Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Christians hate the movie “Creation"? That means I want to see it!


Unfortunately, not a single movie distributor in the United States has picked up the film because of the creation/evolution controversy

by Larry Simons
September 15, 2009

The upcoming film “Creation”, a biographical film about the life of Charles Darwin, starring Paul Bettany (“The Da Vinci Code”) and Jennifer Connelly (“A Beautiful Mind”), will not be released in the United States because the religious right in this country is scared to death of anyone having an independent thought.

They are also scared of the fact that [heaven forbid], thinking and rational thought might lead the independent mind to believe that denying the existence of an unseen and unprovable God is the epitome of all evil.

watch the trailer


Why do Christians feel so threatened by this kind of thing? If their belief in God is so strong and unwavering, why would they be frightened that people might actually see movies with this kind of subject matter? Isn’t God supposedly stronger than that?

Of course, it matters not that Charles Darwin’s wife, Emma, was deeply religious. It also matters not that the real life actors who play Charles and Emma Darwin, Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly, are married in real life. Christians get more excited watching films like The Passion of the Christ, directed by anti-semite Mel Gibson, who is also the son of a holocaust denier. Christians have ZERO issues with that!

I hope the film receives even more attention and desire in people to want to see it in light of the United States banning the film.

The film opens September 25, 2009 in the U.K.

Read Jonathan Turley’s story on this, here.

121 comments:

Anonymous said...

we just have to hand out copies of zeitgiest.

the_last_name_left said...

shows how silly people can be.

even some physicists can maintain christian belief and maintain their view of science.

For me, stuff that can't be detected, doesn't exist. Darwinism is just so obviously correct.

Sad, and weird, that the most scientific and advanced nation should also be one of the most religious.

Nutters.

I don't like films though - so I probably won't watch it.

btw I'm waiting for my net connex to improve so I can watch that Griffin interview.

Larry said...

What does "waiting for my net connex to improve" mean? You need to watch/listen to that Griffin interview. NatGeo has really embarrassed themselves his time. Kinda like Popular Mechanics have already done.

Messianic Akratist said...

OK, Larry - I don't agree with the censorship. But it is usually going the other way. "Scientists" will not allow anyone to challenge their accepted wisdom regarding evolution, global warming, AIDS or anything of substance.
The "scientific method" is supposed to be about proving things by repeatable experimentation.
Darwin did not prove anything. There is as little connection between microevolution (which happens all the time WITHIN species) and macroevolution (change from one species to another) as there is between micro- and macro-economics. It can't be proven. You have to make a bigger "leap of faith" than the one you say you can't make to believe in creation.

Larry said...

TLNL: "For me, stuff that can't be detected, doesn't exist."

This is exactly w I dont buy the official story of 9/11. The official story has no evidence of their claims, therefore it doesnt exist.

Phill, Im not saying youre wrong. But, if youre right, then the religious right have nothing to worry about in the releasing of this film, right? "If God is for us, who can be against us" right?

But, it seems they DO fear the film being released---why? It's just like the 9/11 stuff. If the mainstream media thinks we're all nuts for our views on 9/11, then why not have us on their shows to show the world that we're "nutballs"? But yet, they dont have us on, do they? Is it because they have something to fear? Same with religion. Why not show the film "Creation" if it makes evolutionists look nutty? Dont you think Christians would WANT a film to be released that makes evolutionists look crazy? But yet they want to stifle it. You have to ask "why".

Messianic Akratist said...

I don't know WHO is trying to shut it down, I just know it's not me. I am not afraid of legitimate debate and allowing people to consider ALL the evidence and make up their minds.
For all I know, this "censorship" could be a false flag op trying to bring attention to an otherwise flop of a flick.

the_last_name_left said...

"Scientists" will not allow anyone to challenge their accepted wisdom regarding evolution, global warming, AIDS or anything of substance.

Oh rubbish!

That's such a dreary old response.

You probably believe a load of wacko nonsense - and likely you feel its total rejection by those more objective as a personal wound.

Of course there's a strain of conservatism within science - and ego and all other human foibles, no doubt.

But....just because science determinedly throws out the wackos, that's no reason to complain.

Darwin did not prove anything.

He didn't turn fish into birds, you mean?

It's 150 years later, and the evidence has been accumulating. It all really points one way - and every major discovery has validated and refined the idea. It's true.

@Larry - I disagree about the evidence on 911. There is a huge amount of evidence for the obvious explanation of 911. There is no evidence for any other explanation.

You reject the evidence because you think it is all compromised. Well, ok - but the evidence is there. It's you that dismisses it. But then it's you who claims there's no evidence. But of course there's "no evidence" if you simply choose to dismiss it all.

You choose to dismiss all the evidence because you believe it's compromised - by a massive conspiracy.

Well, that's the issue then - not the evidence. And it really is a methodology eg Richard Gage is important to 911 Truth because he's an architect of sorts, and he believes in bombs in the towers. Nevermind that every other architect in the world is of a different opinion. Suddenly architectural expertise is irrelevant - because they're "compromised" or just dismissed as plain "wrong" on grounds of personal "instinct" ie ignorance.

And whilst earlier above there was a criticism of "SCIENCE" as being conservative and dismissive of challenge, there's no-one more guilty of such things than 911 Truth.

That's one of the characteristics that makes it look like a cult.

;)

Larry said...

“I disagree about the evidence on 911. There is a huge amount of evidence for the obvious explanation of 911. There is no evidence for any other explanation.”

What a crock of shit! Did you even bother watching the NatGeo show “9/11 Science and Conspiracy”? If you “debunkers” have all the truth on your side, why do you resort to complete BULLSHIT when it comes to “proving” your side? NatGeo ran a “test” to see if steel could melt in the WTC towers, so do you know what brilliant test they did? They sat a very small piece of steel on top of 2 concrete barriers over top a small pool of jet fuel and set the pool of jet fuel on fire.

In under 4 minutes the steel beam buckled and gave way---and they were filled with glee---oh my! They had “debunked” us! Not quite. First of all, the piece of steel they used was SMALL---id say probably a tenth of the size the beams were in the WTC towers. 2nd--- they used a SINGLE piece of steel! Any scientist will tell you that steel is a great conductor of heat. If you set a single piece of steel on fire, what dumbass doesn’t know that a SINGLE piece will get hotter MUCH faster than thousands and thousands of beams attached to it?

The WTC towers had 110 floors of interconnecting steel. When heat hits one beam, that heat travels to the next beam, then the next beam, and so on and so on. Like Griffin says in the interview you REFUSE to listen to, it would have taken FOREVER for the steel to get as hot as the fire itself since the heat was traveling through 110 floors of interconnected steel.

In their test, they had a pool of jet fuel underneath the beam. In an earlier segment, NatGeo had just said MOST of the jetfuel had vaporized upon impact, hence ADMITTING there was no POOLS of fuel laying around in the towers. How could there be POOLS of jetfuel in the towers anyway? In addition to them ADMITTING that most of the fuel vaporized, where (in the towers) would a POOL of jet fuel be able to be contained to just lay there? The fuel (upon entering the towers) that DIDN’T vaporized would have just splattered on walls and floors---where would a POOL of fuel have laid to just burn up?

They even ADMITTED on the NatGeo show that the fire in their experiment was MUCH hotter than the fire would have been in the towers! Even the NIST report debunks it’s own theory. They said in the NIST report that it would take the fires in the towers to reach 425 degrees (C) for the steel to lose just 1 % of its strength. That was no typo—I said 1 (ONE) % of its strength.

The scientists at NIST said they didn’t find ANY core columns that even got up to 250 degrees centigrade and steel doesn’t begin to lose 1 % of its strength until it reaches 425 degrees centigrade. It wasn’t even close to losing 1 % of its strength, and we’re supposed to believe that the beams got that hot in just 56 minutes and 105 minutes? YOU believe the fairy tale TLNL, not me! I get this straight from the NIST report—its not a “cxonspiracy”----Im using their OWN words!

So, tell me TLNL, if the truth is on YOUR side (the “debunkers”), why do you resort to ridiculous LIES and BULLSHIT like the ones organizations like NatGeo and Popular Mechanics resorts to? Popular Mechanics also told an Arizona radio talk show host in 2006 that they found DNA of the hijackers in the WTC rubble! H really??? Where did they get the ORIGINAL DNA to match it????

Messianic Akratist said...

@TLNL
You are exactly the type of "objective scientist" I am complaining about - and you prove it in your "arguments" about 9/11
You are not stating any facts and you are not refuting anyone else's statements. You just say "that's the way it is" and expect us to accept it - why? because you are smarter or more objective than I am, or Larry is? Give me a break.
Why are you even bothering to read this blog if you aren't willing to accept the possibility that someone else might know something you don't?

Larry said...

Oh, and one more thing about the NatGeo show on 9/11. They claimed that they were examining the Top 4 concerns/questions that truthers had with 9/11---yet WTC 7 was not included in the 4 things, despite the fact that WTC 7 has always been the Achilles heel of the truth movement. But, then again, Id expect them to IGNORE WTC 7, since the 9/11 commission did as well. How could they scientifically explain why a building collapses due to fire when it wasn’t hit by a plane? Even FEMA said regarding WTC 7’s collapse “it’s a LOW probability of occurrence” that it collapsed due to fire alone.

They also did a “test” in the NatGeo show ONLY using THERMITE, not NONOthermite or THERMATE, which is exactly what David Ray Griffin explained to them that most likely was used in the WTC towers. Also, Griffin told Jack Blood in the interview that you refuse to listen to, that they invited Steven Jones (the physicist) on the program, but the week they filmed, Jones couldn’t make it and Griffin suggested they replace him with Kevin Ryan (formerly of Underwriters Laboratories)---they ignored Griffin and didn’t replace Jones, but instead had on the show three NON-scientists on the truther side.

“You choose to dismiss all the evidence because you believe it's compromised - by a massive conspiracy.”

Dismiss all the evidence? WHAT evidence? I choose to dismiss the “debunkers” because they go OUT OF THEIR WAY to misinform, manipulate, spin, edit, censor, ignore, distort, delete and NOT investigate FACTS. There’s really NO way that NatGeo could have done an accurate test of melting steel in the WTC, because even if they were able to get a HUGE beam that was used in the WTC towers, they STILL would have needed 110 floors of interconnected steel attached to it to ACCURATELY accomplish the test—and of course, obviously, no one is expecting them to construct a 110-story building and demolish it just for a test. My answer is, if they cant do it ACCURATELY, they have NO business doing it at ALL---rather than to get a tiny SINGLE piece of steel and put it over a POOL of jetfuel and then when it melts in under 4 minutes, they say “SEE????? Steel melts because of jet fuel!”

The funny thing is, in their test of the steel, they also fail to mention why [even if they are correct] the small single piece of steel melted in under 4 minutes, when the towers took 56 and 105 minutes to collapse. Naturally, people like you would say, “well, that’s because there were other beams attached to it, that’s why it took longer”-----the ironic thing about using that as your argument is….that’s OUR argument for why it shouldn’t have collapsed at ALL!! The other beams attached to it would have LESSENED the temperature of the single beam and interspersed the heat to the adjoining beams and thus taken MUCH LONGER to weaken.

I’m sure when you reply, you will ignore 90% of what I addressed. That’s what you usually do, ignore MOST of what I say and focus on ONE sentence and call me nuts, meanwhile, YOURE the one ignoring most of my points------------which is exactly what David Ray Griffin said NatGeo did to him. They said they filmed him for like 3 hours and he made many great points, but when the final show aired, it showed him for like maybe 10 minutes? They will only air what they think they can debunk or what they can address. Anything irrefutable will end up on the cutting room floor and it will never air---and then when this bullshit airs, people like you accept it hook, line and sinker.

Larry said...

Youre exactly right Phill----he ignores 90% of what people say. I asked this guy over and over on his blog to show me evidence of buildings that suffered universal collapses before or since 9/11, and his ONE example he gave was the McCormick Center in Chicago in 1968-----a building that did NOT suffer a universal collapse, because most of the edges of the building remained standing. I brought this to his attention and he just ignored it every single time. I even sent HIM a link showing the PICTURE of the McCormick Center, something he didn’t even do for ME! So, I threw his own “evidence” back in his face, and then he continually ignored me on the issue. Why would people supposedly on the side of the truth evade, dodge, deflect, ignore, omit, obfuscate and spin the arguments and facts of the ones they are attempting to debunk? It amazes me.

Now, as for the religion issue Phill. I am not speaking with a blind eye on religion and I hope you know that. I went to Bible college and studied the Bible, so I feel I have earned the right to criticize religion. I walked in your shoes once and now I feel differently, so I hope when it comes to religion, you don’t see me as the equivalent to a would-be 9/11 debunker.

the_last_name_left said...

You are not stating any facts and you are not refuting anyone else's statements. You just say "that's the way it is" and expect us to accept it - why?


Just my opinion. Based on the facts, of course.

because you are smarter or more objective than I am, or Larry is? Give me a break.

More objective - yes - probably.

Why are you even bothering to read this blog if you aren't willing to accept the possibility that someone else might know something you don't?

But that's just your assumption. I don't recognise myself in it.

L: that’s OUR argument for why it shouldn’t have collapsed at ALL!! The other beams attached to it would have LESSENED the temperature of the single beam and interspersed the heat to the adjoining beams and thus taken MUCH LONGER to weaken.

Steel is not a very good conductor. It's pretty poor, for a metal, actually.

----

One thing I've been wondering about your view, Larry - and those who share it - how do you explain this fact: the fire teams made their HQ/base in the foot of WTC - and a lot died - and yet, later, the same fireservice were apparently involved with the demolition by explosives of WTC7.

They weren't part of the conspiracy in the morning, but they were by the afternoon?

Doesn't make sense, does it?

The fire crews involved with "pulling" WTC7 in the afternoon were the survivors of the same crews killed by WTC being "pulled" in the morning?

Hmmm.

We could argue all day - I don't think anyone will change their mind. I have changed my mind over 911 because 8 years later there's no positive evidence for any grand conspiracy. Nothing. ANd that's how the position will remain - until it changes.

And how about the airport check-in dude, who testified that he thought Atta was a nut, and he'd had "a bad feeling" about Atta? He was frightened for his job and his employer - should he make a mistake querying Atta's boarding permission. Hardly meets the criteria for "911 was impossible" does it? Hijacking was easy. Flying planes is fairly easy too.

The dude who found ID card at Pentagon - says he saw people still strapped in their plane-seat, inside the pentagon?

These are the sort of things you ignore - preferring to listen to your own instinct that something or other in the events was "impossible".

You're entitled to believe whatever you like. Just like anyone else. I think you're quite wrong with your various insistences about the evidence, and in your wider political conception of grand conspiracy. I think 911 Truth looks like a cult, tbh.

But there we go - just my opinion.

Larry said...

Phill---see what I mean? See how he ignores 90% of what I say and only focuses on out of context snippets of what I said?

Notice how he completely IGNORED my mention of the whole McCormick Center exchange we had? Know why? Because he’s blatantly wrong about the whole thing, so his only option is to IGNORE it-----kind of like the way the 9/11 Commission and other organizations IGNORE WTC 7. They have no leg to stand on when debating us about it, so their ONLY option is to ignore, ignore ignore----like what TLNL does about many, many things I say.

“Steel is not a very good conductor. It's pretty poor, for a metal, actually.”--------LOL, you just destroyed your OWN argument! If steel isnt a good conductor of heat, then when NatGeo did their ridiculous test to see if the tiny, single beam they tested would weaken, it would have taken MUCH longer than under 4 minutes! If it doesn’t conduct heat very well (as YOU say) then the beam wouldn’t have got hot fast----hence strengthening MY argument for why the towers shouldn’t have collapsed at all! Do you realize how many times you stab yourself in the foot with your OWN words? Do you even realize that you just ADMITTED that the steel shouldn’t have buckled and collapsed since you just claimed that steel is not a very good conductor of heat? Do you even realize you just gave more credence to MY argument by saying that?

You said: “how do you explain this fact: the fire teams made their HQ/base in the foot of WTC - and a lot died - and yet, later, the same fireservice were apparently involved with the demolition by explosives of WTC7.”

When has ANYONE ever said that the firemen were involved with the demolition of WTC 7? Name ONE time anyone has EVER said that.

“The fire crews involved with "pulling" WTC7 in the afternoon were the survivors of the same crews killed by WTC being "pulled" in the morning?”

I need you to translate that into English for me, since I have NO idea what you just said.

“Hardly meets the criteria for "911 was impossible" does it? Hijacking was easy. Flying planes is fairly easy too.”

That’s funny. Hani Hanour---the supposed pilot of Flight 77 at the Pentagon----that maneuver was easy?? Experts who have flown for 30 years said that maneuver is IMPOSSIBLE. What about the dozens of witnesses who said they saw a plane of some sort fly over their heads toward the Pentagon on 9/11, but they werent standing in what would have been the official story flight path of Flight 77? I guess you will ignore that too!

“The dude who found ID card at Pentagon - says he saw people still strapped in their plane-seat, inside the pentagon?”

That’s odd, since the official story said that the plane vaporzied---which means if the plane vaporized, human flesh would had to have DEFINITELY vaporized------unless youre going to accept that human flesh can withstand extreme heat more than a plane can!

Larry said...

“These are the sort of things you ignore - preferring to listen to your own instinct that something or other in the events was "impossible".”

