lets just look at a nice bit of CT "research" shall we.

the CT edit

quote:

I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

the full quote

quote:

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down. Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

better yet josh, how about you tell us which type(s) of explosives were used to bring the towers down?

if you are going to argue in favour of jones and his ilk, and believe it was a demolition, then the onus is on you to provide the evidence.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 I'm not alluding to any particular crime.

right. will you ever? i don't think you can. nothing personal it's just i don't see you possibly being intellectually honest from a begining to the obvious, universal end we all recognize from a position of just "defending CT's". can't be done.

you pretty much know where i stand. 19 dudes hi-jacked 4 planes and killed themselves and everyone around them in the process by flying them into buildings. the buildings fell where they stood as the sole result of that act.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, common sense should tell you that if there is insufficient evidence you should hardly entertain the idea that there are dark elves living on the far side of the moon. the simple fact is the 9/11 CT movement has virtually nothing to strap all its outlandish claims upon. your mere mentioning of jones' supposed "research" just goes to show that you havent read anything critical of his work. which puts you in the average CT category- the lazy man's conpiracist- likes what he reads coz we're not experts and it sounds plausible without any contrary information at hand. debunking 911.com is your friend

I agree it doesn't make much sense to get into this now. There are other threads in here that have beat the horse. I also agree the 9/11 CT movement doesn't have anything substantial to base its outlandish claims on. Thats why its a CT. Its not claiming to prove anything, but again, you're not disproving it. A few parts of the plane in the pentagon are enough for you to believe it was there, for others its not. So theres footage of some firefighters describing what sounds like a controlled demolition, you claim out of context, others say foul play. We could go at this all day, both pointing at the same things and making separate conclusions. Thats why I don't get into these debates because neither one of us has a smoking gun that could adequately change the others' opinion.

But today I'm not saying the CTs are true, or that they have enough to believe they are. I'm saying the critics mutually don't have enough to say they're not. Common sense aside, if I wanted to believe there are dark elves living on the far side of the moon, you couldn't very well prove to me there aren't.

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Looks like, unless now "you conspiracy lovers" think that Al-Jazeera is an US Government arm of the Propaganda against radical Muslims, video has been released. Hearing the "real" truth is hard....but even I once believed in the Tooth Fairy, when i was 4 years old..

Doesn't prove a thing.

You can know it's going to happen and still LET it happen. So enough of your flippant, smug remarks.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike Social outcasts are often of the opinion that they must have a drink before being able to loosen up with their inhibitions, thus being able to have a good time. There's a word that sums up this sort of behaviour, and that word is 'reject.'

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 I'm saying the critics mutually don't have enough to say they're not. Common sense aside, if I wanted to believe there are dark elves living on the far side of the moon, you couldn't very well prove to me there aren't.

well, youre obviously reading the wrong critics, becuase the ones ive read provide as much proof as one can get from surfing the net.

but also of major concern, and something that really began to tip the balance for me, is to see the ways in which the CTs present their "facts". its poor research in some areas and outright dishonesty in others. thats what really made me doubt the CT arguments in the end. if someone is cherry picking their quotes or using photographs that dont tell the whole story, then i begin to doubt their credibility.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, we're waiting. ive pointed out just one instance of bullshit from the CT believers. how bout you go find us some "specific" evidence that isnt full of half-truths or shoddy research and justify your defence of the CT brigade?

Where would you like me to begin?

http://physics911.net/stevenjones.htm

.http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/...alysisFinal.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html Yes, this also looks like building falling naturally....[/URL]

Let me know if you need more.

And whilst you're at it, perhaps you can tell me why there is not ONE piece of video evidence showing a PLANE slamming into the top militarty institution in the country, possible the world. And why CIA turned up minutes after and confiscated a CCTV camera from a nearby gas station.

All we have is a supposed 'nose-cone' in some dodgy CCTV footage.

A disgrace.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike Social outcasts are often of the opinion that they must have a drink before being able to loosen up with their inhibitions, thus being able to have a good time. There's a word that sums up this sort of behaviour, and that word is 'reject.'

