9/11 Attacks

Divorce Referendum

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because you use a flawed and failed report to refute them.

Id imagine it would be easy to prove the theories then is that statement is true.

squod

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

In regards to 9/11 is there any theory the CTers came up with that has actually been proven?

Have you read the thread? Seen the images of thermite? Watched the controlled demolition of WTC7.

seannash

thing is people seem to think that winning an argument about a small point somehow discredits the whole report.

i remeber when i first saw that loose change video i was convinced it was an inside job.i decided to look at the debunking video of it and to be honest it made alot more sense.

now i know loose change is a bit of a joke even for ct'ers but the debunking video pretty much exlained away every CT ive heard about 9/11.i honestly dont think many CT'ers look at these debunking videos because if they do they would be able to hold a real discussion because they have viewed both sides.

but they seem to throw up the same arguments that most reasonable people have already seen the evidence debunking them.

is there a way for us to list out every bit of evidence for and against the theory.lets say we pick the explosives were used

put explosives as the header and then put the CT evidence all in one paragraph.
next put the truthers debunking evidence

this needs to be done because quite frankly these threads are becoming a joke

Divorce Referendum

squod wrote: »

Have you read the thread? Seen the images of thermite? Watched the controlled demolition of WTC7.

Lol no not at all I only argued for a few days about the thermite. No i mean actual proof of the theory not what you think happened.

seannash

squod wrote: »

Have you read the thread? Seen the images of thermite? Watched the controlled demolition of WTC7.

Squod can you please answer me this.

Have you ever watched this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

it honestly explains away the controlled demolition theory as well asd many others.

i honestly find it hard to believe than any intelligent person could still think it was controlled demolition after watching this video

Happyman42

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Id imagine it would be easy to prove the theories then is that statement is true.

It's up to officialdom to investigate properly because we don't have the resources.

Again

"The Sept. 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohamed Atta or of his cell.... Had we learned of it obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation."[16]

Two 9/11 Commission members, Timothy J. Roemer and John F. Lehman, both claimed not to have received any information on Able Danger.[12]

Now, call me what you will, but wouldn't the fact that somebody had prior knowledge not be critical to any investigation?
The report is flawed, nobody can use it as proof of anything, period!

squod

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Lol no not at all I only argued for a few days about the thermite. No i mean actual proof of the theory not what you think happened.

Well lets hear what you think happened (waits for Saudi-Arab ''A'' Team story). And then lets hear you back it up with something that's credible and possible.

squod

seannash wrote: »

Squod can you please answer me this.

Have you ever watched this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

it honestly explains away the controlled demolition theory as well asd many others.

i honestly find it hard to believe than any intelligent person could still think it was controlled demolition after watching this video

Have you seen the pictures of the fallen south tower, it was flattened and not pulverised.

Happyman42

squod wrote: »

Well lets hear what you think happened (waits for Saudi-Arab ''A'' Team story). And then lets hear you back it up with something that's credible and possible.

but they didn't investigate Thermite, so how can anybody say conclusively?


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

They took a position on it and didn't investigate.....again inadequate from anybody claiming to be trying to get at the truth.

seannash

squod wrote: »

Have you seen the pictures of the fallen south tower, it was flattened and not pulverised.

please please please watch that video.

i have seen the evidence from both sides and made a decision based on what i thought made sense.

so have you watched this video before

Divorce Referendum

squod wrote: »

Well lets hear what you think happened (waits for Saudi-Arab ''A'' Team story). And then lets hear you back it up with something that's credible and possible.

Ya the fact that a planes hit the towers and that resulted in its collapse is hard to believe. Hardly any evidence either:rolleyes:

squod

On another subject. Do you remember New York ordering 100,00 body bags after the events of 9/11?

seannash

Happyman42 wrote: »

but they didn't investigate Thermite, so how can anybody say conclusively?


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

They took a position on it and didn't investigate.....again inadequate from anybody claiming to be trying to get at the truth.

a controlled explosion would cause certain seismic activity.no seismic activity was recorded that resembled an explosion had taken place.

do yourself a favour and look at the video i posted.

i honestly dont think many CTers look at the debunking evidence at all

seannash

squod wrote: »

On another subject. Do you remember New York ordering 100,00 body bags after the events of 9/11?

why dont you just discuss whats been asked that way people cant accuse you of dodging a question

squod

seannash wrote: »

a controlled explosion would cause certain seismic activity.no seismic activity was recorded that resembled an explosion had taken place.

do yourself a favour and look at the video i posted.

i honestly dont think many CTers look at the debunking evidence at all

No seismic activity? You've done no research so........

squod

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Ya the fact that a planes hit the towers and that resulted in its collapse is hard to believe. Hardly any evidence either:rolleyes:

Divorce Referendum

Happyman42 wrote: »

but they didn't investigate Thermite, so how can anybody say conclusively?


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

They took a position on it and didn't investigate.....again inadequate from anybody claiming to be trying to get at the truth.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions

You are right it is impossible to tell as the compounds were already present in the buildings, so there was no way ever of proving or disproving it except for the fact that it was never proved that someone planted thousands of pounds of thermate up there, which imo is highly unlikely. You can still believe it though thats up to you.

seannash

squod wrote: »

No seismic activity? You've done no research so........

no no no,your trying to be clever now arent you.

i said that there was no seismic activity was recorded that resembled an explosion had taken place.

there was seismic activity recorded that was characteristic of a building collapsing
it even recorded the internal collapse of wtc 7 a good few seconds before the outside of the building fell.

but you would no this if you had checked out the video i so kindly linked.

please honestly look at it.
for someone interested in this topic you seem to only look at evidence from the CT side

Happyman42

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

You are right it is impossible to tell as the compounds were already present in the buildings, so there was no way ever of proving or disproving it except for the fact that it was never proved that someone planted thousands of pounds of thermate up there, which imo is highly unlikely. You can still believe it though thats up to you.