How ironic you tell ME that I ignore, when everyone can clearly see who’s reading this thread that you ignored 90% of my above post----the McCormick Center, Popular Mechanics saying they found hijacker DNA in the ground zero rubble but not mentioning where they got the original DNA to match it, the NatGeo tests they conducted on their show…the list goes on and on and on in what you’ve ignored. The funny thing is, after writing an entire paragraph on how much you ignore what I say---you will ignore 90% of THIS post too! Watch and see everyone. If youre not AFRAID of the truth, then address EVERYTHING I say, don’t cherry pick snippets of what you can address. Address EVERY point I make. Start with the McCormick Center in your next post and then follow with your claim that steel is a poor conductor of heat (which actually strengthens my argument if that’s true---which its not). Or will you IGNORE these things?

If steel is a poor conductor----how did the tiny steel beam NatGeo tested get weak then? If it’s a poor conductor, how did the towers collapse at all? Remember, debunkers like you say the towers collapsed due to fire in 56 and 105 minutes and we are saying the steel was melted with nanothermite. Explosives are the ONLY thing that would make the WTC rubble still hot after several months. Many reported that there was molten steel in the WTC rubble. You just got done saying steel is a poor conductor of heat---------then how did the steel get weak enough to melt? Remember, it’s the NIST report that said steel would have to reach 425 degrees celsius to even begin to lose 1 % of its strength (something else you ignored in my post) and they said it probably only reached 250 degrees-----that’s the NIST report, not US---and yet you call it a conspiracy.

Hey everyone, lets take bets at how much of my post he will ignore. 90%? 75? 50%? 25? I say 75-90%. That’s the usual portion he ignores.

the_last_name_left said...

you ignored 90% of my above post

Not in so far as I give my opinion having already previously considered all that you say.

If you have something new to add to the argument for a conspiracy - then let's hear it? Otherwise, accept that some of us have already heard all the arguments and seen all the "evidence" and have found it wanting. ALREADY.

You are entitled to believe what you like - but so is everyone else.

We can the argue the toss, but is it going to make any difference to your views? Probably not. I'm happy to address anything - but not bothered to do so, because it makes no difference.

We all know the arguments - rehearsing them isn't going to make any difference.

Address EVERY point I make.

No. I'm happy to address whatever, but not every time i post. I'm not giving an exposition on 911 and the various theories and how realistic they all are.

We all know what the claims of 911 troof are.

debunkers like you say

no - people and experts who assert the most obvious explanation backed up with evidence say.......?

L: we are saying the steel was melted with nanothermite.

Right - at least you're being clear what you believe.

Explosives are the ONLY thing that would make the WTC rubble still hot after several months.

Well, thermite isn't an explosive.

Plus - how hot was it several months after the attacks?

That it would be hot under a pile of insulating material is no real surprise.

Steel burns. If the rubble pile was being fed some oxygen esp from underneath - it's easy to see how the rubble pile would keep the heat in. Steel can even self-combust - in big piles - the heat of oxidation builds up and starts to melt the steel.
"Oxidation" aka rust IS burning, apparently.

You just got done saying steel is a poor conductor of heat---------then how did the steel get weak enough to melt?

Soften - not melt as in liquid.

Once a beam buckles it is effectively gone. And the load is transferred to others thereby increasing the load on them making failure more likely.

It's really not a crazy idea.

the_last_name_left said...

lets take bets at how much of my post he will ignore. 90%? 75? 50%? 25? I say 75-90%. That’s the usual portion he ignores.

Well, if you give a commitment to address everything I ask of you, I'll happily bother responding to everything.

TBH my experience with you so far, Larry, isn't the basis for optimism on that score. So......

I've nothing at all against you making claims and believing what you like - I'll happily argue the toss about any of it. I've no intention of silencing you - or in hiding what it is that you might wish to say.

Say what you want to?

Ask what you like of me, I'll address it. But can you do the same, Larry?

What about Alex Jones' connections to people such as Willis CArto?

You deleted the link - well done. But still - there's the issue of how much you believe about 911 has come from Willis Carto.

Plus - there's the issue that even though you have seen Alex Jones act as he did over censoring you, you still believe the people he puts up to tell you "the truth". Even though you know it is being filtered through the prism of Prisonplanet's censorship.

And whilst you acknowledge Jones' errors in dealing with Carto, Pastor Anderson and yourself, you still believe everything he ever told you about 911.

Even though you know all that about Jones - you still believe what he tells you about 911 and everything.

Even when it's come from the desks of Willis Carto's AFP.

Just as Jones can publish you, Larry, when he likes, and then delete you when he chooses, so can Willis Carto.

Once you accept Jones and co act as they do, and have the associations they have, you are OBLIGED to revisit the information they've peddled to you, and to reassess it.

If you come to the same conclusions as people like Willis Carto, and think the same thing - then so be it. But if so, then you're thinking like a nazi - and you're simply totally wrong. IMO.

In which case - don't delete links to people who believe as you do?

Larry said...

“Not in so far as I give my opinion having already previously considered all that you say.

If you have something new to add to the argument for a conspiracy - then let's hear it? Otherwise, accept that some of us have already heard all the arguments and seen all the "evidence" and have found it wanting. ALREADY. “

Translation: “I’m dodging the things I don’t want to answer on grounds it will make me look like a complete buffoon.”

Phill didn’t hear our previous arguments, either did Nancy Evans or a few other posters on here. So, please, address what I said---or is it more like you REFUSE to since you have no answer?? The funny thing is, even previously on YOUR blog you didn’t address these things either---that’s the very reason I keep repeating them! And your response to me repeating them is “You keep repeating the same thing over and over”------because YOU DON’T ANSWER THEM!!! LOL

Explosives are the ONLY thing that would make the WTC rubble still hot after several months.

“Well, thermite isn't an explosive.”

Did I SAY thermite??? I said NANOthermite---which IS an explosive. The difference between thermite and nanothermite is like the difference between dynamite and a firecracker.


You just got done saying steel is a poor conductor of heat---------then how did the steel get weak enough to melt?

“Soften - not melt as in liquid.

Once a beam buckles it is effectively gone. And the load is transferred to others thereby increasing the load on them making failure more likely.

It's really not a crazy idea.”

How can it even SOFTEN if steel is a POOR conductor of heat?

The NIST report said that steel doesn’t even BEGIN to lose 1 % of its strength until it hits 425 degrees centigrade----that’s roughly 800 degrees fahrenheit----and the NIST report said the steel probably didn’t get past 250 degrees centigrade. So, is the NIST scientists conspiracy theorists too?

So, we now see that TLNL REFUSES to address important facts about 9-11 and claims that he “already has” in order to squirm his way out of addressing facts-----and he fell right into my hands---as I predicted he would---dodging, deflecting and IGNORING my valuable points about 9-11---and here’s the BEST part: TLNL claims that there is no REAL conspiracy or cover-up here and that the media and the government are telling us everything and if there WAS something important, they would discuss it and never block out the truth----the ironic thing is: TLNL is blocking the truth by not addressing 90% of what I say---so my point is: If just a regular person like TLNL ignores, deflects, evades, obfuscates, dodges and runs away from answering MY questions about 9-11-----how much GREATER will this type of thing happen with higher up government officials!! He does the EXACT thing that he DENIES happens to us who seek the truth and then he claims the blocking and ignoring of truth doesn’t exist—when HE DOES IT! Amazing huh??

Larry said...

Do you realize how much heat it would take to even SOFTEN steel? YOU said steel was a POOR conductor of heat--right?? So, tell me, if one beam is connected to thousands and thousand of other beams----how would it SOFTEN and give way in just 56 and 105 minutes---ESPECIALLY when the majority of the jet fuel burnt up in the initial explosion upon impact! Those buildings were designed to take MULTIPLE plane hits----this was said by the WTC designer himself Frank DeMartini in Feb of 2001-----YouTube his name, the video of him saying it will appear immediately. I hear the words of the DESIGNER himself say something, and I just repeat it, and Im a conspiracy nut who denies facts????

You DODGE answering questions on the grounds of "Ive already answered it" (which is a LIE) and even if you DID, there are posters on this very thread who havent heard the answers---why would it kill you to repeat it even if you DID already answer them (which you did NOT)??

Larry said...

“And whilst you acknowledge Jones' errors in dealing with Carto, Pastor Anderson and yourself, you still believe everything he ever told you about 911.”

Wrong. I never believe ONE MAN about 9-11. Ive studied this extensively by many different sources. Alex Jones is hardly even close to being one of those sources.

Ive ANSWERED the Willis Carto question MANY MANY times already and you KEEP asking it!

Ive said REPEATEDLY: So what if Alex Jones is affiliated with Carto? So???? Because you don’t LIKE an answer, doesn’t mean it wasn’t addressed. However, with MY questions, you’ve never even ADDRESSED them.

Here they are ONE MORE TIME:

McCormick Center-------------NOT a universal collapse. Will you EVER show me an example of a universal collapse before or since 9-11 that was NOT a controlled demolition???? Ive been waiting.

What about Popular Mechanics claim they found DNA of the hijackers in the WTC rubble? Where did they get the original DNA to match it? If youre gonna be a gatekeeper for the official story, you have to provide answers where your constituents do not.

Will you address NIST’s findings that steel does NOT begin to lose 1 % of its strength until it reaches 425 degrees centigrade? How could NatGeo’s 9-11 tests be accurate when they ADMITTED most of the jet fuel vaporized but yet it still got hot enough to melt 110 stories of interconnected steel? If the steel just WEAKENED as you claim, why didn’t the buildings sag to one side first real slowly and then crumble over? They didn’t. They fell STRAIGHT down—and any scientist can tell you that if a building falls STRAIGHT down, that means the columns and steel underneath has to be taken out from under it symmetrically----and especially for a free fall speed collapse!

the_last_name_left said...

See - you refuse to undertake the easy step of saying you'll address my questions, if I adddress yours.

Larry: Ive said REPEATEDLY: So what if Alex Jones is affiliated with Carto? So????

So! That's your addressing the issue huh?

You think that's good enough?

Larry said...

LOL, what am I supposed to say? Your question BEGS the type of answer I gave.

You said:

"What about Alex Jones' connections to people such as Willis CArto?"

Wuld it be better if I had said "What about it?" Ive blasted Alex Jones lately, now havent I? And at LEAST I ADDRESSED the question!

YOU, on the other hand, havent even as much as addressed MY questions. They go completely IGNORED and without acknowledgment---as if I had never asked them!

What am I supposed to do if I have nothing to say about your question? Write a 1,500 eassy on it? You havent even PROVED (key word: PROVED) that Alex Jones personally holds the same ideologies as Carto, now HAVE you?

MY questions actually ASK you for straight, explanatory answers. YOUR question was basically asking for my opinion of the connections between 2 people. MY questions to YOU were asking for DIRECT answers (NOT opinions..FACTS)

Here are examples of the type of questions both of us asked each other:

Your question to ME was the equivalent of asking, "So, how about those Mets?"

My question to YOU was the equivalent of asking, "How many World Series' have the Mets won?"

See the difference? One is asking or an opinion and the other is asking for direct, straight facts----and in my analogical question (of you to me) you expect me to write 6 paragraphs on my OPINION of how the Mets are doing----unbelievable.

I will finally just ACCEPT that, since you keep spinning, twisting, distorting, dodging, deflecting, ignoring and dancing around my questions about 9-11, that you will NEVER answer them---even though you SAID YOU WOULD.

You really should team up with O'Reilly and be the next commentating team at FOX News-----you can call yourselves the Spin Boys.

You're relieved of not having to answer me, because you CANT answer me without, 1) making yourself look foolish or 2) incriminating yourself or 3) BOTH-----so, I will make it easy on you and say you are relieved of having to live up to your promise of answering my questions. You claim you didnt because I didnt answer yours "properly"---what a crock of SHIT. Any moron can see that the ONLY reason you resort to such tactics is so you can claim that you're not "ignoring" my questions, while at the same time making it appear as if you really have a plausible answer to my questions (BUT YET YOU CONTINUE TO DODGE ANSWERING THEM----LOL)

This reminds me of the interview between Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics and radio talk show host Charles Goyette in 2006 (it's on my site), when Goyette DESTROYED him with facts and made Coburn panic and forced him to resort to claiming that he didnt answer Goyette's questions because Goyette didn't "frame the question right".

Funny thing is, at the end of their interview, Goyette keeps saying, "Well, go ahead, approach the question the way you want it!" And yet Coburn keeps repeatedly saying, "Frame it differently...." and Goyette keeps giving Coburn chance after chance to tell Goyette how Coburn would "frame it" and of course, Coburn continues to panic and dodge the question.

That's us: You're Coburn. I'm Goyette and I'm destroying you, and you're panicking. The ONLY difference between you and Coburn is, Coburn used the words "Youre not FRAMING the question right.." and you're saying "You didnt answer it right"---LOL.

Complete dodge and deflect BULLSHIT.

the_last_name_left said...

LOL

L: Will you EVER show me an example of a universal collapse before or since 9-11 that was NOT a controlled demolition????

first - what will finding an answer to that question establish, exactly?

What do you think the relevance of that question is, exactly - and what will the possible answers establish, exactly?

Likewise for the other questions.

Re - popular mechanics - I am not especially familiar with their claims. I have never said popular mechanics speak for me - nor I for them.

the_last_name_left said...

As to how much Jones and Willis Carto share in their views...........well.......

you have just discovered how Jones reacts to people who disagree with him.

you think he'd only ever behave like that towards you?

And you know Alex refuses to publish anything critical about himself and prisonplanet - unless it's to ridicule it as a "hit-piece", "smear-job" etc

You think Alex has special rules for Willis Carto? That Alex will publish Carto stuff and promote his books on his TV and radio show if Alex didn't agree with it all?

Either Alex agrees with it, or he doesn't. If Alex doesn't agree with Carto then very strange he is doing so much to publish promote and sell Willis Carto and his guests and books and tours and everything else......

If Alex doesn't agree with it all, why is he going along with it?

Of course he agrees with it.

What on earth is he doing promoting it if he doesn't!?

the_last_name_left said...

The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm


If the same DNA was recovered from hotels, vehicles and ground zero.......well......pretty obvious conclusions can be drawn.

Right?

:)

Larry said...

"first - what will finding an answer to that question establish, exactly?

What do you think the relevance of that question is, exactly - and what will the possible answers establish, exactly?"

How amazing it is, after I JUST wrote several paragraphs detailing how our conversation is EXACTLY like the Coburn/Goyette interview, you reply with ANOTHER similar comment made by Coburn.

In the Coburn/Goyette interview, after Goyette asked Coburn "where did they get the DNA to match the DNA from ground zero", Coburn says, "I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question worth answering.." Kinda sounds like YOU doesnt it? LOL

Im not suggesting youre COPYING Coburn's responses. My point is, these kinds of responses by people who attempt to debunk us are all too common. In other words, dodge, deflect and ignore. Why do people who claim to have the TRUTH on their side resort to the dodge, deflect and ignore tactic?

Im assuming by asking me what the relevance of the question is (even though I've ALREADY told you why it's relevant on YOUR blog), that means you have NO answer, right? If you HAD an answer, Im assuming you would have just given the answer instead of asking me why it's important?

Youre quoting the BBC with a story that said they found DNA evidence in hotel rooms? That's pretty amazing FBI work since there were no arab names on any of the flight manifests. How did they know what suspects to look for? How did they know where the hijackers were staying since there's no way they could have even known who was on the plane? Oh and by the way, I guess you dont even care to know that several of the hijackers were atually LIVING with FBI agents on military bases prior to 9/11. Why would they out people who were living with them? Wouldnt that incriminate the FBI and subject them to investigation? I guess that's unimportant.

Besides, the BBC also reported in 2001 tht several of the hijackers are still alive and well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

About the Jones/Carto thing. Wasnt it YOU that just recently said, "Nobody even knows what Alex Jones believes" or something like that? If no one knows what he believes, then how do you know that it coincides with the beliefs of Carto? You just constantly stab yourself in the foot with your OWN words. Do YOU even know what you believe?

Larry said...

You said, quote:

"I'll issue a challenge to illustrate : try and find some definitive statements of what Alex Jones believes in.

Granted, if you wade through a lot of his TV shows it might be on there - but I don't watch them.

I'm talking about in writing - something explicit. What does he believe in? It's nowhere to be found.

He sounds like he says what he believes......but.....how much does he actually say? I think he's quite gifted at being vague.......so people see what they want in him.

Where does he ever say what he really believes in?

Never explaining what he really believes in means he can shift around on issues, without being left looking too obviously self-contradictory."

Hmmmmmm, then how do you know he holds similar beliefs to Carto if he's so "vague" as you said? I cant wait to see how you spin this!

the_last_name_left said...

If jones disagreed with Carto over anything of substance, Carto and his minions wouldn't appear at Prisonplanet at all - let alone would it appear so much.

Jones' refusal to clearly enunciate his own views serves to hide how closely his own views and objectives coincide with those of Willis Carto et al.

Notice you haven't found anything clearly enunciating his political views. Is there any available? No?

Yet you'll insist he is quite different from Willis Carto. Based on what?

So, what was the importance of the question about other examples of buildings totally collapsing?

Why do you ask the question? What will the answer show, exactly?

If DNA was recovered from Atta and co's hotels, homes, cars, and crash sites, well..........that's a connection.

It really isn't remarkable that DNA was obtained from somebody's home.

Just now, somehow it was important to you that the supposed hijackers couldn't possibly have been identified by DNA.

It's a straightforward matter - of course they could reasonably find DNA from all the people on the planes - as identified by the manifests - at their homes.

But once that is realised, the matter is dropped - as if it isn't important.

You complain about "manifests" appearing without including the supposed hijackers.

So what? They're just lists - not the original documents.

You want a scan of the "original"?

What and where is "the original"? A computer generated list? A picture of a computer generated list?

BBC also later reported that they felt their story had created the wrong impression - it was a matter of confusion at the time - there was no serious question of those hijackers still being alive.

Who made a big deal about them still being alive?

Willis Carto.

Why might he want to do that???

