Political Crossfire Forums

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: I have never talked to psholtz before in my life and I have came to many of the SAME conclusions,so how can that be?

Because you think with your emotions instead of looking at the facts. You WANT to believe Bush is a military dictator so when someone voices this out loud you immediately latch onto him.

Can YOU back up Psholtz's claims? I sincerely doubt it.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: I have never talked to psholtz before in my life and I have came to many of the SAME conclusions,so how can that be?

Because you think with your emotions instead of looking at the facts. You WANT to believe Bush is a military dictator so when someone voices this out loud you immediately latch onto him.

Can YOU back up Psholtz's claims? I sincerely doubt it. I can back up my beliefs,but why should I go through all of that again,it's very time consuming.I don't want to believe anything,thats where your wrong,I want the truth,whatever that may be.So I was on a quest to try and find what the truth is on many issues.I don't think the way you trivialize
this is appropriate.We are sincere in our claims.

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: I have never talked to psholtz before in my life and I have came to many of the SAME conclusions,so how can that be?

Because you think with your emotions instead of looking at the facts. You WANT to believe Bush is a military dictator so when someone voices this out loud you immediately latch onto him.

Can YOU back up Psholtz's claims? I sincerely doubt it.
How are those google links coming? :lol:

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: I have never talked to psholtz before in my life and I have came to many of the SAME conclusions,so how can that be?

Because you think with your emotions instead of looking at the facts. You WANT to believe Bush is a military dictator so when someone voices this out loud you immediately latch onto him.

Can YOU back up Psholtz's claims? I sincerely doubt it. I can back up my beliefs,but why should I go through all of that again,it's very time consuming.I don't want to believe anything,thats where your wrong,I want the truth,whatever that may be.So I was on a quest to try and find what the truth is on many issues.I don't think the way you trivialize
this is appropriate.We are sincere in our claims.

OK. Back them up. You believe the same as Psholtz that Bush is a military dictator. I have not read anything by you where you back up this belief, so you can't use the excuse you've done it before.

If you want the truth as you claim, why do you ignore the facts and insist on going with the questions? You aren't going for the truth. You have preconceived notions and you're trying to find something to back them up. That isn't the same thing.

And I wholeheartedly believe you are sincere in your claims. I am not trivializing them. I am just pointing out where your claims are factually incorrect. Just because you believe these claims to be true does not make them true. You shouldn't be so defensive when someone points out the flaws in your beliefs. If you really are out to discover the truth you will look at ALL the data out there and not just pick and choose which pieces of data you will look at because they support your beliefs.

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: I have never talked to psholtz before in my life and I have came to many of the SAME conclusions,so how can that be?

Because you think with your emotions instead of looking at the facts. You WANT to believe Bush is a military dictator so when someone voices this out loud you immediately latch onto him.

Can YOU back up Psholtz's claims? I sincerely doubt it.
How are those google links coming? :lol:

Already responded to them. ;-) You were caught with your pants down around your ankles AGAIN. It must be rough getting caught lying so often.

[psholtz]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: I have never talked to psholtz before in my life and I have came to many of the SAME conclusions,so how can that be?

Because you think with your emotions instead of looking at the facts. You WANT to believe Bush is a military dictator so when someone voices this out loud you immediately latch onto him.

Can YOU back up Psholtz's claims? I sincerely doubt it. I can back up my beliefs,but why should I go through all of that again,it's very time consuming.I don't want to believe anything,thats where your wrong,I want the truth,whatever that may be.So I was on a quest to try and find what the truth is on many issues.I don't think the way you trivialize
this is appropriate.We are sincere in our claims.
Yes..

These are my sentiments exactly..

Backing up stuff is very time-consuming..

I have 17,200+ posts over 2 1/2 years on this site, a large fraction of which are devoted *precisely* to providing such evidence. If Patriot911 is interested, he search my post history. Or else he can do the research himself.. or else he can choose a username that isn't going to limit him ideologically quite so narrowly.. :lol:

but I'm not going to waste my time trying to "prove" things to someone who's mind is already made up.

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: I have never talked to psholtz before in my life and I have came to many of the SAME conclusions,so how can that be?

Because you think with your emotions instead of looking at the facts. You WANT to believe Bush is a military dictator so when someone voices this out loud you immediately latch onto him.

