Why don't people want to know the truth about 9/11?

[BrianH]

Eots you've alwasy been cordule with me on these boards and I appreciate that. I'm not intending to insult you as a person, but rather state an observation in your debating strategy.

It seems to me that you're primary focus in proving that 9/11 was an inside job is providing the names of higher profile officials and individuals rather than actually acknowledging reasonable and possible explanations by the majority of engineers. It seems to matter more to you that there are higher profile people that question it more so than the actual evidence at hand. I've also noticed that you question the "absence" of individual evidence more so than ackwnowledging the identified evidence. You were just shown actual pictures from the events that clearly shows plane engines. Google the diagrams of a jet engine and see what kind of pictures and diagrams you find. The engines in those pictures are most certainly parts of plane engines. But rather than acknowledge the fact that those are plane engines, you're questioning that they were never identified as actually coming from said aircraft.

Like I said, I'm not trying to attack you personally, but am trying to give you some incite into your debating technique. Is this an accurate observation of your logic?

My question is, do you think these parts of jet engines were planted to make them look like they came off the plane?

 

[KissMy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1WurLaoImE

I don't care how many credentials someone is professed to have, when they stand there and tell lies then they are talking politics & not facts.

None of the 4 buildings that collapsed on 9/11 fell at or near free-fall speeds!!!

In the collapse videos lighter debris is clearly falling twice as fast as the massively heavy buildings.

 

[eots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1WurLaoImE

I don't care how many credentials someone is professed to have, when they stand there and tell lies then they are talking politics & not facts.

None of the 4 buildings that collapsed on 9/11 fell at or near free-fall speeds!!!

In the collapse videos lighter debris is clearly falling twice as fast as the massively heavy buildings.

Then you also believe the NIST report is incorrect...AND BTW WHILE SEVERAL BUILDINGS WERE DANGED ONLY 3 EXPERIENCED COMPLETELY COLLAPSE IN A MATTER OF SECS AND ONLY 3 BUILDINGS ARE CITED BY AS FALLING AT ESSENTIALLY FREE-FALL

 

[eots]

Eots you've alwasy been cordule with me on these boards and I appreciate that. I'm not intending to insult you as a person, but rather state an observation in your debating strategy.

It seems to me that you're primary focus in proving that 9/11 was an inside job is providing the names of higher profile officials and individuals rather than actually acknowledging reasonable and possible explanations by the majority of engineers.

YOU CLAIM THE MAJORITY BUT YOU PROVIDED ONE..WHOS THOERIES DIFFERED FROM NIST AND SEEMED UNSURE OF HIS OWN THEORY

It seems to matter more to you that there are higher profile people that question it more so than the actual evidence at hand. I've also noticed that you question the "absence" of individual evidence more so than ackwnowledging the identified evidence.

THERE IS NO IDENTIFIED EVIDENCE AND THE HIGH PROFILE PEOPLE ARE U.S AIR CRASH INVESTIGATORS

You were just shown actual pictures from the events that clearly shows plane engines. Google the diagrams of a jet engine and see what kind of pictures and diagrams you find. The engines in those pictures are most certainly parts of plane engines. But rather than acknowledge the fact that those are plane engines, you're questioning that they were never identified as actually coming from said aircraft.

THE FACT REMAINS THEY ARE UNIDENTIFIED PARTS UNHEARD OF IN AN AIR CRASH INVESTIGATION

Like I said, I'm not trying to attack you personally, but am trying to give you some incite into your debating technique. Is this an accurate observation of your logic?

My question is, do you think these parts of jet engines were planted to make them look like they came off the plane?

I DO NOT LIKE TO THEORIZE TOO MUCH THE FACTS ARE WE HAVE NO PARTS IDENTIFIABLY WITH A SERIAL NUMBER...WE HAVE FORMER PRESIDENTS OF THE AIR CRASH INVESTIGATION BOARD AND SEVERAL MILITARY AIR CRASH INVESTIGATORS SIGNED TO THE PETITION WE HAVE AN INVESTIGATION CALLED A COVER-UP EVEN BY ITS PARTICIPANTS.WE HAVE THREE BUILDINGS FALLING AT NEAR FREE FALL AND NO DEFINITIVE EXPLANATION

 

[BrianH]

Eots you've alwasy been cordule with me on these boards and I appreciate that. I'm not intending to insult you as a person, but rather state an observation in your debating strategy.

It seems to me that you're primary focus in proving that 9/11 was an inside job is providing the names of higher profile officials and individuals rather than actually acknowledging reasonable and possible explanations by the majority of engineers.

YOU CLAIM THE MAJORITY BUT YOU PROVIDED ONE..WHOS THOERIES DIFFERED FROM NIST AND SEEMED UNSURE OF HIS OWN THEORY





THERE IS NO IDENTIFIED EVIDENCE AND THE HIGH PROFILE PEOPLE ARE U.S AIR CRASH INVESTIGATORS




THE FACT REMAINS THEY ARE UNIDENTIFIED PARTS UNHEARD OF IN AN AIR CRASH INVESTIGATION

Like I said, I'm not trying to attack you personally, but am trying to give you some incite into your debating technique. Is this an accurate observation of your logic?

