Official Statement Confirms Detonations on 9/11

#227
#227
volinbham said:
Looks can be deceiving. I would no more trust your opinion of what happened based on that video than I would mine.
Which video?

There is substantial evidence supporting the NIST view.
Click to expand...

There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the controlled demolition theory, too. Moot point.

Lack of complete evidence is not evidence of a conspiracy. If you apply this criteria, the conspiracy theory is woefully weak since it lacks an enormous amount of evidence. It is built on character defamation and scientific theory put forth either by non-experts in the field or those in the minority of their field.
Click to expand...

How can you say there is lack of evidence to a conspiracy? I really do not think you've thoroughly looked into 9/11. There is an enormous amount of evidence, bham. We haven't even begun discussing the many "coincidences". The status quo of 9/11 has reached a point where we cannot rely of authority. Many of the "experts" experts work under government funding. There are many experts and highly credible people who believe the US government was complicit in the attacks.

I'm sure if I dig hard enough I can find the same type of "discrediting" information about the former NIST guy. Since your group uses this tactic to discredit anyone and any entity that provides evidence and rationale counter to your claims.
Click to expand...

your group - :eek:lol:

There is no 'tactic'. After you've viewed the revisionist account as an accumulative argument, you can begin to see the big picture. All I'm suggesting is that this attack resulted from complicity in high places, not from "Global Incompetence" or preposterous coincidences. All the material taken together provides a strong prima facie for this contention. It's that simple. If you want to get into facts, we can. But it seems no one is willing to even scratch the surface.

For the last time - you should practice some of the open-mindedness you chide us for not using.
Click to expand...

Unless some damning evidence comes forward... No. I've had enough. I've thoroughly looked at both sides and have come to my own conclusion. I always keep a close eye on new information, so if some comes about, I don't think I'll miss it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
#228
#228
volinbham said:
Okay VK - here's the part you left out about James Quintiere:



Taken in this context, his complaint is that he thinks the reason the planes brought down the building is different than the NIST account.

He does not question that planes and the fires brought down the buildings.

Typical of what we see from you - take the quotes out of context.
Click to expand...

His complaint is that he does not trust NIST. Read again.

Those were not quotes taken out of context, just merely used to show NIST is not as forthcoming and reliable as many think. I had not even viewed that quote. The text came from parts of a 1 hour presentation, bham. :crazy:
 
#229
#229
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Thing about it is VK, I have been on both sides looking. You still think that because I don't use Google to copy and paste my agreement or argument that I am lacking in the information department. Well I did all this research about 3 years ago, in books and on the internet because I had nothing better to do at the time. I found that it was nothing more than a conspiracy theory that was trying to masquerade as some type of truth. I have also said many times VK that if this were true in any way the liberal media would be on it like white on rice. This is why I am very argumentative with this type of nonsense. Only I can convince myself VK, not you or anyone else on this planet. I have seen all the evidence that I need to see and I have come to my own conclusion just like you have. Pleading and begging with me to just look at it one more time is a sign that you yourself may want to step away from your family and other that influence you and take a look at it from an unbiased opinion. Trust me, when I was your age my family and others that influenced me weren't right about everything and I am still trying to convince myself about what is right in life so I don't repeat some stupidity my family brought upon me and I didn't even know it at the time. VK, you seem like a cool kid bro. Go and enjoy yourself and stop worrying about this because before you know it you will become an adult and all the time you had for play will be down to a very small window of fun.
Click to expand...

Edit:

Really, what books did you read? Would you like to discuss any of the facts?
 
#230
#230
Would any of you agree that the collapse of WTC 1, 2, & 7 was eerily reminiscent of a controlled demolition?

bham, which "smoking guns" did you view again?
 
#232
#232
Volunteer_Kirby said:
His complaint is that he does not trust NIST. Read again.

Those were not quotes taken out of context, just merely used to show NIST is not as forthcoming and reliable as many think. I had not even viewed that quote. The text came from parts of a 1 hour presentation, bham. :crazy:
Click to expand...

The point is he is supporting the official story - he believes that planes, not controlled demolition, brought down the towers.

I'm an academic researcher - nothing in his comments are unique in academic research. There are always differing opinions. He has a theory about why the fires from the planes caused the collapse that is different than the NIST version.

To hold him up as evidence of any proof that the govt was involved is ridiculous. It is also quite misleading to use him as evidence of the conspiracy.

Volunteer_Kirby said:
Would any of you agree that the collapse of WTC 1, 2, & 7 was eerily reminiscent of a controlled demolition?
Click to expand...