Last edited by _Ocean_Drive_ on Sep-12-2006 at 07:06

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, youre obviously reading the wrong critics, becuase the ones ive read provide as much proof as one can get from surfing the net. but also of major concern, and something that really began to tip the balance for me, is to see the ways in which the CTs present their "facts". its poor research in some areas and outright dishonesty in others. thats what really made me doubt the CT arguments in the end. if someone is cherry picking their quotes or using photographs that dont tell the whole story, then i begin to doubt their credibility.

Which is exactly what I was getting at. You look at a plane part and consider it proof while others look at the same thing and aren't satisfied. That's not proof.

quote:

Main Entry: proof Function: noun 1 a : the cogency of evidence or of demonstrated relationship that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact Main Entry: proof Function: adjective 1 : firm or successful in resisting or repelling : IMPENETRABLE, IMPREGNABLE

No acceptance of the mind here, and hardly impenetrable.

^^ see, this is what im talking about. no matter how many times you show how many people or institutions disagree with jones' arguments, the CTers keep popping up with their links to his "research".

they ignore the fact that he's not qualified to make these arguments, and ignore all the structural engineers that condemn him.

i have no idea why theres no footage of a plane hitting the pentagon. all i can say is thank fuck theres footage of the WTC coz god knows what kind of bullshit you cretins would end up believing without it.

in case anyone missed it:

jones is not a fucking engineer!

quote:

Which is exactly what I was getting at. You look at a plane part and consider it proof while others look at the same thing and aren't satisfied. That's not proof.

see, in a court of law, we also have "on the balance of probabilities". i consider myself a rational person. so, when i compare two contradictory statements that im not an expert to answer, i must go a step further and rationalise what im being told. if im being told something that i later find out to be a fabrication, then i start to doubt other "facts" ive discovered.

the CT sites are full of lies and deceitful half-truths. if youre on the "correct" side of an argument, you dont need to fabricate evidence to advance your case.

the simple fact of the matter is, no CT is able to give us a properly articulated position as to how the towers were brought down and by what. hint: it wasnt fvcking thermite. there hasnt been a single plausible argument for explosives yet. thermite is the favourite, but they ignore the dozens of reasons why it wasnt so.

lame.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Doesn't prove a thing. You can know it's going to happen and still LET it happen. So enough of your flippant, smug remarks.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN the simple fact of the matter is, no CT is able to give us a properly articulated position as to how the towers were brought down and by what.

neither is anyone else. because the rubble was cleared without being examined there is no physical evidence that explicitly tells what brought down the towers.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 neither is anyone else. because the rubble was cleared without being examined there is no physical evidence that explicitly tells what brought down the towers.

hey! i know! why dont you propogate more falsehoods peddled by the conspiracy theorists as facts

photos!
more photos and diagrams and simulated models
the study

now, could you tell me why you said "without being examined"? im curious.

how much twisted metal do you think the towers comprised? you reckon you should just leave it lying around? simply put you couldnt possibly test all those thousands of tonnes of metal. they tested some and they did what anyone would do with scrap metal, they melted it down and sold it off

now, please tell me you think NIST are all part of the wider government plot.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Which is exactly what I was getting at. You look at a plane part and consider it proof while others look at the same thing and aren't satisfied. That's not proof. No acceptance of the mind here, and hardly impenetrable.

ok, how about something like this?

quote:

Or consider this first-person commentary by a reporter for USA Today: 'Tomorrow always belongs to us' By Vin Narayanan, USATODAY.com 09/17/2001 - Updated 02:43 PM ET "At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon. The windows were dark on American Airlines Flight 77 as it streaked toward its target, only 50 yards away. The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball."

would that be proof?

at least, would it (and dozens of others like it), combined with actual parts of planes in the wreckage, just make you wonder if someone was pulling your leg when they tell you the US government fired a missile at one of its own important institutions?

you know, just make you query it a little bit?

to be honest josh, i think youve paid too much attention to the CT websites and not nearly enough to anything else.

quote:

Some of the sources relied on by Griffin claim to have debunked ten or twenty eyewitness accounts they found on the internet; but there were, in fact, hundreds of eyewitnesses to the commercial jet hitting the Pentagon. Scores gave their accounts to reporters and investigators. Some of their statements can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/identification.html

___________________