My question is, do you think these parts of jet engines were planted to make them look like they came off the plane?

I DO NOT LIKE TO THEORIZE TOO MUCH THE FACTS ARE WE HAVE NO PARTS IDENTIFIABLY WITH A SERIAL NUMBER...WE HAVE FORMER PRESIDENTS OF THE AIR CRASH INVESTIGATION BOARD AND SEVERAL MILITARY AIR CRASH INVESTIGATORS SIGNED TO THE PETITION WE HAVE AN INVESTIGATION CALLED A COVER-UP EVEN BY ITS PARTICIPANTS.WE HAVE THREE BUILDINGS FALLING AT NEAR FREE FALL AND NO DEFINITIVE EXPLANATION

I showed you one...however. Your numbers say that 1450 engineers and architects....I just pointed out that this number is not mathematically a majority...but is mathematically a minority. Hence, the majority of architects and engineers aren't buying it....

I'm still not convinced. If debri falling off of the building is falling quicker than the building, then the building is not falling at free-fall speed. The building collapsed from the inside. The inside supports failed.....had the outside supports failed, you would have seen a slower decent because the building core would have spread out and become less aerodynamic. Because the supports fell from the inside, the building sunk into itself and had less resistance. On top of that, the weight of the upper-floors increased the decent by pressing it downward. Gravity is a bitch.

 

[eots]

Eots you've alwasy been cordule with me on these boards and I appreciate that. I'm not intending to insult you as a person, but rather state an observation in your debating strategy.



YOU CLAIM THE MAJORITY BUT YOU PROVIDED ONE..WHOS THOERIES DIFFERED FROM NIST AND SEEMED UNSURE OF HIS OWN THEORY





THERE IS NO IDENTIFIED EVIDENCE AND THE HIGH PROFILE PEOPLE ARE U.S AIR CRASH INVESTIGATORS




THE FACT REMAINS THEY ARE UNIDENTIFIED PARTS UNHEARD OF IN AN AIR CRASH INVESTIGATION






I DO NOT LIKE TO THEORIZE TOO MUCH THE FACTS ARE WE HAVE NO PARTS IDENTIFIABLY WITH A SERIAL NUMBER...WE HAVE FORMER PRESIDENTS OF THE AIR CRASH INVESTIGATION BOARD AND SEVERAL MILITARY AIR CRASH INVESTIGATORS SIGNED TO THE PETITION WE HAVE AN INVESTIGATION CALLED A COVER-UP EVEN BY ITS PARTICIPANTS.WE HAVE THREE BUILDINGS FALLING AT NEAR FREE FALL AND NO DEFINITIVE EXPLANATION

I showed you one...however. Your numbers say that 1450 engineers and architects....I just pointed out that this number is not mathematically a majority...but is mathematically a minority. Hence, the majority of architects and engineers aren't buying it

....

only if you go on the false assumption that anyone one who has not signed the petition is in agreement with NIST..how many have signed statements saying they find the conclusion of NIST Correct or conclusive

I'm still not convinced. If debri falling off of the building is falling quicker than the building, then the building is not falling at free-fall speed. The building collapsed from the inside. The inside supports failed.....had the outside supports failed, you would have seen a slower decent because the building core would have spread out and become less aerodynamic. Because the supports fell from the inside, the building sunk into itself and had less resistance. On top of that, the weight of the upper-floors increased the decent by pressing it downward. Gravity is a bitch

.

 

[PhysicsExist]

NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]

 

[BrianH]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUQ4zqo4ZA
NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]

So it free fell for 8 out of 47 stories? Hardly persuading. Also, building 7 has since been replaced. The two towers have not. Why would the government destroy building 7 only for it to be replaced?

 

[eots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUQ4zqo4ZA
NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]

So it free fell for 8 out of 47 stories? Hardly persuading.

only because you do not understand the significance

Also, building 7 has since been replaced. The two towers have not. Why would the government destroy building 7 only for it to be replaced?

That is the silliest debunking I have ever heard..

 

[BrianH]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUQ4zqo4ZA
NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]

only because you do not understand the significance

Also, building 7 has since been replaced. The two towers have not. Why would the government destroy building 7 only for it to be replaced?

That is the silliest debunking I have ever heard..

that's a perfectly good question. Why destroy something if it's going to be rebuilt? Did anyone die in building 7? It seems to me that if the government executed this attack in attempt to cause mass chaos and casualties, they would have found a way to desroy building 7 with people inside, much like was done on the two towers....is this not a reasonable assumption? Why terrorize a building with no one in it?

There is one report that one person died in it, but it was later refuted and said that he died conducting rescue attempts afterwards.

If the government did bring down building seven, then so what? If the building was determined as unstable, then bring it down. Mind as well bring it down while you have a mess to clean up anyway.

