ANZACs and war and stuff

[Banditbandit]

Well, you could always watch the video and thus avoid arguing from a position of ignorance.

(And it's probably not wise using as an example, an event that also has many serious questions surrounding the official story, when trying to discredit a post).

I'm sorry but I am not trying to discredit any post. I am trying to provide counterarguments to what I think are statments with litle or no foundation .. I am not into "discredit" ...

Second, listening to a video will give me no indication whatsoever of whereabouts in the area that is being filmed that the sound is coming from - my sound comes out of my speakers in front of me .. I have no way to tell if the origin point of the sound is in relation to the microphone that recorded it live.

And finally, I was not making a serious point ... "the third gunman on the hill" is a joke point referencing a very famous conspiracy theory ...

Laugh a little ...

[Katman]

I am trying to provide counterarguments to what I think are statments with litle or no foundation .. I am not into "discredit" ...

Really?

Do you call the post quoted below a counter-argument?

Yeah ... and plenty of people heard a third gunman on grassy knoll .. I suppose you know who that was ...

[Katman]

Second, listening to a video will give me no indication whatsoever of whereabouts in the area that is being filmed that the sound is coming from - my sound comes out of my speakers in front of me .. I have no way to tell if the origin point of the sound is in relation to the microphone that recorded it live.

There's a lot more to the video than just listening to explosions.

There's a lot of very compelling evidence in it.

[Banditbandit]

Really?

Do you call the post quoted below a counter-argument?

No ... I don't ... as I indicated I consider it a joke ... that's a very different thing.

Have you no sense of humour ???

[Katman]

Have you no sense of humour ???

What's that?

[Ocean1]

Ed's debunking theory proof:
1/ The towers could not have been blown up as it would have taken tens of thousands of tonnes of explosives to do it.

Ed's reason for the towers coming down:
2/ An aeroplane flew into the building and the kerosene caught on fire causing global collapse.

If the towers came down because of a kerosene fire, does that not then put a lie to the first statement?
ie. If the second statement is true then the first cannot be true.
Equally, if the towers needed tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosive to demolish them then the second statement must be false.
You can't have it both ways.

Simple logic.

But that wasn't your objection to his logic.

You said:

Can't have been a demolition job because tens of thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to be used.
Yet it fell down without any explosives being used according to the links you just posted.

And there's no conflict there whatsoever.

In fact both of your summary statements say exactly the same thing: The building fell down without explosives being used.

Which, far from posing some irrefutable counter argument simply suggests that you're horribly confused about it all.

Outside of which, even your presumably intended contention that it couldn't have been a fire if it wasn't an explosion simply isn't true.

So, your logic might be simple, but correct it certainly isn't.

[Katman]

Anyone feel up to debating the evidence presented in the video I linked to yet?

[Kickaha]

2/ An aeroplane flew into the building and the kerosene caught on fire causing global collapse.

You say that like it's a Cessna instead of a commercial Airliner weighing in at up to 186,880kg and like there's nothing else in the building that would burn

Plenty of eye witness accounts of hearing explosions and plenty of accounts of the presence of molten metal in the rubble - a fact that NIST tried to deny.

How many explosions? because from the controlled demoliton I watched in real life on a building a fraction of the size of WTC there's a whole lot of banging going on plus you can see the flashes inside the building as they blow

Got a link to them denying it?

Some interesting stuff about temparatures and burning

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[Katman]

Got a link to them denying it?

Clearly you haven't watched the video yet - it's in there.

[Katman]

How many explosions? because from the controlled demoliton I watched in real life on a building a fraction of the size of WTC there's a whole lot of banging going on plus you can see the flashes inside the building as they blow

Do you reckon that the company who carried out the demolition you watched would have the same level of technology and sophistication available to them that the U.S. government might?

[Hinny]

You say that like it's a Cessna instead of a commercial Airliner weighing in at up to 186,880kg and like there's nothing else in the building that would burn

How many explosions? because from the controlled demoliton I watched in real life on a building a fraction of the size of WTC there's a whole lot of banging going on plus you can see the flashes inside the building as they blow

Got a link to them denying it?