Can YOU back up Psholtz's claims? I sincerely doubt it. I can back up my beliefs,but why should I go through all of that again,it's very time consuming.I don't want to believe anything,thats where your wrong,I want the truth,whatever that may be.So I was on a quest to try and find what the truth is on many issues.I don't think the way you trivialize
this is appropriate.We are sincere in our claims.
Yes..

These are my sentiments exactly..

Backing up stuff is very time-consuming..

I have 17,200+ posts over 2 1/2 years on this site, a large fraction of which are devoted *precisely* to providing such evidence. If Patriot911 is interested, he search my post history. Or else he can do the research himself.. or else he can choose a username that isn't going to limit him ideologically quite so narrowly.. :lol:

but I'm not going to waste my time trying to "prove" things to someone who's mind is already made up.

Someone using the number of posts he has made as proof of something shows just how little credibility he already has. 17,200 garbage posts don't mean dick.

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: Someone using the number of posts he has made as proof of something shows just how little credibility he already has. 17,200 garbage posts don't mean dick.
Seriously.. what do you care?

You believe the government lie concerning 9/11..

Big deal..

I don't care.

Pick up and move on already..

Why do you even bother posting on these threads, if this isn't something you're interested in?

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: Someone using the number of posts he has made as proof of something shows just how little credibility he already has. 17,200 garbage posts don't mean dick.
Seriously.. what do you care?

You believe the government lie concerning 9/11..

Big deal..

I don't care.

Pick up and move on already..

Why do you even bother posting on these threads, if this isn't something you're interested in?

I am not here to amuse you. Although I do have to admit your posts have had me rolling in the aisle more than once.

And as I've stated NUMEROUS times (you would think you would have caught on by now if you could actually comprehend what you read), I'm here to debunk the 9/11 conspiracies, not to back up the government story. You believe anyone (and just about everyone) is resposible for 9/11 except Al Qaeda unless Al Qaeda is working for <insert name of favorite elite overlord organization here>.

Once again you make a claim that is not only blatantly false, but one you can't prove. You claim I am not interested in the conspiracy theories? :lol: Yeah right. Thats a good one! Wrong yet again! I am very interested in the theories and in proving them wrong. Unlike you, I can actually back up every one of my assertions and I don't have to use sites like prisonplanet or Alex Jones to do it. ;-)

[Mighty Oak]

Quote: I have not read anything by you where you back up this belief, so you can't use the excuse you've done it before.
Sir I may have not provided you with my research but I have done so many times in the past so I know what to expect by reading into your replies. Quote: If you want the truth as you claim, why do you ignore the facts I don't ignore facts,I evaluate all info and form an opinion Quote: You aren't going for the truth. Yes I am Quote: You have preconceived notions and you're trying to find something to back them up. That isn't the same thing Were all bias,but I honestly try to set that aside.In fact if you knew me before my "quest"you would be shocked Quote: Just because you believe these claims to be true does not make them true Very true Quote: If you really are out to discover the truth you will look at ALL the data out there and not just pick and choose which pieces of data you will look at because they support your beliefs I believe I do that,thats why I am on these boards,to get other perspectives.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Quote: I have not read anything by you where you back up this belief, so you can't use the excuse you've done it before.
Sir I may have not provided you with my research but I have done so many times in the past so I know what to expect by reading into your replies. Quote: If you want the truth as you claim, why do you ignore the facts I don't ignore facts,I evaluate all info and form an opinion Quote: You aren't going for the truth. Yes I am Quote: You have preconceived notions and you're trying to find something to back them up. That isn't the same thing Were all bias,but I honestly try to set that aside.In fact if you knew me before my "quest"you would be shocked Quote: Just because you believe these claims to be true does not make them true Very true Quote: If you really are out to discover the truth you will look at ALL the data out there and not just pick and choose which pieces of data you will look at because they support your beliefs I believe I do that,thats why I am on these boards,to get other perspectives.

OK. Let me prove my point. What do you think happened to WTC 7 and what is your proof to back up your assertion?

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: OK. Let me prove my point. What do you think happened to WTC 7 and what is your proof to back up your assertion?
You realize that the government has devised (and later retracted) 5 separate explanations for the collapse of WTC7, and now intends to look into the possibility that WTC7 was brought down by bombs.

[Mighty Oak]

Quote: OK. Let me prove my point. What do you think happened to WTC 7 and what is your proof to back up your assertion? Ok I'll bite.