 

[eots]

only because you do not understand the significance




That is the silliest debunking I have ever heard..

that's a perfectly good question. Why destroy something if it's going to be rebuilt?

it was rebuilt because real-estate is highly valuable in New York

Did anyone die in building 7? It seems to me that if the government executed this attack in attempt to cause mass chaos and casualties, they would have found a way to desroy building 7 with people inside, much like was done on the two towers....is this not a reasonable assumption? Why terrorize a building with no one in it i

Well first I would have to assume that some terror group did not plant explosives as part of a multiple target campaign..if so I would suggest the reason was not create further terror as that objective had been achieved
and the reason was a desire to destroy documents and records contained within contained within the building

 

[BrianH]

it was rebuilt because real-estate is highly valuable in New York



Well first I would have to assume that some terror group did not plant explosives as part of a multiple target campaign..if so I would suggest the reason was not create further terror as that objective had been achieved
and the reason was a desire to destroy documents and records contained within contained within the building

You do realize that demolishing a building will not destroy documents. There were papers flying all over the place when these buildings fell. Also, if these "documents" were on computers, then the hard drives of these computers would also have to be destroyed. Who cleaned up the mess at building 7? Seems to me that these documents would have durned up by now. It's very hard to get rid of digital information... It's also hard to get rid of actual "paper" information without making sure the whole building went up in a fireball...

 

[BrianH]

it was rebuilt because real-estate is highly valuable in New York



Well first I would have to assume that some terror group did not plant explosives as part of a multiple target campaign..if so I would suggest the reason was not create further terror as that objective had been achieved
and the reason was a desire to destroy documents and records contained within contained within the building

Why can't you assume that the terrorists didn't plan to attack building 7. That it was just a casualty of the surrounding chaos. That two of the largest buildings in the world crashing to the ground was enough to cause instability in the neighboring buildings.

 

[eots]

You do realize that demolishing a building will not destroy documents. There were papers flying all over the place when these buildings fell. Also, if these "documents" were on computers, then the hard drives of these computers would also have to be destroyed. Who cleaned up the mess at building 7? Seems to me that these documents would have durned up by now. It's very hard to get rid of digital information... It's also hard to get rid of actual "paper" information without making sure the whole building went up in a fireball...

wow you want it both ways when explaining the collapse it is a "raging inferno" that burned for hours unabated..lol...and there is no evidence of any kind that searches for hard drives where done or any recovered the fall of building 7 was not even include in the 9/11 reports it is a very way of explain any documents missing on mass

WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: What Was In Building 7?

 

[eots]

 

[BrianH]

wow you want it both ways when explaining the collapse it is a "raging inferno" that burned for hours unabated..lol...and there is no evidence of any kind that searches for hard drives where done or any recovered the fall of building 7 was not even include in the 9/11 reports it is a very way of explain any documents missing on mass

WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: What Was In Building 7?

This is exactly what I'm saying. Don't you think they'd have been making absolutely sure that this "information" and "documents" were indeed destroyed? When we lose an aircraft, we send a unit out to completely destroy it so our technology doesn't get stolen. If the government is willing to risk lives to destroy evidence in other countries, their certainly not going to forego making sure that evidence was destroyed in building 7...if there was said "evidence" that is.

It just absolutely makes no sense for the government to have destroyed building 7. There are plenty of other government targets they could have destroyed.
And if the government is so secretive and savvy, they wouldn't have created so much paperwork or digital information to have to destroy. THey would have done it under the rug, therefore making it unnecessary to destroy an entire building.

 

[DiveCon]

whats really interesting is, if the government wanted evidence in it's possession destroyed, it wouldnt have to destroy a building to do so

thats just another stupidity of the troofer morons

 

[BrianH]

whats really interesting is, if the government wanted evidence in it's possession destroyed, it wouldnt have to destroy a building to do so

thats just another stupidity of the troofer morons

Agreed...and that's only assuming the government had mounds of evidence to destroy. It just doesn't add up to me.

 

[DiveCon]

whats really interesting is, if the government wanted evidence in it's possession destroyed, it wouldnt have to destroy a building to do so

thats just another stupidity of the troofer morons

Agreed...and that's only assuming the government had mounds of evidence to destroy. It just doesn't add up to me.

and if i have a building wired to destroy, no fucking way am i going to fly planes into it and risk damaging the well laid out plans
also, i would just claim the terrorists broke building security to plant the explosives
and since i wanted to attack a certain country, i would have the terrorists actually be FROM that country and not some pissant place like Afghanistan

 

[BrianH]

whats really interesting is, if the government wanted evidence in it's possession destroyed, it wouldnt have to destroy a building to do so

thats just another stupidity of the troofer morons

Agreed...and that's only assuming the government had mounds of evidence to destroy. It just doesn't add up to me.

and if i have a building wired to destroy, no fucking way am i going to fly planes into it and risk damaging the well laid out plans
also, i would just claim the terrorists broke building security to plant the explosives
and since i wanted to attack a certain country, i would have the terrorists actually be FROM that country and not some pissant place like Afghanistan

Agreed.