You and I have zero expertise in this area. It doesn't matter if it looks that way at all (for what's it's worth, it looks clearly like the collapse happens from above the plane entry first on one of the towers - not from the bottom like a controlled demo would have).

Your most recent "star witness" (who questions NIST) believes it was NOT controlled demolition. Numerous quotes about "explosions" have been shown to be taken out of context or shown to be incomplete versions of the whole story. When one guy tried to clarify his story about "explosions", he is discredited by saying "people got to him".

Time and time again, the fragments that are loosely tied together to build the conspiracy story are shown to be taken out of context or to have alternative explanations.

I'm moving on. Obviously, you are free to believe what you like but believing it doesn't make it true.
 
#237
#237
After skim reading 12 pages I have come to this conclusion. Im glad I didnt read this whole thing from the start.
 
#240
#240
volinbham said:
The point is he is supporting the official story - he believes that planes, not controlled demolition, brought down the towers.

I'm an academic researcher - nothing in his comments are unique in academic research. There are always differing opinions. He has a theory about why the fires from the planes caused the collapse that is different than the NIST version.

To hold him up as evidence of any proof that the govt was involved is ridiculous. It is also quite misleading to use him as evidence of the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I was aware of your point, bham. I did not use the man as evidence of the 9/11 'conspiracy'. However, from my observation, it seemed what he talked about in his presentation shows "NIST is not as forthcoming and reliable as many think".



You and I have zero expertise in this area. It doesn't matter if it looks that way at all (for what's it's worth, it looks clearly like the collapse happens from above the plane entry first on one of the towers - not from the bottom like a controlled demo would have).
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly don't need an 'expert' to tell me everything. The 9/11 issue has gotten to the point where authority has mislead and lied. In a court of law, if you lie, your testimony is completely disregarded. Question is whether you blindly accept what the authority is telling you or not.

And yes, it looks like it started from the plane entry. But upon closer inspection, you will see that the antenna goes first, which means the core was the first to go. Rather interesting. Not all controlled demolitions start at the bottom of the building. Oftentimes the explosives are planned to detonate from one side to the other, separated by a second per section imploded. I'll look for an example.

Your most recent "star witness" (who questions NIST) believes it was NOT controlled demolition. Numerous quotes about "explosions" have been shown to be taken out of context or shown to be incomplete versions of the whole story. When one guy tried to clarify his story about "explosions", he is discredited by saying "people got to him".
Click to expand...
I realize that. Don't you find it contradicting that you are taking quotes out of context to fit your stance at this time? You don't really think that 1-hour presentation only talked about his theory on why the building collapsed, now do you?

Time and time again, the fragments that are loosely tied together to build the conspiracy story are shown to be taken out of context or to have alternative explanations.

I'm moving on. Obviously, you are free to believe what you like but believing it doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
I'll attempt to make another thread soon. I'm compiling the information as we speak and should have it up within a few days, if you're interested in taking a look at the facts.
 
#242
#242
U-T said:
No
Click to expand...

Pyroclastic flows, "squibs", eye witness / media accounts of "secondary explosives", horizontal ejection of debree, free fall speed collapse, foreknowledge to evacuate WTC 7, "countdown" to the collapse... The collapses looked EXACTLY like controlled demolitions. Even Dan Rather noticed that as soon as the building imploded.
 
#243
#243
justingroves said:
VK, you aren't changing anyone's mind and they damn sure aren't changing yours.

Just let it go.
Click to expand...

I'm not letting it go just yet. I haven't even begun to discuss the facts with anyone on this forum. They will all be brought up in my next thread, then I'll let you all decide if I'm a "kook".
 
#244
#244
Volunteer_Kirby said:
Pyroclastic flows, "squibs", eye witness / media accounts of "secondary explosives", horizontal ejection of debree, free fall speed collapse, foreknowledge to evacuate WTC 7, "countdown" to the collapse... The collapses looked EXACTLY like controlled demolitions. Even Dan Rather noticed that as soon as the building imploded.
Click to expand...

So?
 
#245
#245
Volunteer_Kirby said:
I'm not letting it go just yet. I haven't even begun to discuss the facts with anyone on this forum. They will all be brought up in my next thread, then I'll let you all decide if I'm a "kook".
Click to expand...

Another thread like this? One of these is embarrassing enough.
 
#246
#246
green_apple.jpg


This is an orange.
 
#249
#249
Not going to get sucked into this thread VKB. Just will say that if someone wants to believe in something bad enough, their mind will allow them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top