Some interesting stuff about temparatures and burning

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

If the statement is true that it would need tens of thousands of tons of high explosive to demolish the building then clearly even if the entiremass of the plane was Kerosene then it would not have been sufficient to bring the building down. Remember the South tower with the huge fireball coming out the side. There's where most of that went.
The woman standing in the hole of the major impacted tower - obviously not very hot there.
The guys walking down the stairs past the fire - they didn't think it was very hot.
The firefighters who got to the damaged floors and reported they could deal with the fire with a couple of hoses.
This is the fire you are claiming has the destructive ability of tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosive.
You have got to be kidding.

The links you posted were interesting.
I assume you now accept what I had previously stated that there were pools of molten steel in the rubble 2 months after the collapse.

The latter link was a bit difficult to follow but I persevered. His conclusions are, in my opinion, not supported by the 'evidence' he presented.

The first poster resorts to the inane name calling that is typical of those I referred to above.
Completely loses me when he starts quoting scripture.

[Hinny]

When George Bush Senior was caught lying in his Live video 'to the World' Angela D'Audney made the succinct response "Well I guess that shows the first casualty of War is the Truth".

Plenty of people think the destruction of the Larry's buildings - the Twin Towers and WTC7 - was a means to get the general populace to approve them going to war. That only his buildings fell down and not those between the towers and WTC7 did seem odd.
Those that reject that point of view argue that the govt. would not go and kill three thousand of its own citizens.
I would suggest that there would have been very little loss of life had the calls not been made telling people there was nothing to worry about and to go back to work.
Others say the Govt. is so inept they couldn't organise such a thing. "Couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery"!

The tragic events of Sept. 11 2001 raised questions that should not be left unanswered as they have been. And not left to 'God Botherers' to explain by quoting the Bible - for God's sake!
The families deserve answers. The world deserves answers. The Govt. has a moral duty to explain and if wrong is been found to have been done the perpetrators must be brought to justice.
Successive administrations have blocked access to items which could very simply put to rest a lot of speculation and conjecture.- for example confiscated video footage of the Pentagon. Calls for information under the Freedom of information act are ignored or rejected.
Instead they continue to obfuscate, reject and deny.
These actions alone, in my book, say they have something to hide.
Too many coincidences for them to be plausible; to any but the ardent 'believers' for whom no amount of proof would suffice.
Too many changes of story when parts of the story; become unravelled they merely alter the story. In the same manner the reasons for going to Invade Iraq.
Too little official action or information from the 'Authorities'. - although there does seem to be anonymous action from 'Authorities'. - Some have speculated on the source of financing of some of the 'information' that is disseminated over the web and through the media.
Maybe if Dick Cheney was waterboarded we might get some answers.
I pretty sure it would not take the 147 near death experiences that Khalid Sheik Mohammed endured before he confessed: "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z."
He also confessed to

• Organizing the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,
• The Bali nightclub bombings,
• Richard Reid's attempted shoe bombing,
• Planning the attacks on Heathrow Airport and Big Ben clock tower in London,
• Daniel Pearl's murder in 2002,
• Planned assassination attempts on Pope John Paul II, Pervez Musharraf and Bill Clinton

Was he a busy boy or just tired of the torture?
What might Cheney reveal?

[Hinny]

How many explosions? because from the controlled demoliton I watched in real life on a building a fraction of the size of WTC there's a whole lot of banging going on plus you can see the flashes inside the building as they blow



Some interesting stuff about temparatures and burning

If you are referring to the destruction of 'the Grand Chancellor' building then you must surely have noticed the similarity in the way that building and WTC7 came down.

Was the 'interesting stuff' about temperatures and burning the 1000 degree heat he quoted for steel to burn or the 2,800 degree temperature he quoted three lines later?

[Hinny]

But that wasn't your objection to his logic.

You said:



And there's no conflict there whatsoever.

In fact both of your summary statements say exactly the same thing: The building fell down without explosives being used.

Which, far from posing some irrefutable counter argument simply suggests that you're horribly confused about it all.

Outside of which, even your presumably intended contention that it couldn't have been a fire if it wasn't an explosion simply isn't true.

So, your logic might be simple, but correct it certainly isn't.

Time to re-read I suggest.
Your assertion is patently incorrect.

[Ocean1]

Time to re-read I suggest.
Your assertion is patently incorrect.

I did. Just for you.

The two statements still refuse to contradict each other. You're still wrong.