What I believe happened to WTC7 is it collapsed.Why did it collapse is what I am trying to find out.It did fall at freefall speed,it did have damage to the right side bottom of it and there were fires in it.No steel highrise has ever fell due to fire in the past so I am concerned about this.There is a "kink" that is very easy to see in some of the videos of the collapse which look a lot like a controlled demolition.Freefall speed means no resistance which is not possible without something taking out the steel to let it fall so quickly.Also there is molten metal at the base of this building as well as the two towers which is suspicious by itself.My proof would only be the lack of an investigation into why,how the building fell.Everything that I mentioned above does not prove a thing except that we are not being told something here,so I believe there is something being hidden from us.As it stands right now I believe it was a controlled demo.There are more reasons but that would turn into a book,I hope you can understand that.

[JohnnyQ]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: OK. Let me prove my point. What do you think happened to WTC 7 and what is your proof to back up your assertion?
You realize that the government has devised (and later retracted) 5 separate explanations for the collapse of WTC7, and now intends to look into the possibility that WTC7 was brought down by bombs.

Source? You got me interested.

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: OK. Let me prove my point. What do you think happened to WTC 7 and what is your proof to back up your assertion?
You realize that the government has devised (and later retracted) 5 separate explanations for the collapse of WTC7, and now intends to look into the possibility that WTC7 was brought down by bombs.
:lol: Nice way of trying to portray the government as trying to come up with excuses. Whats your point? As the investigations went on, the theory of what brought down WTC7 changed. That is what theories do with normal people. As new evidence comes along, the theory changes to account for the new evidence. This differs from the conspiracy theories which remain the same regardless of what evidence is presented.

As for the NIST going back and looking for traces of bombs, this is in response to the 9/11 whiners who claim bombs were used despite all the evidence to the contrary. Think they will find any evidence? Of course they won't. There IS no evidence because bombs were not used. No firefighter heard any bombs going off despite being VERY close to the building when it collapsed. Video evidence does not show bombs or, more importantly, have any audio evidence of bombs going off despite being only a few blocks away.

So congrats all you conspiracy nutjobs. You've convinced the government to waste more millions chasing after your imaginary ghosts. :roll:

[psholtz]

yanniv wrote: psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: OK. Let me prove my point. What do you think happened to WTC 7 and what is your proof to back up your assertion?
You realize that the government has devised (and later retracted) 5 separate explanations for the collapse of WTC7, and now intends to look into the possibility that WTC7 was brought down by bombs.

Source? You got me interested.
That NIST is investigating the possibility of explosions at WTC7, you have:

Quote: This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

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


As for previous goverment explanations about WTC7, it will take me time to dig up those references, but they range from the "weakened steel" hypothesis of WTC1 and 2, to "fuel tanks exploding in the basement", etc.. I find it *especially* interesting that (a) NIST claims there is "no evidence" of an explosion, but they're looking into the possibility; and (b) one of the official government explanations was that a huge fuel tank exploded in the basement.. :lol:

DoubleThink at its best.. :-D

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: OK. Let me prove my point. What do you think happened to WTC 7 and what is your proof to back up your assertion?
You realize that the government has devised (and later retracted) 5 separate explanations for the collapse of WTC7, and now intends to look into the possibility that WTC7 was brought down by bombs.
:lol: Nice way of trying to portray the government as trying to come up with excuses. Whats your point? As the investigations went on, the theory of what brought down WTC7 changed. That is what theories do with normal people. As new evidence comes along, the theory changes to account for the new evidence. This differs from the conspiracy theories which remain the same regardless of what evidence is presented.

As for the NIST going back and looking for traces of bombs, this is in response to the 9/11 whiners who claim bombs were used despite all the evidence to the contrary. Think they will find any evidence? Of course they won't. There IS no evidence because bombs were not used. No firefighter heard any bombs going off despite being VERY close to the building when it collapsed. Video evidence does not show bombs or, more importantly, have any audio evidence of bombs going off despite being only a few blocks away.

So congrats all you conspiracy nutjobs. You've convinced the government to waste more millions chasing after your imaginary ghosts. :roll: Maybe you can't see how you contradicted yourself here,but I can.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Quote: OK. Let me prove my point. What do you think happened to WTC 7 and what is your proof to back up your assertion? Ok I'll bite.