Talk sense. They ruled out the possibility of Thermate so why would they investigate how it got up there?

seannash

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

You are right it is impossible to tell as the compounds were already present in the buildings, so there was no way ever of proving or disproving it except for the fact that it was never proved that someone planted thousands of pounds of thermate up there, which imo is highly unlikely. You can still believe it though thats up to you.

exactly.
the dutch scientist that presented a report about the thermite even said that in order to get the amount of thermite it would require to take down the towers it would have to be palleted on.it was a huge amount

i think people would notice the pallets on the floors

Divorce Referendum

squod wrote: »

I dont recall that building being struck by an airplane.....

seannash

Happyman42 wrote: »

Talk sense. They ruled out the possibility of Thermate so why would they investigate how it got up there?

perhaps all the people working on the floors would have noticed all the stacks of thermite on there floors.
those who escaped might have said something by now,ya know about the massive amounts of it lying around.


heres the video where he says it would take an exotremely large amount of nano thermite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56KFHIq6KZM

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

What type of aircraft was flown into that building?

Happyman42

seannash wrote: »

perhaps all the people working on the floors would have noticed all the stacks of thermite on there floors.
those who escaped might have said something by now,ya know about the massive amounts of it lying around.


heres the video where he says it would take an exotremely large amount of nano thermite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56KFHIq6KZM

Did they investigate?...No....inadequate. FAIL

And what of the Commission member saying they weren't presented with Able Danger info?...........Inadequate......FAIL

Divorce Referendum

Happyman42 wrote: »

Talk sense. They ruled out the possibility of Thermate so why would they investigate how it got up there?

What im saying is thats the only way you/CTers will ever prove it is to find out how they got the thermate up there. You hit the nail on the head, the commision wont investigate it beacause it is impossible to tell if the elements were from the concrete,plasterboard etc or the thermate, as they exist in both. You said they didnt investigate but if they did it wouldnt be conclusive, what more do you want?

seannash

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did they investigate?...No....inadequate. FAIL

And what of the Commission member saying they weren't presented with Able Danger info?...........Inadequate......FAIL

seriously man this is the response you give.

i take it you havent looked at any videos i posted.if you had you would see that its about the report supporting your claim:)

i just addressed the question of the massive amount of thermite it would have taken,seriously we are not talking a small amount.and he is talking about nano thermite which is alot more powerful than regular thermate that you seem to alluding to being used so if it was thermate it would take an even bigger amount

do you know the reasons that the debunkers are giving for the presence of thermite?please answer this one naswell as the others

Happyman42

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

What im saying is thats the only way you/CTers will ever prove it is to find out how they got the thermate up there. You hit the nail on the head, the commision wont investigate it beacause it is impossible to tell if the elements were from the concrete,plasterboard etc or the thermate, as they exist in both. You said they didnt investigate but if they did it wouldnt be conclusive, what more do you want?

Well we'll never know will we? And by 'we' I mean both of us, because nobody can say conclusively one way or the other. Which is a FAIL in my book.

Divorce Referendum

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well we'll never know will we? And by 'we' I mean both of us, because nobody can say conclusively one way or the other. Which is a FAIL in my book.

A fail for what. How would the investigation go. Hey everyone that survived the WTC collapse and people that worked in the building. Did you see anyone placing pallets of materials in locations around the building? Ans No. We will never know but I dont see how the report fails. The towers had collapsed by the time the report was done and the survivors and people that worked there and werent present on that day are the only witnesses to the alleged claim.

seannash

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well we'll never know will we? And by 'we' I mean both of us, because nobody can say conclusively one way or the other. Which is a FAIL in my book.

seriously man can you at least have the decency to phrase things better than repeating FAIL all the time.

again did you look at the video i posted.he agrees it would take massive amounts.

if you believe him that there was traces of nano thermite there than you should also believe this statement about the amount it would take to be true.

now can we say that if workers came in and saw strange containers of an unknown substance all over there floor they would have asked questions or at least said something by now.
i am speculating but can we just agree that this is a very plausible assumption.

also ive done night work in the twin towers.it is never short of staff at night,cleaners,security,construction workers so it would be a reasonable assumtion that they would notice this massive amount of thermite being hauled up and down the building.

im not asking for any eveidence on this one im just asking you to look at the amount of thermite it would take and asking you would it have gone unnoticed?

Happyman42

Folks....it's not just about Thermate....the Commission did not adequately investigate a whole raft of issues.
It has always been mine and others suspision that somebody may have known what was going to happen and decided to profit from.
Now if you believe that that might be a possibility, can you see how we are arriving at the view? The Commission started with the opinion that Al Quaeda where solely responsible and that was the way it was going to stay.
There would be very few CTers if they had done their job properly.....they are not all loons, and a lot of them have questions that demand answers and I believe that one day a proper inquiry will be held because of them.
Do you agree that a new inquiry would be a good thing?

Btw...I have no interest in looking at yet another video about Thermate....I simply don't know or am I qualified to say, neither is anyone on here for that matter.