Think about it? regardless of whether it was true or not - why would Carto be interested in making such a "fact" better known?

the_last_name_left said...

Look at this - from October 2001 - by Willis Carto's AmericanFreePress:

Some of the men the FBI claims hijacked planes on Sept. 11 and crashed them into hubs of U.S. finance and defense are still alive.

Exclusive to American Free Press


http://911review.org/Sept11_news/archives/hijackers_Fake_ID_airline_pass_number.html


October 2001.

Willis Carto is what he is. He was publicising this meme of "hijackers still alive" back in October 2001.

You know something about Willis Carto - so why believe him over this? Or anything?

You saw Prisonplanet's story on Ahmadinejad repeating his holocaust denial?

Prisonplanet avoided giving a view, by simply republishing a Reuters article.

But did you read the comments?

The article is an invitation for far-right to propel their views into wider debate.

Why did Prisonplanet publish that article - if not to generate such a response in the comments?

The manifests and DNA and whatever about 911 serve the same purpose for Prisonplanet and willis Carto et al - they're a vehicle on which to pin their wider worldview. They're issues to exploit. Hence Carto's AFP pushing the "hijackers still alive" thing way back from october 2001.

Believe Willis Carto if you want to. I don't see why anyone would.

Larry said...

There you go again, IGNORING 90% of what I say! This time you respond with these endless rants that mean absolutely nothing. Its like you dont even read what I say, or you DO and just simply IGNORE it.

You claimed the "hijackers still alive" story was Carto's when I sent you a fucking LINK to a BBC story saying the same thing----COMPLETELY ignored by you. YOUR BBC story was true and MY BBC story is false? LOL

Here it is again incase your head was completely up your ass while scrolling:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

You should send that Hooked on Phonics back, its not working.

Hey asshole---YOU dont clearly enunciate YOUR own views either----does that mean YOU work for Carto as well?

I am sick and fucking tired of REPEATING myself to you, but since you have a reading comprehension problem, I will again:

"So, what was the importance of the question about other examples of buildings totally collapsing?

Why do you ask the question? What will the answer show, exactly?"

The importance is because fire ALONE has never EVER caused a building to collapse---EVER in the history of architecture. And just so you dont embarrass yourself and respond by saying it was also from the debris of the plane, you'd be WRONG----that was bullshit that Popular Mechanics put out---but the final report by NIST put out in November of 2008 said that debris was NOT the cause---they said it was fire ALONE-----making WTC 7 the ONLY building in history to collapse by fire alone.

Of course, we all [with brains] know that buildings do not universally collapse into their own footprint in 6 seconds by fire alone.

ANY scientist will tell you that in order for a building to collapse [in a freefall symmetrical universal way] the bottom has to be completely weakened ALL the way around the building [leveled at the EXACT same time]. If a building collapses but its damage is not completely leveled, it will slump over and will fall gradual and part of the building will remain standing [the non-damaged part], but that was not the case with WTC 7. NIST admitted it was fire ALONE---which is COMPLETE bullshit.

I find it interesting that in your BBC story of the DNA recovered from hotel rooms, it doesnt even mention which hijackers' DNA it was they found. Hmmmmmm. Nowhere in the article does it list the names of whose DNA it was---why is that, Sherlock???

Larry said...

Why did you completely IGNORE my mention of FBI agents LIVING WITH several of the hijackers on military bases prior to 9/11? Just overlooked it, huh? LOL

You said the Carto article was from October 2001, but the BBC story was from September 23, 2001

BBC said it "created the wrong impression????" LOL. This is a portion of the article:

"Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco."

That pretty CLEARLY says the man who was IN THE PHOTO is alive and well, and the photo it shows is a supposed 9/11 hijacker!!!! Where's the WRONG impression???

Read this article from David Ray Griffin from last year:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/6/Was-America-Attacked-by-Mu-by-David-Ray-Griffin-080909-536.html

Oh and by the way, just so you know, your diversion tactic isnt working. I realize that all the ranting and bullshit you post is just a way to distance yourself from all the questions I previously asked that have went UNANSWERED, namely the questions you PROMISED you'd answer. I re-typed MY answers about the importance of why there has never before been a building that collapsed due to fire, but yet, you cant [or I should say "wont" or "refuse to"] re-type yours. Hmmmm

I wonder how much of THIS post you will IGNORE.

Oh and by the way, if DNA was found in hotel rooms [as YOU said], why didnt Davin Coburn mention that in his interview with Charles Goyette in 2006? The interview is ON MY SITE to listen to---why dont you give it a listen? Have you listened to the David Ray Griffin interview yet? I bet a big fucking NO is the answer to both questions.

And just so you wont DODGE my question about the DNA "found in hotel rooms", here it is AGAIN (because I know you have selected memory and reading omprehension issues):

I find it interesting that in your BBC story of the DNA recovered from hotel rooms, it doesnt even mention which hijackers' DNA it was they found. Hmmmmmm. Nowhere in the article does it list the names of whose DNA it was---why is that, Sherlock???

Incase you cant figure it out----Id like an ANSWER to why it doesnt list WHICH hijackers they collected DNA from in that article. Have an answer? Or more spin and deflection?

curt maynard said...

game, set, match. you won again larry. theve refuted nothing. debunked nothing. but they still spew the same shit over and over again. how many more times can you prove of incomplete collapses. false dna, and the other unargueable stuff that youve proven. you own those guys and thier sites. they are your bitchs. nice story and victory larry.

the_last_name_left said...

This is from the BBC. Whilst you are happy to claim the BBC report as "fact" so long as you like what it says, you disregard the BBC when it says things you don't like.

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view:

"The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

You believe the BBC when you like and disbelieve or ignore it when you like.

The importance is because fire ALONE has never EVER caused a building to collapse---EVER in the history of architecture. And just so you dont embarrass yourself and respond by saying it was also from the debris of the plane, you'd be WRONG----that was bullshit that Popular Mechanics put out---but the final report by NIST put out in November of 2008 said that debris was NOT the cause---they said it was fire ALONE-----making WTC 7 the ONLY building in history to collapse by fire alone.

Well, even if it were the ONLY building ever to have collapsed from only fire - so what? That's the point - so what? What do you think that proves? That it was the first occurence of such an event, or does it PROVE the building was demolished by explosives?

YOu think it proves the building was demolished by explosives.

You don't understand how one claim doesn't logically follow the other.

ANY scientist will tell you that in order for a building to collapse [in a freefall symmetrical universal way] the bottom has to be completely weakened ALL the way around the building [leveled at the EXACT same time].

rubbish Larry. don't try to put words in the mouths of scientists?

Go and look at the new video of WTC7 collapse taken more from a side-view instead of the usual, head-on view from the North?

You can clearly see the building slopes forward - impossible to tell that from the usual head-on shot taken from directly behind the WTC7.

I find it interesting that in your BBC story of the DNA recovered from hotel rooms, it doesnt even mention which hijackers' DNA it was they found. Hmmmmmm. Nowhere in the article does it list the names of whose DNA it was---why is that, Sherlock???

why need they say who the hijackers were when it's common knowledge who they were claimed to be?

the wrong photo was a wrong photo? Big deal.

Larry said...

“Whilst you are happy to claim the BBC report as "fact" so long as you like what it says, you disregard the BBC when it says things you don't like.”

That’s hilarious! Because that’s EXACTLY what YOU did, you put up YOUR BBC story because you liked it, and ignored MINE because you didn’t.

But the real truth is, I put up the BBC story to invalidate the source (BBC) because I never bought the “hijackers still alive” story, at least not in the way some truthers told it.

What’s funny is, AFTER you get done saying, “Whilst you are happy to claim the BBC report as "fact" so long as you like what it says, you disregard the BBC when it says things you don't like.”-----you post ANOTHER story from the BBC! BECAUSE YOU LIKE WHAT IT SAYS! HILARIOUS!

“Well, even if it were the ONLY building ever to have collapsed from only fire - so what? That's the point - so what? What do you think that proves? That it was the first occurence of such an event, or does it PROVE the building was demolished by explosives?”

It PROVES there was foreknowledge that WTC 7 was going to collapse, since policemen, firefighters, the BBC and CNN ALL reported that the building was going to collapse as far as 1 hour before it did! Now, Im not saying the cops, firefighters, BBC and CNN are in on some big conspiracy (because I KNOW that’s what you’d LOVE to believe). I’m saying, the message of that building’s collapse was put out by someone---who knows the original source? We never will. The cops, firefighters and the news outlets were passed this information that WTC 7 was coming down. THAT’S why it’s important! How would ANYONE know this building was coming down if a building NEVER BEFORE COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE?? There was no precedent for it, so how would they know? Got an answer, Sherlock? Or more spin?

Larry said...

You said: “why need they say who the hijackers were when it's common knowledge who they were claimed to be?”

Oh yeah, what’s it matter if they didn’t say WHOSE DNA it was? Unimportant details, huh? Common knowledge who they claimed to be? Common knowledge to who? The FBI? The SAME FBI who several of the hijackers LIVED with on military bases PRIOR to 9/11? I LOVE how you blow it off and just say “what’s it matter?” like it’s irrelevant. Of course it doesn’t matter to people like YOU,who accepts the official story hook, line and sinker and never questions ANYTHING.

WHY do they need to say who they were? Here’s why asshole:

Because if we are told what hijackers they got DNA from [from hotel rooms], then when ordinary citizens like me who investigate this shit ask the FBI, “did it match DNA from ground zero?” and they say “yes”, then we can ask who’s DNA did it match at ground zero. Then when they give their answer [whatever hijacker they name] we can investigate and be able to find out if the hijacker at ground zero is the SAME hijacker that was at the hotel they “claim” they got DNA at. Good enough for you?

In reality, the FBI can just SAY they recovered DNA at hotels and ground zero, even if they DIDN’T, right? Its easy to just SAY they did, how would anyone ever know they did for REAL? They wouldn’t. But morons like you read a news story saying they did, and you just swallow it like it’s gospel truth. No questions asked, no info needed, no evidence required---move on, move on, nothing to see here!

I said:

“ANY scientist will tell you that in order for a building to collapse [in a freefall symmetrical universal way] the bottom has to be completely weakened ALL the way around the building [leveled at the EXACT same time].

You responded:

“rubbish Larry. don't try to put words in the mouths of scientists?”

Oh, but I havent. They put their words in MY mouth, because every single demolition expert that Ive seen videos of that watched the collapse of WTC 7 (even some of them didn’t even KNOW it was WTC 7 and that it was a 9/11 video) said it was demolition and they also said that theres NO way a building can collapse straight down, free fall, unless there is NO resistance on the lower floors. How can ANYTHING fall straight down unless the bottom it taken out from under it?

Tell me Sherlock, how does a building collapse, in complete symmetry, free fall, straight down in 6 seconds, in its own footprint while ALL floors below the roof have their full strength and are intact?? And don’t you dare say “the fires weakened the steel and that’s why there was no resistance”---bullshit---because if fires weakened the steel, the steel would have had to be weakened ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING, completely leveled and each piece of steel would have had to collapse at the EXACT SAME TIME. Pictures alone show that was NOT the case. The fires were small and isolated.

So, answer my question:

“How does a building collapse, in complete symmetry, free fall, straight down in 6 seconds, in its own footprint while ALL floors below the roof have their full strength and are intact??”----also how did firefighters, cops, the BBC and CNN KNOW at least an HOUR BEFORE WTC 7 collapsed it was coming down if it NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE? Answer those 2 questions. Anything less than answering them will be considered more dodge, deflect and ignore.

Real Truth Online said...

I see that you were on my site about 8 hours ago. What's the matter? Couldnt refute my posts while you was on? Why did you leave my site without commenting?

Needed time to go study some Bill O' Reilly tapes?

the_last_name_left said...

Larry: “ANY scientist will tell you that in order for a building to collapse [in a freefall symmetrical universal way] the bottom has to be completely weakened ALL the way around the building [leveled at the EXACT same time].

It's just not true, Larry. It's not true ANY scientist will tell you that - nor is it true that what you say has to be the case for a total collapse.

Why do you believe it's true?

Larry: how does a building collapse, in complete symmetry, free fall, straight down in 6 seconds, in its own footprint while ALL floors below the roof have their full strength and are intact??

How do you know what the condition of the floors were and how intact they were?

How do you know this?

Larry: In reality, the FBI can just SAY they recovered DNA at hotels and ground zero, even if they DIDN’T, right? Its easy to just SAY they did, how would anyone ever know they did for REAL? They wouldn’t. But morons like you read a news story saying they did, and you just swallow it like it’s gospel truth.

No - I'm waiting for you to provide evidence that they did not find the DNA of the hijackers at their hotels, homes, cars, crash-sites, etc.

Have you got any? No.

Do you have any evidence suggesting the claims they found the relevant DNA at the crash-sites are fraudulent?

No. Nothing.

Just now it was important that the FBI couldn't have collected the DNA of the hijackers.

Clearly the ways they could find DNA are obvious, given a moment's thought - or research.

But that somehow doesn't count as evidence for hijackers - even though earlier you thought it was important because it seemed impossible.

Now it is clear that getting DNA was obviously not impossible, the fact the evidence does exist is suddenly "irrelevant" to you - or simply "suspect" for yet another reason.

On and on we go. What's the point? Every rebuttal just leads you to shift to another angle.

All the evidence points to hijackers etc. Stupid to just accept that uncritically - but until there's evidence to believe anything else - there's no REASON to believe anything else.

When you can do better than "just ask questions" and you have more evidence than your non-expert opinion that "it is impossible!".......you'll get people to listen. Until then......

911 Truth needs to do much more than just ask questions, over and over and over again.

What 911 Truth needs is EVIDENCE.

Where is the evidence for conspiracy? After 8 years there is none. All we have is your and 911 truthers worldview of "massive conspiracy" - your beliefs - that's all.

"It is impossible!"

Sure......

Im not saying the cops, firefighters, BBC and CNN are in on some big conspiracy

right....I'll remember that. :)

I’m saying, the message of that building’s collapse was put out by someone---who knows the original source? We never will.

We will never know the source? Ok - but why are you so certain there was one?

Why do you even imagine there was one?

Because in your opinion the WTC7 could not have collapsed - and no-one but someone with foreknowledge of demolition of WTC7 could have known it was going to collapse? right?

Sorry, but we do have a source for the warnings of the collapse of WTC7 - the NewYork Fire Department.

The acting chief of the fireservice at that time said it was going to collapse - and they backed people away from it.

Was he in on the conspiracy?

Why was he the "acting chief" anyway? Because his boss had been killed in the earlier WTC collapse.

Who knew that would happen?

The acting chief was there at WTC7 at the time - he said it was going to collapse - and he has since written that he believes there is absolutely *nothing* to any of the conspiracy stuff he's heard.

Why don't you believe him - if you're saying they are *not* all in on it?

Larry said...

God, you are such a FUCKING MORON!

I said: I’m saying, the message of that building’s collapse was put out by someone---who knows the original source? We never will.

You said:

“We will never know the source? Ok - but why are you so certain there was one?

Why do you even imagine there was one?”

Why am I so certain??????? Because there a fucking VIDEOS of firefighters and cops saying “that building [WTC 7] is gonna come down soon. AND there are videos of the BBC and CNN saying 1 hour BEFOREHAND that WTC 7 had ALREADY COLLAPSED WHILE WTC 7 IS STILL STANDING IN THE BACKGROUND BEHIND THEM!!! You fucking ASSHOLE! Ive seen the VIDEOS of these sources either saying the building had ALREADY collapsed when it HADNT YET, and that it will “be coming down soon”-----NOT my imagination ASSHOLE----VIDEOTAPE!

“Sorry, but we do have a source for the warnings of the collapse of WTC7 - the NewYork Fire Department.”

And HOW would they know a building was going to collapse WHEN A BUILDING HAD NEVER COLLAPSED BEFORE IN HISTORY DUE TO FIRE?????? WHAT PRECEDENT WAS THEY BASING THIS ON??? YOU ASKED ME WHY THAT QUESTION WAS IMPORTANT, AND I ANSWERED THIS IS WHY, AND HERE YOU GO REPEATING THE SAME OLD SHIT THAT PEOPLE KNEW BEFOREHAND-----------------------HOW DID THEY KNOW IF IT HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE??? A PLANE DID NOT HIT THAT BUILDING, REMEMBER??????

“The acting chief of the fireservice at that time said it was going to collapse - and they backed people away from it.”

HOW DID HE KNOW THIS?????????????????????????????????

“Why was he the "acting chief" anyway? Because his boss had been killed in the earlier WTC collapse.

Who knew that would happen?”

GOD, YOU ARE A MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTC 7 WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE!!!!!! SO, YOU CANNOT COMPARE THAT WITH THE TWIN TOWERS. PLUS, SOMEONE DID KNOW THE TWIN TOWERS WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE BEFORE THEY DID. Havent you ever heard what Giuliani told Peter Jennings ON the day of 9/11??? He said THESE WORDS:

“We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Giuliani told ABC's Peter Jennings during a phone interview on 9/11. Giuliani has never identified the source of this warning, unprecedented as it is that modern steel framed buildings would collapse from fire damage for the first time in history, and it completely contradicts his assertion today that he "didn't realize the towers would collapse."

WHO TOLD HIM THAT???? HOW DID THEY KNOW????

HERES THE LINK BUTTFUCK

http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=8033

Larry said...

You said:

“No - I'm waiting for you to provide evidence that they did not find the DNA of the hijackers at their hotels, homes, cars, crash-sites, etc.

Have you got any? No.”

So, I have to prove a negative????

So, I could just say, “I found the body of Jimmy Hoffa in a cornfield in Iowa”-----and UNTIL YOU PROVE I DIDN’T, it’s TRUE????

YOURE A FUCKING PATHETIC MORON.

