passage which is false and prove it is a lie
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Fact? can you cite your fact and any material evidence in support of your aleged fact, all I see is an argument from ignorance.


    Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

    Argument from ignorance also known as appeal to ignorance is a fallacy in informal logic.

    It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  23. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I can cite a fact.

    You cannot and will not ever quote one passage from the report which is false and show evidence that it is false.

    That is what arguing from ignorance is and it is proof you and others are guilty of it.

    You are attacking something you cannot refute.
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    and you have just made it perfectly clear you are not capable of quoting anything from the report in which you defend that is true with evidence to show that it is true.

    you are pretending to defend what you are not capable of defending. :deadhorse:

    If you can come up with a valid argument I will be happy to engage the matter.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2017
  25. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    18,908
    Likes Received:
    3,589
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not the one consistently calling it all lies so the burden of proof is not on me to do that.

    You are making such a claim and the burden of proof is on you.'

    But you cannot provide any.
     

Share This Page