What I believe happened to WTC7 is it collapsed.Why did it collapse is what I am trying to find out.It did fall at freefall speed,it did have damage to the right side bottom of it and there were fires in it.

Yet you ignore all the rest of the evidence, primarily from firefighters who say there was a 10-20 story tall hole in the middle of the building that covered about a third of the front face of the building. You also ignore the other evidence of imminent collapse such as a three to five story bulge and the fact that the fire department felt it was only a matter of time before the building fell. It is their job to be able to identify buildings at risk of collapse.

Mighty Oak wrote: No steel highrise has ever fell due to fire in the past so I am concerned about this.
Any other steel highrise buildings have two 110 story buildings collapse nearby? And why do you insist on ONLY blaming the collapse on the fire and not on the structural damage? This is what I am talking about when I say you selectively ignore evidence.

Mighty Oak wrote: There is a "kink" that is very easy to see in some of the videos of the collapse which look a lot like a controlled demolition.

So because it "looks" like a controlled demolition to you, an untrained civilian, then it MUST be a controlled demolition? This is what I was talking about thinking with emotion rather than thinking with the facts.

Mighty Oak wrote: Freefall speed means no resistance which is not possible without something taking out the steel to let it fall so quickly.

The building did not fall at freefall speeds. And in a controlled demolition, the explosives only take out the primary supports which means the rest of the building collapses at the exact same speed as it would if those primary supports were to collapse for other reasons.

Mighty Oak wrote: Also there is molten metal at the base of this building as well as the two towers which is suspicious by itself.

There is no report of molten metal in the base of WTC 7. You have to quit believing everything you read at the conspiracy sites and do some independant investigation.

Mighty Oak wrote: My proof would only be the lack of an investigation into why,how the building fell.

Lack of investigation?!? What do you call the FEMA and then NIST investigations? Thousands of people including numerous independant structural engineers examined the evidence and determined the building fell due to structural failure.

Mighty Oak wrote: Everything that I mentioned above does not prove a thing except that we are not being told something here,so I believe there is something being hidden from us.

So what are we not being told? While I agree it is highly likely we do not have the whole story about 9/11, I can't imagine what they are witholding from us that would explain the collapse of WTC 7 more than the NIST report did.

Mighty Oak wrote: As it stands right now I believe it was a controlled demo.

So you have no video or audio evidence of explosives going off before the collapse, the fire department clearly stating in multiple testimonies that they believed the building was clearly going to collapse on its own and stated what they saw that led them to come to that conclusion, no seismic evidence that would indicate explosives being used and
no evidence of steel being blown by explosives that the demolition crews and forensic experts would have noticed during the removal of the debris. Yet you still believe it was a controlled demolition? Why?

Mighty Oak wrote: There are more reasons but that would turn into a book,I hope you can understand that.

No, I don't understand that. You want to convince people that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives, then give us ALL your evidence. Don't bother cutting and pasting from conspiracy sites. This does not constitute evidence.

OK. Let me make it easy on you. Give me ONE piece of hard evidence that explosives were used. Something that could be used in a court of law. In other words, it can't be supposition (you "think" the kink proves it), it can't be coincidental (They were trying to hide evidence so that proves explosives were used) and it can't be heresay (Alex Jones said it so it HAS to be true!).

I've given you numerous pieces of hard evidence that would hold up in a court of law. First hand expert witnesses. Video and audio evidence that does not show explosives being used when the camera was WELL within range of hearing any explosive being used. Seismic evidence from multiple sites that show the collapse, but none of the telltale signs of explosives being used. And of course a government report done with the help of numerous independant structural engineers that show a working theory as to how the collapse could have occured.

[Mighty Oak]

Quote: The building did not fall at freefall speeds Thats BS,it most certainly did.

Maybe your not aware but you sir are not looking for the truth,you are looking to reinforce the Governments story.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: There is a "kink" that is very easy to see in some of the videos of the collapse which look a lot like a controlled demolition.

Controlled demolitions start at the bottom of the building, where the charges break the supporting beams. The bottom floors collapse and this collapse goes up floor by floor as the building falls into the hole.

The WTC collapse obviously starts at the top of the building and the collapsing floors go downward toward the bottom.

Watch the tapes. It falls straight, but other than that it does not look like a controlled demolition at all.