I LOVE how you keep fucking IGNORING the fact that several of the hijackers LIVED WITH FBI agents on military bases PRIOR TO 9/11. I wonder WHY you keep IGNORING that?????? Hmmmmmmmmm.

“All the evidence points to hijackers etc. Stupid to just accept that uncritically - but until there's evidence to believe anything else - there's no REASON to believe anything else.”

ALL THE EVIDENCE??? NAME SOME. Give me SOLID EVIDENCE there were hijackers---and if there WERE---give some evidence it was the very people we were TOLD they were. Did you know that even the FBI admits ON THEIR WEBSITE that there is NO HARD EVIDENCE pointing to Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks??? If there WAS evidence for it------he would be WANTED FOR THAT, but if you go to www.fbi.gov will NOT see 9/11 in the list of Bin Laden’s offenses now, WILL YOU????? NOPE

WHY??????????????????????????????????????????

Here’s the link DUMBFUCK

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

WHY DOESN’T IT MENTION 9/11?????? HMMMM??????????????????????????????????????????

“Do you have any evidence suggesting the claims they found the relevant DNA at the crash-sites are fraudulent?”

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THEY FOUND ANY DNA AT ALL??????????? IF SO, WHERE IS IT? THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU. IF A CLAIM IS MADE THAT SOMETHING HAS BEEN FOUND, THEN IT WOULD BE EASY TO PRODUCE THAT EVIDENCE. WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE THEY FOUND DNA AT ALL??????? I’LL BE IGNORED ON THAT QUESTION.

“Now it is clear that getting DNA was obviously not impossible, the fact the evidence does exist is suddenly "irrelevant" to you - or simply "suspect" for yet another reason.”

DO YOU HAVE PROOF THE DNA WAS FOUND?? IF SO, LETS SEE IT!!! YOUR STATEMENT PRESUPPOSES THAT DNA WAS FOUND--------WHY IS THAT AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED? HAVE YOU SEEN IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES??? IF SO, THEN PLEASE LET ME KNOW HOW I CAN GET ACCESS TO IT. IT MUST BE EASY SINCE YOU SAW IT RIGHT??? COUGH IT UP---WHERE IS IT?????

MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the_last_name_left said...

HOW would they know a building was going to collapse

Oh dear - how dreary to repeat it.

Because they were there. Duh!

They could see and hear the building showing signs of imminent collapse.

The testimony is freely available - you should read it.

I don't know why you don't believe the firemen.

A BUILDING HAD NEVER COLLAPSED BEFORE IN HISTORY DUE TO FIRE??????

Wrong.

Do you really think "no building has collapsed due to fire"?

HOW DID HE KNOW THIS?????????????????????????????????

Because he was there - and it was (obviously) going to collapse. Read his testimony?

Why don't you believe the firemen?

PLUS, SOMEONE DID KNOW THE TWIN TOWERS WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE BEFORE THEY DID.

Y - so......why claim it was so unexpected?

So, I have to prove a negative????

Better than just stating the negative because you believe it to be so.

What you have to do is provide some positive evidence for something else having happened - not just point to oddities, anomalies and issues.

No complex event is perfectly explained. If you have some evidence for a different explanation of events, pursue it? Publish it? Whatever.... If and when you ever get some good evidence people will believe you. People don't believe you because you have no good evidence - "only questions".

several of the hijackers LIVED WITH FBI agents on military bases PRIOR TO 9/11. I wonder WHY you keep IGNORING that?????? Hmmmmmmmmm.

I'm not ignoring it. What IS the evidence that "they lived with FBI agents at military bases"?

What does it mean, exactly? Anything? Tell me what it means, exactly?

What the FBI say is

The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Hardly what you claimed: "the FBI admits ON THEIR WEBSITE that there is NO HARD EVIDENCE pointing to Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks???"

There is plenty of evidence.

But have we got the actual DNA in our hands - no. Can we prove it came from the hotel? No. Do we have the flight manifests in our hand? No. Have we ever met any of these people? No.

But here's a question for you Larry - did *you* see 911 happen?

So how do you know what happened?

Maybe it didn't happen? How could we tell?

Larry said...

“Oh dear - how dreary to repeat it.”

I wouldn’t keep REPEATING IT if youd give a fucking ANSWER….DICKHEAD!

“Because they were there. Duh!”

BRILLIANT! So, they KNEW a building was going to collapse, because THEY WERE THERE. So, youre saying if an Earthquake has NEVER hit the city I lived in, in the entire history of my city, and one day I just happened to predict “an Earthquake will hit today” and it happens---when someone asked me “how did you know?”, I could just say “I was THERE”?????????????

“They could see and hear the building showing signs of imminent collapse.”

You mean fires alone????? Even the NIST report said it was NOT the damage that caused the collapse---so that leaves ONE thing: the fires. So, youre saying that every building that has EVER been on fire in the history of the world has collapsed? Tell me Sherlock, what were those SIGNS of imminent collapse???? Please list them----Im waiting….

“I don't know why you don't believe the firemen.”

The question was not “Are they right?”---the question was “HOW DID THEY KNOW?”

“Do you really think "no building has collapsed due to fire"?”

I don’t THINK none has, I KNOW none has. And you have YET to provide me with an example of a STEEL, HIGH-RISE building collapsing UNIVERSALLY into its own footprint, straight down, in perfect free fall in 6 seconds. You gave the McCormick Center as your answer when I asked you-----but that was NOT a UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE

“Because he was there - and it was (obviously) going to collapse.”

Obviously??????? Gee, Sherlock---give me ONE sign that made that OBVIOUS????

PLUS, SOMEONE DID KNOW THE TWIN TOWERS WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE BEFORE THEY DID.

“Y - so......why claim it was so unexpected?”

Nice dodge and deflect tactic, but it doesn’t work. The statement that Giuliani made to Jennings was made later in the day on 9/11 AFTER the buildings had collapsed and he said “We were told the building was going to collapse”-----so you asking me “why claim it was so unexpected?” has absolutely NO meaning, because this question does NOT negate my claim that the collapse was UNEXPECTED since Giuliani’s source did not state the warning to the rest of AMERICA---but rather, apparently, ONLY to Giuliani and his minions. So, my question still remains………WHO TOLD GIULIANI THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE?

“Better than just stating the negative because you believe it to be so.”

But you give no ANSWERS to the negatives-----ONLY dodge, deflect and spin---as I have repeatedly have showed. Answering “BECAUSE THEY WERE THERE” is an ANSWER to the question “How did they KNOW a building would collapse due to fire when its NEVER happened before?”. You call THAT an answer? I call it the ramblings of a person in panic mode. Do you even realize how completely FOOLISH your response makes you look?

“No complex event is perfectly explained. If you have some evidence for a different explanation of events, pursue it? Publish it?”

Larry said...

Whoa, whoa----wait a minute. Didn’t you previously say “there were OBVIOUS signs the building was going to collapse”?????? NOW youre saying “no complex event is perfectly explained?” But, you said there were SIGNS of the imminent collapse---so, according to YOU, there IS an explanation—right? Again, shooting yourself in the foot with your OWN words. You CANNOT have it both ways. You CANNOT say a buildings collapse had showed SIGNS of imminent collapse and THEN say “it’s not perfectly explained”-----they are complete opposites. YOU said it IS perfectly explained because YOU said there were SIGNS of the collapse! So, tell me Sherlock------what WERE the signs of collapse?? And why say its not “perfectly explained” if you apparently have the answer??? And if so, what IS the answer???

I had my facts fused together regarding the hijackers who lived with FBI agents at military bases. 2 of the hijackers lived with an FBI informant and 5 of the hijackers trained at military bases. Some hijackers even lived near the CIA headquarters.

I guess that’s irrelevant, huh?

I said:
"the FBI admits ON THEIR WEBSITE that there is NO HARD EVIDENCE pointing to Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks???"

You said:
“There is plenty of evidence.”

Ahhh, I guess the FBI thought it a waste of time to mention it on their website. The FBI even ADMITTED they have no hard evidence against Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks. THAT’S why they don’t list 9/11 on the FBI website, Sherlock.

PLENTY of evidence? WHERE? You are saying that YOU have obtained evidence that even the FBI ADMITS they don’t have? Well, what is your delay? Get that evidence to them right away!!

Bin Laden hasn’t even been INDICTED for 9/11. I guess that’s unimportant as well.

FBI spokesman Rex Tomb, has said that there is “no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks on America”

The CIA even ENDED the Bin Laden unit at the CIA. This is the unit that was created by Clinton to devote its time to capturing Bin Laden. Bush ended the unit in 2005. Now, YOU claim there’s evidence that Bin Laden was involved, despite the FBI saying they have no evidence and Bush ending the unit created to FINDING him. YOU claim there’s “PLENTY of evidence”. Why havent you handed over that evidence then Sherlock?

“But have we got the actual DNA in our hands - no. Can we prove it came from the hotel? No. Do we have the flight manifests in our hand? No. Have we ever met any of these people? No.”

I rest my case

It’s interesting when I go back and read our posts, how much shit I ask that you completely IGNORE, over and over and over. Gee---maybe THAT’S why I keep asking it?????? Hmmmmm. It appears you have ZERO answers for the questions you continually and without fail IGNORE. If the TRUTH is on YOUR side, why do you ignore ANYTHING at all? LOL

Anonymous said...

larry the fight is over, your standing over last name left with your foot on his chest with your hands being raised and hes laid out. you won again. its over.

the_last_name_left said...

Yeah - Larry is the Rocky IV of 911 Troof.

I did have a reply written earlier - but it got munched by a firefox crash.

Firefox crashes atm - and it so rarely used to. not impressed.

Larry's efforts to turn blogger into CNN and the NSA don't help either.

:)

WTF is all that stuff you have up? Videos, apps, datastreams.......yes, very good, but.......errr........

Question for Larry - why do you track peoples' IP addresses?

As for all the 911 stuff, like i say, my reply was munched.

I'm happy to say you can believe what you like, Larry. But like the "fact" about the hijackers living on US military bases or whatever - it's all a little more complicated, and othertimes far more simple, than you care to acknowledge. But that's your belief - and likewise mine is what it is.

We're seemingly not going to agree about what even the most basic facts are.

That raises the question of why it is so obviously important to you to persuade myself and others that your particular version of the facts, and reality, is true.

And why it upsets it you so much that other people have a different opinion about the facts, let alone what the facts are. You, me, everyone.

You are convinced of a particular idea of conspiracy over 911, right? And that conspiracy informs your wider worldview, right? Isn't that true?

That seems to be true - even though sometimes we cannot even agree on what the most basic facts of the matter are.

The same goes for me, of course - I fit 911 into my own worldview, even though we cannot even agree what the most basic facts about it are.

There's a difference though - as I see it.

You don't seem to understand how weak the evidence fielded by 911 Truth is.

Of course, when the FBI says they have verified the DNA of the hijackers, then we have no real way of knowing the facts of the matter. We have what the FBI say, and whatever credibility there is in the system that provides them results of DNA testing, etc etc etc.

But - in the face of such "evidence" you had best have something concrete if you wish to challenge it.

That is lacking. Totally lacking.

After 8 years! 8 years of DESPERATE efforts to find something to prise it all open. And, sorry, but, there's nothing.

In distinction to the conspiracies, there's very good explanations and mountains of evidence for the obvious.

Now - that does not mean one has to believe "the official line" - whatever that is exactly.

My own "conspiracy theory" is that "911 Troof" has itself helped to shape and control scepticism about 911 and criticism of american policy (in a particularly right wing, and far-right tilt).

I think it's easy to see TPTB could consider "911 Troof" as quite a positively functional diversion.

the_last_name_left said...

The point being - we are not going to find "the truth" by abandoning the correct means to treat "the evidence".

Of course "the official evidence" needs to be treated with a lot of scepticism - but so does the evidence for any conspiracy.

"911 Truth" has increasingly failed to maintain such a principle. That's no surprise as 911 Troof has increasingly been penetrated by far-right extremism which exhibits the same characteristics of extreme partisanship where ideology determines all.

Why is 911 Truth conspiracy so appealing to the far-right?

Because Hitler's idea was that there was a world conspiracy - of jews.

That's the connection.

Does that mean ALL 911 scepticism is lies put out by the far-right and Hitler loving idiots? No. But some of it is. A lot, in fact.

Personally I don't think we know "the truth" about 911. But I do know that a lot of what the conspiracy crowd consider to be "the truth" is actually bullshit put out by the far-right.....to serve their own ideological and racial beliefs.

911 Troofers are always so committed to some particular explanation? Well, no - but any explanation that fits their wider explanation - their worldview.

ALL data is bent to that worldview. That which can't be bent is discarded.

Sure, that's a criticism of everyone, to a point, but 911 Truth is in extremis by character. Like the far-right. No coincidence.

Personally I view the Iraq and Afghan wars as far greater crimes than 911 anyway - whoever was responsible for 911.

I think '911 Troof' has served to distract from that simple fact. Again, functionally serving TPTB.

So, I wonder - what is so important about 911 to you, Larry? OF course - it's obvious to a degree - but......what?

Is it more important than Iraq where maybe 400,000 times the number of people were murdered than on 911?

Or is 911 more an important issue than the daily deaths from hunger etc of 4 times as many children than american adults whom died on 911? 8000 children dying every day from easily preventable causes......like a bit of food.

Why does 911 matter so much in such a context?

What does 911 being a vasy conspiracy add to the mix? What does it change? What consciousness does it raise?

the_last_name_left said...

400,000 times = should read 400

;)

Larry said...

"I did have a reply written earlier - but it got munched by a firefox crash."

Funny. Very funny. Im glad I was spared from more dodgng, deflecting and spin. I'm SOOOO hurt. LOL

I LOVE how you ONCE AGAIN completely IGNORE 90% of my posts. You made sure you IGNORED this:

YOU said:
“No complex event is perfectly explained. If you have some evidence for a different explanation of events, pursue it? Publish it?”

I said:
"Whoa, whoa----wait a minute. Didn’t you previously say “there were OBVIOUS signs the building was going to collapse”?????? NOW youre saying “no complex event is perfectly explained?” But, you said there were SIGNS of the imminent collapse---so, according to YOU, there IS an explanation—right? Again, shooting yourself in the foot with your OWN words. You CANNOT have it both ways. You CANNOT say a buildings collapse had showed SIGNS of imminent collapse and THEN say “it’s not perfectly explained”-----they are complete opposites. YOU said it IS perfectly explained because YOU said there were SIGNS of the collapse! So, tell me Sherlock------what WERE the signs of collapse?? And why say its not “perfectly explained” if you apparently have the answer??? And if so, what IS the answer???

You also IGNRED this:

"Give me ONE sign the collapse was OBVIOUS?"

ONE

You IGNORED much more too, but Im trying not to overload your pea brain.

Larry said...

My points are so good that even your ONE reader at your OWN blog said I made great points and that you IGNORED them. What does THAT say????

the_last_name_left said...

Oh hush with the diatribes LArry.

What military bases did the hijackers supposedly train at?

As for why did they think the building would collapse, here's fire-chief Nigro:

Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).
The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)


and

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

the_last_name_left said...

From a different fire officer:

A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html

the_last_name_left said...

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.


http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Why disbelieve them?

the_last_name_left said...

Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.

http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html


So - there was creaking, noises, damage, and fire.

The firemen put transits on the building - and found it was moving.

I mean - what more evidence would you want or realistically expect than that?

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread470095/pg1


Surveyor transits, like theodolites, measure angles--- very accurately.

If they put one on WTC7, and it suggested the building was bulging, then - frankly - there goes the demolition theory.

Totally.

the_last_name_left said...

Watch this video:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos

No fires? Are you kidding? Look at it!

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that building.

I'd like to see you going in there, saying it can't collapse, there's no fire, there's no visible damage.........

Larry said...

LOL< do you ever do ever do any REAL investigation, or just continually copy and paste from “debunking” sites?

I looked at the hilarious link you gave me. I ONLY saw lots and lots of smoke. Those videos show NO mass fires. You wanna see mass fires???? Look at this:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html?q=spain_fire_2005.html

The building in those photos and videos did NOT collapse, and that building burned for nearly 24 hours straight. Care to explain that?

Just incase you don’t view the link because its from Mike Rivero [even though the pictures posted there are REAL], heres another link showing the Windsor building

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

As for your excerpts of testimony from firefighters-----they STILL did not answer the question Ive been asking you over and over and over only to NOT receive an answer:

HOW DID THEY KNOW IT WOULD COLLAPSE? WHY DID THEY SUSPECT IT?

“I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that building.”

I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near A LOT of buildings on fire either!! That doesn’t mean you KNOW it would collapse! What a stupid statement!

Why did NO one say WTC 4, 5 or 6 would collapse? They had FAR worse damage and stronger fires!!

“We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini”

HOW WOULD HE KNOW THIS?

“A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango”

What was this officers name? Did he have one? How would that officer KNOW that?

How interesting that YOU have questioned over and over “who said a skyscraper has never collapsed?”
and I have told you repeatedly that it has NEVER happened [and you have doubted it], that you post a quote from Dan Nigro saying “Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.”

So, HE can say a high-rise has NEVER collapsed before and you have NO problem with him saying that because he ends up saying something YOU agree with [that they knew WTC 7 was going to collapse], but when I say it, Im wrong because I say no one could have known?? YOURE A FRAUD!!!

Larry said...

I LOVE how NONE of your testimonials talked about Barry Jennings, who was deputy/director of the Emergency Services Dept. of the NYC Housing Authority. He was IN WTC 7 the morning of 9/11 gave an account to the Loose Change filmmakers that the lobby and several other floors had been destroyed by an explosion BEFORE the Twin Towers collapsed.

