Comments Posted By TomB
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 47 Comments
9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL
Here's another stupefying example. Hans quotes a expert as somehow supporting the conspiracy:
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,†explained Dr. Quintiere.
Notice how he doesn't go any further explaining exactly what the Doctor found "questionable"? That's because it has absolutely nothing to do with a conspiracy. Here Dr. Quintiere elaborates:
But some experts remain unconvinced by the study's conclusions. James Quintiere, of the University of Maryland, US, says he does not understand how fireproof insulation could have been dislodged from the buildings' floors and columns.
"Everything I see points to the fact that there may not have been enough insulation," he told New Scientist, adding that the fuel loads used in the report's calculations may have been too low.
Hans, did you really thing we wouldn't check? How many more things are you going to make up? Or, alternatively, you better find another conspiracy website from which to take your "facts".
Comment Posted By TomB On 26.08.2007 @ 14:14
Frank, I spent many hours debating Moon Hoax believers (call me a masochist), and the tactics of the two are almost identical. Ask a question (usually under the guise of "just asking" or "keeping an open mind), have it answered, and then, instead of replying, they just change the subject and ask other questions or make other statements. If you look, that is exactly what is done on this thread.
What really makes me mad is the stuff like "Bush's brother was head of security etc." Now that is a complete lie, and one that has been answered many times, yet Hans mentions it like it was handed to him by God. What kind of person would read a fact like that, and then NOT further reseach the subject before parroting it elsewhere? If for no other reason than to not look like a complete horses's ass.
Comment Posted By TomB On 26.08.2007 @ 14:06
Hans, you've lied about so many things on this thread (i.e. Marvin Bush was in charge of security for the WTC, fire can't weaken steel, fires that remained after the impact were pretty small and localized, our air defense system was ordered to stand down) why should anybody believe anything you write?
Comment Posted By TomB On 26.08.2007 @ 12:57
Well, now that I've had a chance to peruse the Fire Engineering website, I cannot find even one mention of a 9-11 conspiracy. I read numerous articles about 9-11 and the WTC, and they mostly all discuss problems with building design, fireproofing, firefighting protocols, etc.
Absolutely no mention of a conspiracy, yet you posted the link as some sort of proof. Are you being disingenuous, or did you just parrot the link from some other site with reading the entire article?
Comment Posted By TomB On 25.08.2007 @ 10:05
BTW, how do you know the people in the link you provided are "sober minded scholars"?
Comment Posted By TomB On 25.08.2007 @ 05:27
DJ, I read the two articles, and there is absolutely nothing in them that has anything to do with your conspiracy theory. They were urging (the articles were written on 4 months after the attacks) an investigation into the construction of the buildings and their fireproofing:
The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.
Pretty cut-and-dried.
Now, will you please answer my question?
Comment Posted By TomB On 25.08.2007 @ 05:24
From your post:
always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings’ design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.
Sounds like they accept what they saw and want to know exactly it was with the building's design that caused it to collapse. Nowhere do I see anthing remotely suggesting a conspiracy in that comment.
Comment Posted By TomB On 24.08.2007 @ 21:17
I almost forgot…a leading firefighters’ trade publication ‘Fire Engineering’ said this:
Could you tell me what issue this is from please?
Comment Posted By TomB On 24.08.2007 @ 21:09
We all need to take a deep breath, I think.
I'm breathing fine, thank you.
First of all, the 911 Commission Report is every bit as much a “conspiracy theoryâ€,
You are correct. I delineates a conspiracy of a few dozen men, in multiple countries getting together to plan and execute an attack on the US. The difference between this conspiracy and the "other" one is that we have ample proof of this one. Video of planes hitting the WTCs, documents left behind from the hijackers, debris, human remains, and, of course, a confession from OBL.
Secondly, an investigation of WHAT EXACTLY CAUSED the towers to fall on their own footprints has NOT been done.
I read the report, and found it easy to read and understand. If you cannot wrap your mind around a fully fueled airliner hitting a tower, ripping into multiple floors, exposing the structural steel, causing an inferno that weakened the steel, and then causing the area to fail; I can't help you.
It is perfectly valid, sane, and patriotic to ask HOW DID A FIRE CAUSE THE ENTIRE BUILDIDNG TO COLLAPSE IN LESS THAN 10 SECONDS ON IT’S OWN FOOTPRINT.
Can we go easy on the CAPS? It just makes you look silly.
If it collapsed "in its own footprint", what hit WTC7?
If can’t stand the gaul of people who dare to ask valid questions, if all you can do in response is “ad hominem†attacks, maybe you have fallen prey to the “my country right or wrong†mentality. If so, then you wouldn’t believe our government was involved even if it were proven.
Are these an example of "valid" questions/statements?
1.The Twin Towers were evacuated for a FULL WEEKEND prior to 9/11.
2.And Bush’s brother and cousin were in charge of security at WTC.
3.an uncontrolled fire alone doesn’t melt steel
4.What’s your evidence of fires capable of weakening steel?
5.Why are at least 6 of the hijackers still known to be alive and well?
6.What can possibly be so secretive about a plane hitting the Pentagon?
___________________________
I can post more if you want when I get up tomorrow morning, but that pretty much makes my case. The statements are all demonstrably false, and do absolutely nothing to futher inquiry.
The towers fell at the rate of about 10 floors per second, collapsing on their own footprints… but you can’t believe your lying eyes, can you?
Now it sounds like you need to take a breath.
Comment Posted By TomB On 24.08.2007 @ 21:03
TomB. Why not focus your fervent energies on getting the truth from those who know what it is i.e. the government. All I’m doing is asking the questions and refusing to accept the half-baked answers people on this blog insist on coming up with in defense of some well-meaning idiosyncrasy that all is well.
You are posting completely false statements as fact in the guise of "asking questions".
You said:
What about Bush’s brother being in charge of security until the final day when the contract ended?
Are you saying that is a factual statement?
Comment Posted By TomB On 24.08.2007 @ 16:20