Heres the footage of his testimony:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQY-ksiuwKU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxUj6UgPODo&feature=related

And just incase you say “well, that testimony was given years later”, here he is saying the SAME thing ON the day of 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI

Im SURE you will IGNORE the testimony of Barry Jennings, Mr. Copy and Paste

Do REAL investigation---not C & P from websites

By the way, EVER going to address this? [or keep ignoring it]

YOU said:
“No complex event is perfectly explained. If you have some evidence for a different explanation of events, pursue it? Publish it?”

I said:
"Whoa, whoa----wait a minute. Didn’t you previously say “there were OBVIOUS signs the building was going to collapse”?????? NOW youre saying “no complex event is perfectly explained?” But, you said there were SIGNS of the imminent collapse---so, according to YOU, there IS an explanation—right? Again, shooting yourself in the foot with your OWN words. You CANNOT have it both ways. You CANNOT say a buildings collapse had showed SIGNS of imminent collapse and THEN say “it’s not perfectly explained”-----they are complete opposites. YOU said it IS perfectly explained because YOU said there were SIGNS of the collapse! So, tell me Sherlock------what WERE the signs of collapse?? And why say its not “perfectly explained” if you apparently have the answer??? And if so, what IS the answer???

Stop trying to debunk me with “ 9/11 debunking” sites. Ive SEEN them all. Ive heard EVERYTHING you post---Ive studied BOH sides, that’s why I believe what I believe. Its not like Ive NEVER heard anything you post and its all new to me. Ive heard it all, a million times. Tell me something NEW [which may be impossible]

the_last_name_left said...

HOW DID THEY KNOW IT WOULD COLLAPSE? WHY DID THEY SUSPECT IT?

Because they put surveyor transits on the building - which showed the building was "moving".

the_last_name_left said...

L: Didn’t you previously say “there were OBVIOUS signs the building was going to collapse”?????? NOW youre saying “no complex event is perfectly explained?” But, you said there were SIGNS of the imminent collapse---so, according to YOU, there IS an explanation—right?

Yes, silly.

That doesn't mean every aspect of the collapse is "perfectly" explained - and certainly not that the entire events of 911 are "perfectly" explained.

The point is the events do have a highly plausible explanation, backed by lots of solid evidence.

Your alternatives have nothing. You won't even give an explanation. So.......how can we compare how likely the various explanations are, how well-supported by evidence they are, or how well they fit the evidence.

You just refuse to accept the very simple notion that firemen and emergency services (in NewYork!) would have some equipment and skill at assessing likelihood of building collapse.

I don't see why you refuse to believe what seems a pretty straightforward matter - statements from the Chief Firemen, and others, saying they used SURVEYOR TRANISTS to assess the building.

L: Do REAL investigation---not C & P from websites

LOL - like what?? Tell me how you research then Larry.......

Larry said...

"I don't see why you refuse to believe what seems a pretty straightforward matter - statements from the Chief Firemen, and others, saying they used SURVEYOR TRANISTS to assess the building."

So, they used surveyor transits on the building? In order for you to do this, that would require a SUSPICION of collapse---and my question, for the 20th time now----WHAT MADE THEM SUSPICIOUS since it was NOT hit by a plane? Did they put surveyor transits on Bankers Trust, WTC 4, 5 and 6, The Verizon building and the Post Office too? If not, why??? Bankers Trust, WTC 4, 5 and 6 suffered MORE damage and fires than WTC 7 did!

You said in response to me asking "HOW DID THEY KNOW IT WOULD COLLAPSE? WHY DID THEY SUSPECT IT?"

"Because they put surveyor transits on the building - which showed the building was "moving".

In what direction was it moving from the surveyor tests? Left to right? Was it swaying? The building fell STRAIGHT DOWN---so if the building was "moving" then why didnt it FALL OVER or lean over first THEN collapse? Even if a surveyor transit showed movement of the building, how in the world would it detect the building moving STRAIGHT DOWN? If the building even moves ONE INCH straight down, that means something is already giving way underneath. The building only collapsed in ONE direction---DOWN.

Your answer "because they used surveyor transits" does NOT answer my question of how they SUSPECTED collapse. You have to SUSPECT a collapse BEFORE you use surveyor transits---or else, why would you use them?

So, I ask you Einstein:

1.) In what direction was the building moving as a result of the surveyor transits? Got an answer for that?

2.) What caused the suspicion to even USE the surveyor transits?

Will these questions be ignored too?

You said:
"That doesn't mean every aspect of the collapse is "perfectly" explained - and certainly not that the entire events of 911 are "perfectly" explained."

LOL, ahhhhh, NOW it's "not EVERY aspect is perfectly explained"---quite funny how you change your response when Ive cornered you with your OWN words.

ONCE AGAIN, you IGNORE 90% of my above post. You completely IGNORED the links to videos I sent of the testimony of Barry Jennings. I wonder why, hmmmmmm??? You ONLY ADDRESS what you're able to run and copy and paste a "supposed" debunk for and everything else I say that you have NO answer for, you simply just IGNORE or you say "my oh my, must we keep asking the SAME questions over and over?"

If you IGNORE them and refuse to address them---then, YES, we do have to keep asking. And if you "supposedly" know the TRUTH behind it all, there would be NO REASON to ignore, deflect, dodge and spin my questions.

Larry said...

You said:
"The point is the events do have a highly plausible explanation, backed by lots of solid evidence."

THATS FUNNY! Because even the NIST report said that the collapse was due to fire ALONE---not damage, not deisel tanks, not explosives---nothing else but FIRE and in their report they even ADMITTED the reason it collapsed was UNKNOWN. In fact, they called it a "NEW phenomenon"

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/nist-wtc-7-fire-conclusion-blatantly-contradicts-fema-report

So, by calling it a "NEW phenomenon, NIST is basically saying "we have NO evidence for its collapse" and here YOU are saying there's "lots of solid evidence". Hmmmmm. Apparently YOU have evidence that even NIST does not possess!!! Why arent you contacting them so you can hand over this SOLID evidence you claim there is?????

Hmmmmmm????????????????

the_last_name_left said...

they [NIST] called it a "NEW phenomenon"


Your link does not provide a quote for NIST calling anything a new phenomenon.

Care to provide one? Or is that another mistake, Larry - to go with your belief that hijackers lived at military bases?

You didn't answer the follow-up I asked when you changed your claim: which military bases did the hijackers visit Larry?

L: The building fell STRAIGHT DOWN---so if the building was "moving" then why didnt it FALL OVER or lean over first THEN collapse?

It did - it leant forwards. The most famous footage is all from behind the WTC7 - to the north, looking due South at the building.

That's no position to be able to tell if the building toppled forwards (or backwards).

If you watch the more recent footage which shows WTC7 more from the side - it clearly topples forwards as the collapse progresses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRkQ7Tr9Q3o

Impossible to tell that from shots to the rear.

Such as this one - listen to the dialogue, too? This dude was NOT surprised it collapsed - and he was some way away - though close enough for his friend to be concerned the dust cloud will reach them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI

As for Jennings - what about him? He says he heard explosions whilst he was in WTC7......so? Plane? Tower collapse? Who knows? What was it Larry? How does Jennings matter? To what?

the_last_name_left said...

So - if "only controlled demolition" can cause a "perfectly symmetrical collapse" - what do you say now it is obvious it was not "perfectly symmetrical"?

The building fell forwards as the collapse progressed. That is without doubt - judging by that video.

How does controlled demolition achieve that - when controlled demolition achieves "perfect symmetrical collapse" - according to yourself?

Larry said...

Heres your link on the NIST’s “new phenomenon”
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/BREAKING_NIST_%3CI%3Efinally%3CI%3E_poses_theory_on_0821.html

Heres your link about the hijackers living on military bases
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0208/S00085.htm

“You didn't answer the follow-up I asked when you changed your claim: which military bases did the hijackers visit Larry?”

United States Navy Base - Pensacola, Florida

LOL, that ridiculous video shows NOTHING of the sort! Leans forward?? Then it should have FELL forward!! But it DIDN’T! It came STRAIGHT DOWN. That video you sent doesn’t show ANYTHING leaning! LOL

“Such as this one - listen to the dialogue, too? This dude was NOT surprised it collapsed - and he was some way away - though close enough for his friend to be concerned the dust cloud will reach them.”

Proves NOTHING. He was just a regular guy in his apartment filming it! What authority does HE have? No doubt he probably watched CNN and other news stations saying WTC 7 was “coming down” at least an hour before it did. This STILL does NOT answer the question: HOW DID THEY KNOW IT WAS COMING DOWN? You keep answering that by giving more examples of people saying “its coming down”. THAT doesn’t answer my question of how they KNEW!!!!! IDIOT!! Of course he wasn’t surprised! Most news stations were saying it was probably going to collapse---including CNN and the BBC, BOTH of which said it had ALREADY collapsed BEFORE IT EVEN DID!!!!

“As for Jennings - what about him? He says he heard explosions whilst he was in WTC7......so? Plane? Tower collapse? Who knows? What was it Larry? How does Jennings matter? To what?”

Again, your reading comprehension skills fail you. I previously said:

“He was IN WTC 7 the morning of 9/11 gave an account to the Loose Change filmmakers that the lobby and several other floors had been destroyed by an explosion BEFORE the Twin Towers collapsed.”

BEFORE the Twin Towers collapsed. BEFORE…BEFORE…BEFORE. Maybe you can READ it this time if I repeat it! THIS is why I need to REPEAT things….your really poor reading skills.

Yeah, youre right. The testimony of someone who said WTC 7 was destroyed BEFORE the towers collapsed is unimportant and according to you “doesn’t matter”. It only PROVES that SOMETHING ELSE CAUSED THE DAMAGE IN WTC 7 OTHER THAN DEBRIS FROM THE TOWERS! MORON!

“So - if "only controlled demolition" can cause a "perfectly symmetrical collapse" - what do you say now it is obvious it was not "perfectly symmetrical"?”

Its OBVIOUS? That video showed NOTHING. It showed a building come STRAIGHT DOWN. If the building was leaning FORWARD it would have FELL FORWARD.

Why didn’t it land on top of Vesey St. and fall on top of WTC 5 and 6???? If it leaned FORWARD it should have TIPPED OVER and landed on Vesey St. and WTC 5 and 6-----WHY DIDN’T IT???

I LOVE how you CONVEIENTLY ignored one of my questions. Im supposing you had NO ANSWER for it—as usual. I’ll ask it AGAIN [since you have poor reading skills]

*What caused the suspicion to even USE the surveyor transits?

You IGNORED this one too:

*Why arent you contacting them [NIST] so you can hand over this SOLID evidence you claim there is?????

the_last_name_left said...

L: Heres your link on the NIST’s “new phenomenon”

NO, Larry - that is the writers' own choice of words - not a quote from NIST.

You said "in their report they even ADMITTED the reason it collapsed was UNKNOWN. In fact, they called it a "NEW phenomenon"

Where do NIST call it "a new phenomenon"?

Seemingly they don't. So you are quite wrong to say NIST "in fact...called it a new phenomenon".

As for the claims about the hijackers visting military airbases.....the claims come from our favourite reliable source Tom Flocco, and AmericanFreePress.

Flocco is responsible for a series of ridiculous claims, including about 911.

Flocco is the dude responsible for claiming Barbara Olson was still alive and had been arrested on the Polish German border - over 4 years after she was supposed to have died in 911.

NOTHING EVER CHECKED OUT ABOUT THE STORY.

FLOCCO IS A FRAUD.

His article merely says that the Washington Post reported on 22/9/01 that the FBI were INVESTIGATING any possible connection to pensacola airbase.

That's all it says.

But you, and others, take that as meaning THE HIJACKERS LIVED AND WORKED AND TRAINED ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

The people telling you this stuff WANT YOU TO BELIEVE IT, Larry.

These people, like Flocco, are more interested in making you believe something that serves their own purposes than they are interested in "the truth".

They want you to believe any old rubbish - and it works. I fell for their rubbish too......and when I went back to recheck all that I'd been led to believe about 911 by the conspiracist crowd - I found most of it was pure guff - like this Flocco rubbish.

Checking the contemporary Pensacola Times they report that investigations are ongoing into WHETHER the hijackers were registered as living on a road outside the airbase which was used by foreign military students.

Because the names were similar. Wow.

March 2004: CIA Finds 9/11 Hijackers Used 364 Aliases and Name Variants
History Commons

That's quite a good link for checking reports - it links to original sources, if possible.

Better than Tom Flocco just claiming things are true......

So........where's the evidence that the hijackers had anything AT ALL to do with Military Air Bases etc?

the_last_name_left said...

LOL, that ridiculous video shows NOTHING of the sort! Leans forward?? Then it should have FELL forward!! But it DIDN’T! It came STRAIGHT DOWN. That video you sent doesn’t show ANYTHING leaning! LOL

!!!

It certainly does show WTC7 progressively leaning forward as it collapses.

WATCH IT AGAIN.

NOT STRAIGHT DOWN. WATCH.

That explains why the back (north) wall of the WTC7 came to lie on the top of the pile.

Plus, it did not really fall "into its own footprint" at all......it fell into the streets around it, damaging the building next to it (east) for example.

Anyway - watch the video - it falls forwards increasingly as the collapse progresses.

NON SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE. NOT IN ITS OWN FOOTPRINT. NOT AT FREFALL SPEED.

So why MUST it have been demolished with explosives and/or incendiaries?

(No sounds of explosions.......so....incendiaries? Soooperdedoooper nanothermite? LOL)

the_last_name_left said...

L: Proves NOTHING. He was just a regular guy in his apartment filming it! What authority does HE have?

Well - he was there - he was watching - and he says on film that "I told you that was gonna go!" ....and "That's why they weren't fighting the fires in there....."

He thought it was going to collapse ........ and he's filming it from several miles away.

He also confirms there was fires, noticeable from miles away.

No doubt he probably watched CNN and other news stations saying WTC 7 was “coming down” at least an hour before it did.

LOL. They could see the bloody thing from where they lived! CNN? LOL

Funny that for you, people like Flocco and Alex Jones have more believable accounts.....but what authority do they have? etc. Come on!

L: Of course he wasn’t surprised! Most news stations were saying it was probably going to collapse

Ah ha! So now we have a good reason for why the news reports were saying it was going to collapse........it was OBVIOUS to EVERYONE there was a risk of it.

L: HOW DID THEY KNOW IT WAS COMING DOWN?

Well, it was obvious to everyone, seemingly.

The firemen report severe damage, severe fires, creaking noises, breaking windows, etc.

Their fears were confirmed by putting transits on the building.

They pulled everyone out, and eventually - shock! - it did collapse.

No big deal, really?

It burned all day. Where's the beef, Larry?

the_last_name_left said...

L: “[Jennings] was IN WTC 7 the morning of 9/11 gave an account to the Loose Change filmmakers that the lobby and several other floors had been destroyed by an explosion BEFORE the Twin Towers collapsed.”

BEFORE the Twin Towers collapsed. BEFORE…BEFORE…BEFORE.


Which he retracted?

So what did he say? What does it mean?

Maybe he is mistaken?

Maybe there was another reason why there were explosions in WTC7, if there were?

Who knows? What are the real FACTS of the matter? (Don't even bother saying what Tom Flocco thinks it means.)

the_last_name_left said...

The testimony of someone who said WTC 7 was destroyed BEFORE the towers collapsed is unimportant and according to you “doesn’t matter”.

No Larry - that's what you said about the dude filming WTC7 and saying "I told you that was gonna go....."

The relevance of the "nobody" whom IS ON FILM saying "I told you it was gonna go" is precisely because he was "a nobody"......and he ssuspected the WTC7 was going to collapse.....even though he was judging it from what seems to be at least a mile away.

Jennings' claims might be important. They might not.

Why are they important? ie why should we believe him?

Larry said...

LOL, I see you CONVENIENTLY IGNORED my questions AGAIN.

So, since you have a mental deficiency and are not able to answer questions the first, second or even THIRD times they are asked: Here they are AGAIN:

“What caused the suspicion to even USE the surveyor transits?”


“Why arent you contacting them [NIST] so you can hand over this SOLID evidence you claim there is?????”

Why are you SCARED of those questions?? Hmmmm???

“March 2004: CIA Finds 9/11 Hijackers Used 364 Aliases and Name Variants”

If that TRUE [that they used 364 alias’ and name variants] then how did the FBI know THE DAY OF 9/11 WHO ALL 19 HIJACKERS WERE, BY NAME AND THEIR COMPLETE HISTORY??????

I want THAT question answered TOO. That’s THREE now you have to answer. When you IGNORE questions, they begin to pile up and I WILL keep asking them until I get an answer.

The stories about the hijackers training and living at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola Florida actually came [originally] from sources like the NEW YORK TIMES and the PENSACOLA NEWS JOURNAL just DAYS after 9/11.

The NEW YORK TIMES printed a story on 9-15-01 [just FOUR days later] that said SEVEN of the hijackers trained at U.S. military bases. NEWSWEEK covered the SAME story on the SAME day [9-15-01].

Ahmed Alnami, Ahmed Alghamdi and Saeed Alghamdi even listed the Naval Air Station on Pensacola, FL as their permanent address on their DRIVERS LICENSES. That was in the Pensacola News Journal on 9-17-01.

Hamza Alghamdi was ALSO connected to the Pensacola base according to the WASHINGTON POST on 9-16-01.

The LOS ANGELES TIMES reported on 9-15-01 and the GANNETT NEWS SERVICE reported on 9-17-01 that Saeed Alghamdi attended the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA.

Abdulaziz Alomari attended the Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School in San Antonio Texas according to GANNETT NEWS SERVICE on 9-17-01.

The LOS ANGELES TIMES reported that Mohamed Atta from the US International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama ---that story was on 9-15-01.

So, your claims that these stories ORIGINATED from Tom Flocco is a complete and utter LIE. They originated in the sources listed above on the precise dates.

So, the WASHINGTON POST, LOS ANGELES TIMES, NEW YORK TIMES AND NEWSWEEK are not reliable and is NOT evidence? I guess they are part of some big “conspiracy” then. That makes YOU a conspiracy theorist then!!!

Larry said...

“Plus, it did not really fall "into its own footprint" at all......it fell into the streets around it, damaging the building next to it (east) for example. Anyway - watch the video - it falls forwards increasingly as the collapse progresses.”

Falling into ones own footprint does not mean it will not cause ANY DAMAGE AT ALL to surrounding buildings---it means it will cause MINIMAL damage—and it did. The buildings surrounding WTC 7 were damaged very minimally.

You also IGNORED another question I asked:

“Why didn’t it land on top of Vesey St. and fall on top of WTC 5 and 6???? If it leaned FORWARD it should have TIPPED OVER and landed on Vesey St. and WTC 5 and 6-----WHY DIDN’T IT???”

I think the NIST report used the term “extraordinary event”. Tell me, how is that really any different from “new phenomenon”????

Extraordinary means: irregular, rare, uncommon and PHENOMENAL.

Please explain the VAST difference between “new phenomenon” and “extraordinary event”. Keep in mind, the word “PHENOMENAL” is a SYNONYM for “extraordinary”

Would it make sense to say “old phenomenon”? That would make NO sense, since a PHENOMENON means odd, bizarre, irregular, rare and uncommon. Surely, something OLD cant be odd, bizarre, irregular, rare and uncommon---or, are you saying it CAN?

MORON!

Just incase your reading and comprehension skills are failing you again, here are the FIVE questions I asked you in this post. They keep building because you IGNORE previous questions I ask. They will keep piling up and I will just keep adding them to future posts and ask them over until you answer.

1) “What caused the suspicion to even USE the surveyor transits?”

2) “Why arent you contacting them [NIST] so you can hand over this SOLID evidence you claim there is?????”

3) “Why didn’t it land on top of Vesey St. and fall on top of WTC 5 and 6???? If it leaned FORWARD it should have TIPPED OVER and landed on Vesey St. and WTC 5 and 6-----WHY DIDN’T IT???”

4) “I think the NIST report used the term “extraordinary event”. Tell me, how is that really any different from “new phenomenon”????”

5) “Would it make sense to say “old phenomenon”? That would make NO sense, since a PHENOMENON means odd, bizarre, irregular, rare and uncommon. Surely, something OLD cant be odd, bizarre, irregular, rare and uncommon---or, are you saying it CAN?”

the_last_name_left said...

I think I posted the wrong link for the WTC7 falling forwards.

It's this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm7aGzubz9A

Screenshot here

Why don't you publish the picture with a title - STRAIGHT DOWN.....PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL.......INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT

Larry said...

“Well, it was obvious to everyone, seemingly.

The firemen report severe damage, severe fires, creaking noises, breaking windows, etc.

Their fears were confirmed by putting transits on the building.”

AND I KEEP ASKING OVER AND OVER AND OVER------------------WHAT MADE THEM SUSPICIOUS TO EVEN USE THE TRANSITS?????? FIRES ALONE????? THE NIST REPORT SAID IT WAS FIRES ALONE. ARE YOU SAYING YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THE NIST PEOPLE DON’T HAVE????? WHEN WILL YOU GIVE IT TO THEM????

L: Of course he wasn’t surprised! Most news stations were saying it was probably going to collapse

“Ah ha! So now we have a good reason for why the news reports were saying it was going to collapse........it was OBVIOUS to EVERYONE there was a risk of it.”

HOW DID THE STATIONS KNOW IT WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE?????? THAT’S MY POINT----DICKHEAD!!! I SEE YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORED ME SAYING THE BBC AND CNN SAID WTC 7 HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED EVEN BEFORE IT DID!!!! WHY DID YOU IGNORE THAT?????

HERES THE CLIPS OF THEM REPORTING THE COLLAPSE BEFORE IT ACTUALLY DID.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW_JRe67v1g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GEAnn3uN30

If theres no issue at all with WTC 7------------------why was it completely OMITTED from the 9/11 Commission Report---asshole?

Why all the attention WTC 7 collapsing that day? Why not attention to Bankers Trust, WTC 4, 5 and 6??? They had BIGGER fires and MORE damage---yet they did NOT collapse! Got an answer for that??

Larry said...

L: “[Jennings] was IN WTC 7 the morning of 9/11 gave an account to the Loose Change filmmakers that the lobby and several other floors had been destroyed by an explosion BEFORE the Twin Towers collapsed.”

BEFORE the Twin Towers collapsed. BEFORE…BEFORE…BEFORE.

“Which he retracted? So what did he say? What does it mean?”

Did you even watch the Jennings videos I sent you, you dumb mother fucker?? Did you? Did you?????

“Maybe there was another reason why there were explosions in WTC7, if there were?”

ALL THE MORE REASON FOR THE 9/11 COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE IT-------------BUT THEY NEVER DID!!!!! WTC 7 WAS COMPLETELY OMITTED FROM THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION. WHY?????????????????????????????????????????

“Jennings' claims might be important. They might not. Why are they important? ie why should we believe him?”

BECAUSE HIS TESTIMONY ON THE DAY OF 9/11 DID NOT CHANGE FROM THE DAY HE TOLD HIS STORY TO THE LOOSE CHANGE MAKERS, THAT’S WHY!

I have a BETTER question. WHY WASN’T HE BELIEVED? WHY WASN’T WTC 7 INVESTIGATED BY THE 9/11 COMMISSION? Did you even watch the fucking videos I sent, you stupid fucker??

DID YOU????

Larry said...

The NEW video you posted shows the building coming straight down. Plus, the video you selected is from a YouTube page of a 9/11 truther.

On his page I retrieved the audio/videos from the Popular Mechanics interview between Davin Coburn and Charles Goyette. Watch both vids. Coburn sounds like YOU. [this same audio is on my site but I realize you REFUSE to listen to it]---watch these audio/vids-----its an eye opener.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U2xS9j4zTQ&feature=PlayList&p=28E1C1022F84444F&index=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MADZwAKU74&feature=PlayList&p=28E1C1022F84444F&index=1

Goyette DESTROYS him!!!

Gonna answer my 5 questions? Im waiting....Gonna watch the vids I sent?

the_last_name_left said...

L: you CONVENIENTLY IGNORED my questions AGAIN.

Oh shut up?

L: “What caused the suspicion to even USE the surveyor transits?”

Sheesh - the same things that caused the dude filming from a mile away to say "I told you it was gonna go!

I already sai, how many times? that the firemen speak of hearing creaks and noises, they saw a big bulge in the SW corner.....they could see the building was severely damaged.....they describe considerable and "severe" fires.......

That's already answered Larry. You don't believe the firemen etc - well, that's your issue. But it has been answered.

L: “Why arent you contacting them [NIST] so you can hand over this SOLID evidence you claim there is?????”

Errr - no - I have nothing to add to the NIST report. Why would I be able to tell NIST anything?

L: Why are you SCARED of those questions?? Hmmmm???

I'm not - I address your questions over and over.

how did the FBI know THE DAY OF 9/11 WHO ALL 19 HIJACKERS WERE, BY NAME AND THEIR COMPLETE HISTORY??????

They didn't.

The easiest route into it was doubtless the passenger lists. Once they have that......the investigation leads off into checking all the names.

4 planes - about 300 people maximum.

Major terrorist attack.........after warnings in previous months that AQ were planning "a spectacular" using airplanes, targeting american landmarks.

Read the passenger lists - who are your suspects?

Not difficult?

--------------

Re Alghamadis at Pensacola:

there WAS a Saudia pilot training students at Pensacola.

Does that mean the Alghamadis of 911 are one and the same person?

In the days after - it was a reasonable question to ask..........

But what are the facts? You seem so sure - so what are they?

Reporting questions about the issue in the immediate aftermath, is quite different to establishing that the hijackers DID IN FACT live or work there, or whatever.

You treat asking the question as if it proves the answer is a particular one! Of course it doesn't! It's asking the question! Where's the answer? UNtil you have an answer you can't claim you do.

So how do you know the hijackers were actually involved in any way with military bases anywhere?

L: Alomari attended the Brooks Air Force Base Aerospace Medical School in San Antonio Texas according to GANNETT NEWS SERVICE on 9-17-01.

Ok - so what? Did he attend? What does that mean?

You haven't established anything yet.......or don't you notice?

the_last_name_left said...

L: your claims that these stories ORIGINATED from Tom Flocco is a complete and utter LIE.

No - the claims you cited - the link you gave - goes directly to Tom Flocco.

And all it says is the matter is being looked into.

Flocco makes much more of it than though - leaving the reader with a sense that what Flocco is saying is far more EXPLOSIVE than what it actually is.

Flocco is manipulating the reader by twisting the information.

He isn't reporting the answers to the questions of WHETHER the hijackers were involved at US Military bases - but he makes you feel like he has: that they did.

So what was the answer to the questions of WHETHER the hijackers were actually connected to Pensacola military and airbase?

It's on (some) of their numerous drving licences?

So what? Reports elsewhere claim Atta had 10 addresses, that he never used, several safehouses, whatever......

You tell me what the facts are?

All you've done so far is elucidate that you have far less hard information than you think you do.

L: Falling into ones own footprint does not mean

It means what it means?

"Its own footprint" is a pretty explict term. Footprint means the area and extents of the base of the building.

You cannot claim "it fell into its own footprint" if it did not.

Simple?

I think the NIST report used the term “extraordinary event”. Tell me, how is that really any different from “new phenomenon”????


Well, if you're going to mock NIST for claiming something, at least get it right about what they claim.

They don't claim it was "a new phenomenon", right?

(Obviously it was "extraordinary")

L: Keep in mind, the word “PHENOMENAL” is a SYNONYM for “extraordinary”

errr - no - strictly speaking phenomena is "any observable event".- ANYTHING.

"A phenomenon is any observable occurrence."

People might mis-use the term, but I doubt NIST do.

------------

all questions answered, Larry. Several times.

the_last_name_left said...

L: The NEW video you posted shows the building coming straight down.

No it doesn't..........

check the screenshot at my site, check the video.

It is falling FORWARDS - TO THE SOUTH.

There is a clear, and marked curve where it should be straight and perpendicular.

That video is not even directly from the side - the curve would be even more marked and obvious if the video was taken from the side.

Larry said...

LOL, youre hilarious. I LOVE how you ask me questions, I give the answer, and your earth-shattering, mindblowing, intelligent reply? “So what?” LOL

You missed THIS question, peckweed:

“3) “Why didn’t it land on top of Vesey St. and fall on top of WTC 5 and 6???? If it leaned FORWARD it should have TIPPED OVER and landed on Vesey St. and WTC 5 and 6-----WHY DIDN’T IT???”

I looked the word “phenomenon” up, it’s a synonym for “extraordinary” dipshit.

You missed these questions too dipshit:

“If theres no issue at all with WTC 7------------------why was it completely OMITTED from the 9/11 Commission Report---asshole?”

“Why all the attention WTC 7 collapsing that day? Why not attention to Bankers Trust, WTC 4, 5 and 6??? They had BIGGER fires and MORE damage---yet they did NOT collapse! Got an answer for that??”

“WHY WASN’T HE BELIEVED? WHY WASN’T WTC 7 INVESTIGATED BY THE 9/11 COMMISSION? Did you even watch the fucking videos I sent, you stupid fucker??”

So, you see, ALL questions were NOT answered. Because you have reading comprehension issues.

L: “What caused the suspicion to even USE the surveyor transits?”

“Sheesh - the same things that caused the dude filming from a mile away to say "I told you it was gonna go!”

All he had to do was watch the TV to see reports that it was gonna collapse----but the question I keep asking OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER---only to NEVER get an answer is: HOW DID PEOPLE [firefighters, police, news stations, etc…..ANYONE] KNOW THIS BUILDING WOULD COLLAPSE????

So, far, that’s FIVE questions still left unanswered! And you claimed you answered them ALL. Hmmmm.

L: “Why arent you contacting them [NIST] so you can hand over this SOLID evidence you claim there is?????”

“Errr - no - I have nothing to add to the NIST report. Why would I be able to tell NIST anything?”

Because YOU claim you KNOW why the building collapsed when even NIST doesn’t know-----that’s why! Comprende?

L: Why are you SCARED of those questions?? Hmmmm???

“I'm not - I address your questions over and over.”

Nope, Ive counted FIVE still unanswered that Ive asked many times. Youre simply LYING.

Larry said...

I LOVE how you chop up my questions to AVOID answering them---as is showcased here:

I ORIGINALLY asked:

“If that TRUE [that they used 364 alias’ and name variants] then how did the FBI know THE DAY OF 9/11 WHO ALL 19 HIJACKERS WERE, BY NAME AND THEIR COMPLETE HISTORY??????”

In your above post, you CUT OUT the part “If that TRUE [that they used 364 alias’ and name variants] then…” before re-posting:

how did the FBI know THE DAY OF 9/11 WHO ALL 19 HIJACKERS WERE, BY NAME AND THEIR COMPLETE HISTORY??????

Why do you INTENTIONALLY OMIT the MAJOR part of the question if YOU have the truth on your side?

Your answer was: “They didn’t”-------------a COMPLETE LIE. The DAY of 9-11, every news station on TV flashed Bin Laden’s picture along with the 19 hijackers and their COMPLETE HISTORY. I STILL HAVE TAPES FROM THE DAY OF 9/11 THAT PROVES THIS!

“No - the claims you cited - the link you gave - goes directly to Tom Flocco.”

I never claimed the link I gave the first time was where the story ORIGINATED from. You asked the question “what military bases did they live on?” and I answered it with the link I sent! Then you said it was from Flocco--------------THEN when I GAVE YOU the ORIGINAL sources [Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, Newsweek], you say “the link you gave was from Flocco”------nice SPIN< but it doesn’t work with ME pal!

Sending that link was ONLY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION of what bases they lived on. You didn’t ORIGINALLY ask “show me the ORIGINAL story”, but later you claimed Flocco was the ORIGINAL source, and I DEBUNKED IT----now you keep throwing in my face that my link was from Flocco as if that’s supposed to mean HE’S the original source! Youre PATHETIC!

L: Falling into ones own footprint does not mean

“It means what it means?”

There you go again! CHOPPING up my statement!!!

My ORIGINAL statement was:

“Falling into ones own footprint does not mean it will not cause ANY DAMAGE AT ALL to surrounding buildings---it means it will cause MINIMAL damage—and it did. The buildings surrounding WTC 7 were damaged very minimally.”

You CHOPPED it up so you could IGNORE 75% of my statement! Bravo!

So, to recap the UNANSWERED questions I have asked, here they are again:

1) “If theres no issue at all with WTC 7------------------why was it completely OMITTED from the 9/11 Commission Report---asshole?”

2) “Why all the attention WTC 7 collapsing that day? Why not attention to Bankers Trust, WTC 4, 5 and 6??? They had BIGGER fires and MORE damage---yet they did NOT collapse! Got an answer for that??”

3) “WHY WASN’T HE [jennings] BELIEVED? WHY WASN’T WTC 7 INVESTIGATED BY THE 9/11 COMMISSION? Did you even watch the fucking videos I sent, you stupid fucker??”

4) “Why didn’t it land on top of Vesey St. and fall on top of WTC 5 and 6???? If it leaned FORWARD it should have TIPPED OVER and landed on Vesey St. and WTC 5 and 6-----WHY DIDN’T IT???”

5) “HOW DID PEOPLE [firefighters, police, news stations, etc…..ANYONE] KNOW THIS BUILDING WOULD COLLAPSE????”
I am re-asking this because you love to chop up FULL questions and answer PARTIAL ones

6) “If that TRUE [that they used 364 alias’ and name variants] then how did the FBI know THE DAY OF 9/11 WHO ALL 19 HIJACKERS WERE, BY NAME AND THEIR COMPLETE HISTORY??????”

SIX UNANSWERED questions and you claimed you answered them ALL-----LOL, unbelievable!

Larry said...

Let's take a poll. In your responses to my 6 questions, how many will be:

A) IGNORED?

B) CHOPPED UP, SO AS TO TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT TO AVOID ANSWERING THE MAIN POINT OF THE QUESTION?

C) ANSWERED WITH THE EVER-INTELLIGENT RESPONSE "So what?"?

D) ANSWERED WITH A HUGE DOSE OF SPIN , SO AS TO DISTORT THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION?

If you possess the unequivocal, undeniable, irrefutable, 100% gospel truth of 9/11---why would you have to resort to ANY of the above 4?

The answer is: You wouldn't----but you DO, because it is the ONLY option available to people in panic mode. This is why Davin Coburn completely PANICKED during his interview with Charles Goyette. He was beaten, cornered with no way out but to completely go into meltdown on the air.

I called Goyette in early September 2006 when I first heard that interview. We spoke for about 20 minutes on the phone. Know what interesting little fact he told me? He found out that Davin Coburn had 3 more interviews scheduled for that day [the day he had the interview with Goyette]. He cancelled them [or was made to cancel]. Why did he cancel them? Im pretty sure I know why.

By the way, did you listen to the Goyette/Coburn interview? I sent you the YouTube links. Let me guess...a big fat "NO" huh???

I look at YOUR ridiculous shit DESPITE the fact that I've already seen the same shit 100 times, because I've studied both sides ad nauseum---and I STILL look at your utter bullshit. You REFUSE to view MY links even though you've NEVER seen them! Amazing, isn't it?

the_last_name_left said...

you are tedious.

round and round.

OK - you've had my answers - you don't like them - fair enough.

But let's start asking Larry some questions..........

Q1 - How did the towers collapse? What made them collapse?

Explosives/incendiaries?

What is your evidence? How did whom put the devices in place? When?

How do you know any of this?

What is your evidence that we can subject to the scrutiny you insist upon for the official/obvious explanation?

Come on.........or are you chicken?

Larry said...

Tedious? Round and round? ONLY because you FAIL to answer questions Ive asked OVER and OVER. Why would someone with the TRUTH on his side continually IGNORE questions??

Those of you who chose #1 in my poll is the winner! He IGNORED them! ALL 6 of them! What does our contestant win Johnny? LOL

Prediction: He will NOW say he didnt answer mine because I didnt answer HIS---the ones he JUST asked me! Despite the fact that my 6 questions posted were asked over the course of the last few days!

That's the game he plays: I ask a question, he ignores it, and ignores it and ignores it. Then claims I ask the same questions over and over [implying he's already answered them--which he has NOT], then posts NEW questions for ME, and when I dont answer HIS [because I havent got my questions answered] he says its BECAUSE I didnt answer his!

That would be a good mind game if it was used on most people---but...I have a BRAIN and I see what youre doing. Youre failing. When you IGNORE, I achieve another victory. With every single thing you IGNORE, I win the battle of wits, and you sit back and think Im ranting, but Im actually waiting on answers---------answers you are too chickenshit to give-----because you CANT. LOL

Your last post sealed my victory---thanks

Here are the 6 questions again---for you, the reading impaired:

1) “If theres no issue at all with WTC 7------------------why was it completely OMITTED from the 9/11 Commission Report---asshole?”

2) “Why all the attention WTC 7 collapsing that day? Why not attention to Bankers Trust, WTC 4, 5 and 6??? They had BIGGER fires and MORE damage---yet they did NOT collapse! Got an answer for that??”

3) “WHY WASN’T HE [jennings] BELIEVED? WHY WASN’T WTC 7 INVESTIGATED BY THE 9/11 COMMISSION? Did you even watch the fucking videos I sent, you stupid fucker??”

4) “Why didn’t it land on top of Vesey St. and fall on top of WTC 5 and 6???? If it leaned FORWARD it should have TIPPED OVER and landed on Vesey St. and WTC 5 and 6-----WHY DIDN’T IT???”

5) “HOW DID PEOPLE [firefighters, police, news stations, etc…..ANYONE] KNOW THIS BUILDING WOULD COLLAPSE????”

I am re-asking this because you love to chop up FULL questions and answer PARTIAL ones

6) “If that TRUE [that they used 364 alias’ and name variants] then how did the FBI know THE DAY OF 9/11 WHO ALL 19 HIJACKERS WERE, BY NAME AND THEIR COMPLETE HISTORY??????”

the_last_name_left said...

SO you haven't even begun answering my questions.

Look at all the above posts - ALL dealing with questions you raised.

I addressed them - maybe not to your satisfaction, but.......so what?

I don't address them to your satisfaction - because we DISAGREE.

I'm allowed to disagree with you, Larry.

I have no intention of avoiding anything -- I have nothing at stake -- there's no sacred cows.

All of the above is about your questions - and I have responded to them.

I don't address everything mostly because I can't be bothered to do so - look how long the thread is already?

But for your sake, I'll do it again. But understand - whilst we may disagree - I have no intention or desire to "avoid" anything.....I am not prejudiced towards any particular explanation about 911 - I just see it how I do, which is differently to you. I'm happy to discuss what we see differently, and why we view it differently, but I don't appreciate insults, and I don't appreciate being told I ignore everything you ask when I put in a fair amount of effort to address your questions.

Learn to disagree? Sure - you don't know if I am someone working for CIA or whatever.......but if there's something important that I fail to address just say so.....don't get all insulting and demanding and maliciously exaggerate the evidence for my being "a turd" etc.

Your questions:

1) “If theres no issue at all with WTC 7------------------why was it completely OMITTED from the 9/11 Commission Report---asshole?”

Was it completely omitted? I don't know.

2) “Why all the attention WTC 7 collapsing that day? Why not attention to Bankers Trust, WTC 4, 5 and 6??? They had BIGGER fires and MORE damage---yet they did NOT collapse! Got an answer for that??”

What do you mean? How do you know they didn't get as much, or more attention?

Another way of looking at that, if WTC7 did get more "attention" - is to consider it was obvious to the people there at the time that it was necessary.

(BTW there's at least 2 questions in there - not one - maybe even 4)

the_last_name_left said...

3) “WHY WASN’T HE [jennings] BELIEVED? WHY WASN’T WTC 7 INVESTIGATED BY THE 9/11 COMMISSION? Did you even watch the fucking videos I sent, you stupid fucker??”

That's 3 more questions. We're up to 8 questions already - not 3.

Why wasn't Jennings believed? I don't know. Was he disbelieved? I don't know. I don't see what he claims to be particularly important. I suspect he was mistaken......but who knows? Do you know?

4) “Why didn’t it land on top of Vesey St. and fall on top of WTC 5 and 6???? If it leaned FORWARD it should have TIPPED OVER and landed on Vesey St. and WTC 5 and 6-----WHY DIDN’T IT???”

Obviously it did not just pivot at the base and slump entirely forwards.

But it did collapse into the street infront - and to the side. It's actually pretty messy - though surprisingly unmessy for a 47 storey building.

The point is not that the entire building fell forwards - the point is that it was not a symmetrical collapse - and it was not into its own footprint.

Such facts work against the arguments for demolition theory which are founded on claims that only demolition could produce a symmetrical collapse, into the buildings own footprint.

Neither of those things are true....so....what of the demolition argument? That's the point - not that the building MUST HAVE or SHOULD HAVE landed up right across the street. It didn't - but likeiwse - it did not land in its own footprint, nor did it collapse perfectly symmetrically.

the_last_name_left said...

5) “HOW DID PEOPLE [firefighters, police, news stations, etc…..ANYONE] KNOW THIS BUILDING WOULD COLLAPSE????”

10th question.

How did they know? I have addressed this lots of times.

They did not "know" it would collapse - they feared it would. They suspected it would. They worried that it would.

Why?

Because it was making noises, it was damaged, it had severe fires........then they put surveyor transits on it....and they showed it was moving.

Why did they think it was making noises? Because they heard them?

Why did they think it had severe fires? Because they could see them?

Why did they think it had severe damage? Because they could see it? Come on?

If you refuse to believe what the firemen said, fair enough. But that's what they said - noises, fires, damage, transits......it's reasonable. And addressed for the Nth time.......

6) “If that TRUE [that they used 364 alias’ and name variants] then how did the FBI know THE DAY OF 9/11 WHO ALL 19 HIJACKERS WERE, BY NAME AND THEIR COMPLETE HISTORY??????”

The FBI still does not have their full history? Nobody does?

It certainly wasn't there on 911.

Bushco had had warnings about such attacks. Read the flight manifests and check the names. Easy!

One of the first things that would hit you about the lists would be the names - 4-5 arabs on every flight. Connect them together? Find common articles at their separate addresses. Atta's letter. All sorts of Islamic stuff. Flying lessons.

If the hijacker story is essentially true, it would have been easy to basically tie them together.....imo. And as all the data started feeding back about ALL the people onboard.....well....if there were 4 groups of hijackers then if there were connections between them, it'd start showing up immediately.

Anyway - they never had the whole history of these people on 911.....go look at the reports from that day? There's nothing like a whole history.

Why was the Pensacola reporting issues about the hijackers and airbases on 22nd if it was all already public knowledge on 911?

Clearly NOT everything was known 911. Certainly not publicly.

Real Truth Online said...

Theres really no point in arguing with you. All you do is respond to my excellent questions with a barrage of "so what's?, "who knows'", "was it really's?", "I dont know's", "maybe he's mistaken's" and a shitload of other dodge and deflect tactics. You STILL didnt answer EVERY question--and of course, that's on purpose, Im sure.

You POSTED every question, but didnt answer them all. Its also obvious you dont watch ANY of the videos I send to you, or you DO and youre just retarded. If you did watch them, how could you STILL make comments like "why is Jennings testimony important?"----and how could he be mistaken when theres clips I SENT TO YOU of him saying the SAME thing ON 9-11 that he said to the Loose Change guys in 2008---SAME story, didnt change a bit. And you have the fucking NERVE to wonder why its important that WTC 7 was damaged BEFORE the towers fell. Because that would RUIN the ENTIRE official story of the DEBRIS FROM THE TOWERS CAUSING THE DAMAGE! DUHHHHHH.

And yes, the 9/11 commission did NOT mention WTC 7 ONCE in their investigation. Go buy the book of it---and show me where its mentioned---it's not. I guess that's a "theory" too??

The official story is a conspiracy theory. 19 men [well, really 21] conspire to fly planes into targets in the US, thats a conspiracy! And since you really dont KNOW the government is telling the truth and they have covered up so much, then its a THEORY.

Im wasting my time with you. You even ADMITTEDLY dont know about ALOT of the things I mention---like WTC 7 not being mentioned in the 9/11 commission report. My god, thats BASIC knowledge--and if you dont know that, talking with you is a complete waste of my time.

Even socrates on YOUR blog said I make better points than you! Your ONE reader sides with ME. Nuff said.

the_last_name_left said...

The 911 commission report doesn't mention any of the other buildings destroyed on 911......because it wasn't an engineering report. It was about the terorist attacks.

There wasn't any terror attack on WTC7......so......why would they discuss it?

The NIST report does mention it.....

L: how could [jennings] be mistaken

Because he was in a building (WTC7) and didn't know everything that was going on.

Seems likely he messed up his times - and the order.

His claims are interesting - but it doesn't necessarily make then true. Maybe they are......but....how are we going to check?

What about all the other people who worked there? Where are their testimonies that there were bombs or whatever in WTC7?

What is there to corroborate/substantiate Jennings' claims?

My point is this - even if Jennings was right - even if there were bombs in WTC7.......where is the evidence for it?

Why would there be bombs in there? (Based on what evidence?)

Why would the demolition people wait until the evening before pressing the button?

Why is there no sound of demolition charges going off in the videos?

The most straightforward view must dismiss Jennings' evidence.....as there's nothing else to support it. Just a belief in conspiracy, holding to whatever it can to sustain itself?

L: you really dont KNOW the government is telling the truth and they have covered up so much

Sure - but that doesn't mean the conspiracy angle is true.

Something you seem to miss - the government tried to prevent it becoming public that they'd received warnings of the attacks.....by AQ.....using planes....against US targets......

If they were desperate to blame AQ......then why did they try to keep such warnings secret?

Why wouldn't they have rathered publicise such warnings? It would have helped their case.....but instead they tried to suppress the fact that they were specifically warned.

So.....there we have a Govt cover-up, which actually works AGAINST the idea of a conspiracy because the cover-up served to prevent warnings of Al Qaeda attack becoming public.

Why did they do that?

Larry said...

"The 911 commission report doesn't mention any of the other buildings destroyed on 911......because it wasn't an engineering report. It was about the terorist attacks."

OMG, moron, moron, moron----do you ever THINK before you speak?

NO OTHER BUILDING COLLAPSED EITHER--DID THEY??? JESUS!

"Why would there be bombs in there? (Based on what evidence?)"

THE FACT THAT THE LOBBY AND OTHER FLOORS WERE DESTROYED AND HE WENT OUTSIDE THROUGH A HOLE IN THE WALL THE FIREFIGHTERS MADE AND HE SAW THE TOWERS STILL STANDING! HIS TESTIMONY ON THE DAY OF 9/11 IS THE SAME STORY HE GAVE TO THE LOOSE CHANGE GUYS. DID YOU WATCH THE FUCKING VIDEOS I SENT?? IF NOT, STOP ASKING QUESTIONS UNTIL YOU SEE HIS TESTIMONY!!!!!

"Why would the demolition people wait until the evening before pressing the button?"

BECAUSE SINCE IT WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE, THEY HAD TO WAIT UNTIL IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BELIEVABLE FOR IT TO COLLAPSE (I MEAN BELIEVABLE TO THE UNTHINKING AMERICAN PUBLIC----NOT TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE BRAINS, LIKE ME, WHO KNOWS STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE AND NEVER HAS BEFORE IN HISTORY). IF THEY HAD PULLED THE SWITCH 10 MINUTES AFTER THE TOWERS COLLAPSED, THAT WOULDNT HAVE BEEN BELIEVABLE THAT IT COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE/DAMAGE. ARE YOU LIKE 12 YEARS OLD?

"The most straightforward view must dismiss Jennings' evidence.....as there's nothing else to support it. Just a belief in conspiracy, holding to whatever it can to sustain itself?"

THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY---BUT YOU FULLY ACCEPT IT. YOURE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!

"Something you seem to miss - the government tried to prevent it becoming public that they'd received warnings of the attacks.....by AQ.....using planes....against US targets......"

THEN THEY DID A SHITTY JOB, BECAUSE AS IT STANDS NOW------EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT THE PLETHORA OF WARNINGS THEY HAD---FROM A DOZEN COUNTRIES----AND THEY DID NOTHING. THERE COMES A CERTAIN POINT IN WHICH YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THE MISTAKES AND INCOMPETENCE IS SOOOOOO SEVERE, THAT IT CANT BE PASSED OFF AS MERE "INCOMPETENCE". IF I MAKE 3 MISTAKES, IT CAN BE PASSED OFF AS A MISTAKE---IF I MAKE 10 MISTAKES, IT CAN BE VIEWED AS SOMEONE WHO REALLY IS LAZY AND INCOMPETENT. IF I MAKE OVER 70 MISTAKES---IT HAS TO BE WILLFUL, PURPOSEFUL NEGLECT.

"If they were desperate to blame AQ......then why did they try to keep such warnings secret?"

BEING FROM THE U.K., YOU MUST KNOW WHO DAVID MANNING IS RIGHT? EVER HEAR OF THE MANNING MEMO? IF SO, PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME (BY YOUR KNOWLEDGE) WHAT IT IS. I KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT I WANT TO SEE IF YOU DO FIRST. SO DONT IGNORE THIS QUESTION LIKE YOU IGNORED PREVIOUS ONES.

"Why wouldn't they have rathered publicise such warnings? It would have helped their case.....but instead they tried to suppress the fact that they were specifically warned."

OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT AMERICAN AGENCIES, DO YOU? WE HAVE WAYS TO PREVENT AN AIR ATTACK IF WE KNOW ABOUT THE THREAT OF AN AIRBORNE ATTACK. NORAD SPECIFICALLY---DID YOU KNOW THAT ON THE DAY OF 9/11 THAT IT TOOK OVER 85 MINUTES FOR NORAD TO RESPOND??? KNOW WHY? BECAUSE WE WERE RUNNING TERROR DRILLS THAT DAY, AND WHEN OUR AGENCIES GOT WORD THAT AN ATTACK WAS HAPPENING, THEY WERE CONFUSED AND DIDNT KNOW THE DRILL FROM THE REAL WORLD SCENARIO. MOST OF OUR SHOOT-DOWN JETS THAT DAY WERE ON THE WEST COAST INVOLVED IN THE DRILLS. THE FEW PLANES WE DID HAVE LEFT STILL HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO SHOOT DOWN THE 4 PLANES, BUT IT TOOK NORAD AN UNPRECEDENTED 85+ MINUTES TO RESPOND. USUALLY, A FIGHTER JET CAN BE IN THE AIR AND SHOOT A PLANE DOWN IN UNDER 15 MINUTES.

DID YOU EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE TERROR DRILLS THAT DAY??? LET ME GUESS YOUR ANSWER: NO???????????

the_last_name_left said...

L: [Jennings] WENT OUTSIDE THROUGH A HOLE IN THE WALL THE FIREFIGHTERS MADE AND HE SAW THE TOWERS STILL STANDING!

You don't know what you are on about?

He claims he was in WTC7 when the towers collapsed.

HEre's Jennings' account:

I was trapped in there for several hours. I was trapped in there when both buildings came down.

So - there's your explanation for why the place seemed wrecked - it was done by the North tower collapse which so damaged the building.

Even a witness you field to support explosions actually supports the idea that WTC7 was damaged by the collapse.

Jennings said the lobby looked like King Kong had been through it ---- but that was AFTER the towers had collapsed, according to Jennings.

But was Jennings confused? What if the 2nd plane had hit before he got to the WTC7? And maybe the first "explosion" he heard, and which damaged the WTC7 was the South Tower collapse?

What he says is:

I was called shortly after the first plane hit. I got there, uh, I had to be inside on the 23rd floor when the second plane hit.

How did he know that? He doesn't say? He seems unsure, too.

It does however seem he later says the buildings were still standing - he says

Both buildings were still standing because I looked to, one way and looked the other way and there's nothing there.

Confusing language?

I'd point to this too, where he says he was "destroyed", and where he was let out of a "hole in the wall" the firemen "had made for him to get out". Hmmm...

When I got to that lobby, the lobby was totally destroyed. It looked like King Kong hadcame through and stepped on it. And I was so destroyed, I didn't know where I was. And so theyhad to take me out through a hole in the wall. A makeshift hole that I believe the fire departmentmade to get me out.

He doesn't sound too convincing to me tbh. He sounds a little unhinged.

HE says he was "destroyed".....he didn't know where he was.....

and yet we're supposed to simply accept his claims contradicting the other description which is a seemingly straightforward and well-established explanation?

I don't think your belief in Jennings' claims is a fair treatment of the evidence.

You seem to want to only believe people whom support your thesis of conspiracy.

And you are operating on numerous misunderstandings, such as claiming Jennings saw the towers still standing after he's left WTC7......and that the hijackers "lived with FBI agents on American airbases".......and that WTC7 fell "perfectly symmetrically"......and that the hijackers' DNA was unobtainable. etc etc.

None of it true, but so what? As soon as something is refuted its dropped, and another issue raised. On and on.

And yet you refuse to give your own view of what the real truth about 911 is. You don't have an explanation, or you are too scared to offer one. You secretly know you have no explanation which can withstand the least serious scrutiny?

Hence your refusal to offer one. Right?

Not me that refuses to address questions - it's you. :)

You haven't addressed one thing about your own view about what happened.

And I've been addressing your "questions" across 80 posts......

But you won't start to address my initial question.

Strange - because you are so certain of things.........and yet you won't speak about what you believe happened.

You say with such certainty that XYZ happened.....and ABC were impossible.......but you offer no explanation. And you refuse to answer questions about it.

your choice - fair enough - but get off your high-horse about it?

the_last_name_left said...

Jennings had asked that footage of his interview not be used in LooseChange?

But Bermas and co released the whole thing, as a response to the BBC documentary on "The Third Tower" which seems to have suggested Jennings was perhaps simply mistaken and confused over his account?

Hmmm. So whilst Jennings was saying don't use the footage because he was suffering threats.......Bermas released it to counter a BBC documentary questioning the claims?

That's pretty shady ethics?

Larry said...

How convenient you COMPLETELY ignored my entire last post about NORAD, The Manning Memo, The 9/11 terror drills, my answer to your question about why WTC 7 fell in the afternoon, why the 9/11 commission didnt mention the othr buildings [because they did NOT collapse]-----ALL IGNORED. Hmmmmm.

"Jennings had asked that footage of his interview not be used in LooseChange?

But Bermas and co released the whole thing, as a response to the BBC documentary on "The Third Tower" which seems to have suggested Jennings was perhaps simply mistaken and confused over his account?

Hmmm. So whilst Jennings was saying don't use the footage because he was suffering threats.......Bermas released it to counter a BBC documentary questioning the claims?"

Simply have your facts wrong---as usual. Jennings initially asked that Dylan Avery---NOT Bermas, to not include the interview in Loose Change Final Cut because after giving the interview to Avery, portions of the interview were released on the internet and Jennings' employer--the NYC Housing Authority made Jennings fear losing his job, thus his pension as well. This is when Jennings said no to Avery including it in his film.

On July 6, 2008, the BBC aired a program on WTC 7 that featured an interview with Jennings. During the interview, Jennings repeated many of the same things he told Avery. But he suggested that Avery's film had distorted his testimony on one issue. At that point, Avery decided to put the entire interview called "Barry Jennings Uncut" on the net, which he did on July 9, 2008.

No ethics problem at all. Avery decided to release the uncut interview only after Jennings told the BBC that Avery was distoring his testimony. So Avery was not doing it against Jennings' wishes per se, he released it to basically prove to people that he was not distorting Jennings' testimony.

The only valid question that remains is: Why, after Jennings told Avery not to include the interview in Loose Change Final Cut for fear of losing his job, did Jennings do an interview with the BBC?

"Strange - because you are so certain of things.........and yet you won't speak about what you believe happened."

I dont KNOW 100% what happened. Thats why I ASK QUESTIONS and want it investigated by a TRULY independent commission. It's like the analogy I give of the man shot on the road. Its like you find a man on the side of the road and he has a bullet hole in him and you have no clue who shot him, but you KNOW he is shot. Woul you need to KNOW who the perpetrator IS in order to know a shooting took place? NO, you wouldnt. Same here. We KNOW 9/11 is covered up. Its just an issue of WHO the shooter IS, not if there IS a shooter.

"And I've been addressing your "questions" across 80 posts......"

oh REALLY now? I laughed out loud on that one.

Anonymous said...

larry, this guys a ass. he keeps going over the same shit youve already proved wrong. hes refuted nothing and have debunked nothing. he spews the same crap over and over again. he your bitch. you own this guy larry. he talks about you but he has commment moderation on his own site that proves hands down that hes affraid of you. you have won this one again. just like you own jizz eerrr jas. this guy makes dave the fraud look smart and thats a hard thing to do. stop hummiliating this guy. you make him look more and more like a jackass. its over youve won larry. hands down.

the_last_name_left said...

L: How convenient you COMPLETELY ignored my entire last post about NORAD, The Manning Memo, The 9/11 terror drills, my answer to your question about why WTC 7 fell in the afternoon, why the 9/11 commission didnt mention the othr buildings [because they did NOT collapse]-----ALL IGNORED. Hmmmmm.

I have more things to do than just respond to your endless questions Larry.

There are answers to everything you ask - you just don't like them. That's your prerogative.

How about you starting to answer some?

You haven't even begun......yet you carp that I haven't addressed the latest half dozen matters you raise.

Why should I bother, when you won't even begin to address my questions to you?

eh?

Larry said...

"I have more things to do than just respond to your endless questions Larry."

Translation: You HAVE no answers for them. LOL

You ALL OF A SUDDEN have things to do huh? After 92 posts? LOL---but yet you have time to come to my blog 3 times a day! LOL

"There are answers to everything you ask - you just don't like them. That's your prerogative."

Youre right, I usually dont like distortions, deflections, spin, out of context-chop up jobs and lies--youre exactly right!

"How about you starting to answer some?"

Not until you answer the ones I asked BEFORE the ones you did.

"You haven't even begun......yet you carp that I haven't addressed the latest half dozen matters you raise."

It's a half dozen because they have built up after each post I write. You dont answer one or 2, then I re-ask it. Then you respond and answer one of them, that leaves one left, then I ask another 2, now there's 3---so on and so on, and they build up. Im not going to stop asking just because you IGNORE them on purpose.

"Why should I bother, when you won't even begin to address my questions to you?"

Ive already addressed this in an earlier post. We answer them IN ORDER, thats how it works. If you dont answer mine, you dont get to IGNORE mine and ask new ones.

It's clear you'd lose miserably in a debate with me. You cant even ATTEMPT to debate me unless you omit, distort, deflect away from and even chop up my responses and questions. Even your one reader on YOUR blog sided with me! LOL

the_last_name_left said...

L: You ALL OF A SUDDEN have things to do huh? After 92 posts?

92 posts addressing your questions.

Not one post from you on addressing my questions to you.

End of story.

Larry said...

Uhhh, I believe I JUST posted WHY I didnt address your question in the LAST post but your reading comprehension skills issues keep getting in the way. More dodge, deflect and ignore!

Not going to address why you was COMPETELY WRONG about the whole Jennings/Avery/BBC thing where YOU said it was Bermas and was WRONG about why AVERY went ahead and put the interview in his film? Of course you will IGNORE that!

That's so typical of your "debating" skills: If you can get MINOR facts like that wrong---no WONDER you get the MAJOR ones wrong!

You dont even know what the Manning memo is and you're a Brit? Do you even know WHO David Manning is????? I bet you DONT! And no, he's not a son of Archie Manning!

Anonymous said...

larry, this guys a turd. he spins, ignores, lies and just gives up. you are wasting your time on this guy. this last name left guy has lost the debate hands down but still wont give up. he spews the same shit over and over again. hes a fraud. he wont answer your questions because he cant. youve answered all of his with truth and integrity. hes a tird... just look at the remark on your commment page. back up what you talk about. but this tird hasnt backed up anything at alll period. larry youve backed up your side with web sites, books, literature, dvds and other documents. this tird backs himself up with his own opinion period. hes the guy that says i have proof, but tells you to go to his own blog. .... what a tird.

the_last_name_left said...

L: We answer them IN ORDER, thats how it works.

Then how come I've addressed your questions through 100 posts here, and you've still not addressed a single one of mine to you?

Mine is a simple first question to you - about demolition, which appears to be the explanation you believe.

Who what when how? Where's the evidence?

If we apply anything remotely like scepticism towards your explanation, it won't get off the ground.

And if we do as you have, for example, ignoring the testimony of the NY fire chief and his officers, what is there to support your belief in controlled demolition? Nothing.

It's very obvious that you really avoid the subject of what you actually believe happened.

Obviously you don't have much faith in it as you tacitly acknowledge that your own explanation won't stand scrutiny.

And yet you operate on the basis that it is true........

odd.

Larry said...

If I ask 6 questions previously and you answer 4 or 5 of them, that is not answering ALL of them.

One thing you have to understand: the testimony of someone means nothing if it flies in the face of the physical evidence or defies logic. I'll give you an example:

Several "witnesses" at the Pentagon "claimed" they saw people inside of the windows of the plane [supposedly Flight 77] that hit the Pentagon. That testimony would be valid IF it was possible to see inside of windows of a plane going 500 miles per hour. There's no way they would have even seen the "American Airlines" logo on the side at 500 mph. The truth is: when they went home that day and learned from the MEDIA that an "American Airlines" plane had hit the Pentagon, they psychologically told themselves they saw people inside because of all the news stories they saw on it. In other words, the media reports influenced what they THOUGHT they saw.

It's like if I was walking down the street and I saw a huge bus-shaped object come out of the blue and slam into a building. I may not know EXACTLY what it was at the scene---BUT, after I go home and see all the reports on TV that it was a Greyhound Bus---then, when people come up to me and ask me what I saw THAT DAY on the scene, Im going to say "I saw a Greyhound Bus" even though AT THE TIME I didnt know what it was.

This is EXACTLY what happened on 9-11 with the "witnesses".

the_last_name_left said...

L: If I ask 6 questions previously and you answer 4 or 5 of them, that is not answering ALL of them.

Granted - but it is still 4 or 5 more than you have answered.

Larry said...

Ahhh, so you ADMIT NOT answering them all! That's funny----previously you said you DID, now you admit you havent. Which is it?

Plus, in admitting you havent answered them all, you give validation to my statement that I will not answer yours until you answer MINE. So, if you ADMIT not answering them all, how can you complain that I havent answered yours when you acknowledge my "answer in order" rule?

THIS is why you CONTINUALLY get your ass kicked in our 9/11 debates: your complete and continual ignoring of things I say and twisted logic.

the_last_name_left said...

The point is - I'm happy to address your questions - but it takes time to cover anything.

You haven't begun to address my initial question to you - which was....... what is your basic explanation of 911 re controlled demolition - who what where when why?

You won't even start to offer an explanation - let alone respond to sceptical enquiry about it.

We can't even get going comparing your explanation against "the official one"......because you won't even give one.

Let alone are you prepared to offer your evidence and reasoning up for scrutiny.

That says you don't believe you have a viable alternative.

End of story............until there's at least a viable alternative.

And, in a nutshell, there you have my view of 911 conspiracy.

Right after 911 we had every reason to be suspicious..........there was no explanation.

But now...........we have some explanations......

You don't like them? Fine. What's your explanation?

SILENCE.

Well, you know, you have to do better than that.

And that's why the 911 conspiracy movement - the Troof movement - has come to nothing and is diminishing all the time. There is no realistic alternative hypothesis.

If there was - you would give it. Such is your egoism. Ah well.

Larry said...

"The point is - I'm happy to address your questions - but it takes time to cover anything."

Ahhh yes, the time you claimed you "didnt have" several posts ago. Let me refresh your memory:

"I have more things to do than just respond to your endless questions Larry."

But yet, you seem to find the time to post comments on 5 or 6 of my stories all at once, hmmmm.

" what is your basic explanation of 911 re controlled demolition - who what where when why?"

So, in other words, you want the 9/11 truth movement to come up with the who, what, where, when and why" all by THEMSELVES when the MAIN PURPOSE of this movement for 8 years now has been to get a REAL investigation started---this time a REAL independent one? The first one was performed by ALL Bush White House appointees----headed by a 20 year White House employee, Philip Zelikow, who co-authored a book with Condi Rice!!!! THATS independent????? How could the White House ever take the blame for any of it when every single member was appointed BY the White House? So, you want ME to give all the answers that would take a solid REAL independent investigation to uncover? Thats an argument from ignorance. We KNOW there IS a cover-up, but we dont know the fine details----thats the whole purpose of the investigation we want started!!!

But, we DO have fine details of whats been covered up. Ive been talking about those fine details non-stop with you for months. In other words: we have enough solid evidence to get the investigation started. But unless someone like me says: "9/11 was done by _____ and ______ and _____ an ______, that means we're full of shit??? There would NEVER be investigations anywhere if all the facts were brought to light and there were never any cover-ups!

Even if we had Dick Cheney HIMSELF ADMITTING on tape that HE orchestrted 9/11---we'd STILL need to do an investigation and go to trial! What is your point??

The fact alone that the first 9/11 ivestigation was a COMPLETE whitewash and 6 of its mebers have already whistleblown and said they were "set up to fail", is all the evidence we need that they are SCARED SHITLESS of having a REAL investigation. If YOU are right and there is NO conspiracy----why all the secrecy?? Why the whitewashing? Why did 9/11 FAMILIES have to BEG and PLEAD for 441 days to get one started? Even when it did, many of the families at the commission held up signs that said "LIES" on them and screamed at the commission during the investigtion?? Why all the lies? Why the hiding???? Hmmmmmm???

Even YOU have distorted my quotes in your answers and have IGNORED many of my questions----and youre a NOBODY. Imagine how much GREATER the lies are from the very people who are actually involved in the cover-up!

You asking me for SPECIFIC answers when you KNOW I have no idea who actually pulled off 9/11, is called an argument from ignorance. Thats when you ask someone to give very specific facts ALREADY KNOWING they cant supply them and therefore you think you have WON the argument because of something they cant answer. We KNOW there's a cover-up----as for WHO did it an WHO ALL is involvd? Thats where the investigation comes in.

Even I have blown you away on MANY MANY points and facts, even to the admittance of your ONE reader of your blog, Socrates. If I was so full of shit, why did your OWN one reader side with ME on your blog???

the_last_name_left said...

L: I have no idea who actually pulled off 9/11

Fine.

Just hold that attitude then?

The problem is you always seem to go further than that - and the toofers certainly do............they're just about ready to setup lynchmobs.

When they don't even know what happened.

You see that?

Alex and his supporters are ready to lynch people.......mostly because they're jews. But because they ALREADY have determined these people are guilty. Based on "I don't know what happened."

L: Even if we had Dick Cheney HIMSELF ADMITTING on tape that HE orchestrted 9/11---we'd STILL need to do an investigation and go to trial!

Yes - and you don't even have anything close to it.

So?

L: You asking me for SPECIFIC answers.....

Yes.

That's what you are asking for, right? So why not ask YOU for specific answers if you reject the speciic answers given you? YOU are the one disputing any and all of the answers so far. So what's the alternative?

If yopu want to disprove specific claims of "the official story" then yes, you're going to have to be specific.

Simply "asking questions" is not enough. It's something - but not enough. It's 2009. Come on?

L: youre a NOBODY.

Y - and even I don't buy what you are saying. I have a different view.

I don't see why arguing over proving Bushco murdered 3,000 americans is so much more important than the seemingly obvious fact that Bushco's deliberate wilful actions )and lies) led to the violent death of maybe 1,000,000 iraqis.

Why are 3000 americans worth so much more than 1,000,000 Iraqis?

What is it that you are seeking to prove that we don't already know anyway?

We KNOW there's a cover-up----as for WHO did it an WHO ALL is involvd? Thats where the investigation comes in.

Yes - but..........so what? 8,000 children die everyday from easily preventable causes - hunger. That's a perpetual 911 everyday in slow motion - for children.

COVERUP?

INVESTIGATE?

Larry said...

"I don't see why arguing over proving Bushco murdered 3,000 americans is so much more important than the seemingly obvious fact that Bushco's deliberate wilful actions )and lies) led to the violent death of maybe 1,000,000 iraqis."

So, are you saying Bush is a liar? But yet you believe him 100%, hook, line and sinker about 9/11--that it was al Qaeda that did it?????

Pathetic.

Hey, tell ya what---and Im serious about this: I officially challenge you to a debate on 9/11. I have no clue how we'd do it since we live so far apart. Whether by phone or whatever. Im not that high-tech savvy, so I dont know of another way. But, I challenge you to a debate on 9/11. Are you up for it? And if so, would you be willing to look into finding a way for us to do it in real time and so it can be taped/recorded? Up for it---or afraid? I challenged Dave Willis to one as well--and never heard a word from him on it. So, up for a debate?

the_last_name_left said...

L: So, are you saying Bush is a liar? But yet you believe him 100%, hook, line and sinker about 9/11--that it was al Qaeda that did it?????

No.

Consider this.........Bush says 911 happened on a Tuesday. In 2001.

Do you believe Bush about that?

My point is that Iraq seems a far greater crime than 911 - and there's really no argument about whether there's enough evidence to at least attempt prosecution of war-crimes (the greatest warcrime - a crime against peace).

Whereas over 911, it's incontestable that there is no evidence sufficient to persuade sensible people of conspiracy and direct government responsibility.

We have no such problem in ascertaining US Government responsibility for Iraq. As it's a greater crime than 911.....911 conspiracy is a distraction....and serves to protect US Government.

Plus, I think it is important to recognise that whilst 3,000 americans dying in the attacks is horrible, 3 times that number of children are dying every day from easily preventable causes related to malnutrition.

Perspective?

the_last_name_left said...

L: I challenge you to a debate on 9/11. Are you up for it?

We're already having one. Several, in fact. :D

As for audio debate......hmmm....I don't see the point, and tbh I'm against being on audio/video. Shy?

I'm obviously happy to give my opinion.....lol. But....only in writing, tbh.

I think the debate we're having already is good. Writing is a far better format than audio imo.

Larry said...

"As for audio debate......hmmm....I don't see the point, and tbh I'm against being on audio/video. Shy?"

Translation: Im too chicken to have a real time debate because I wont get to spin, deflect and ignore Larry's questions and chop up his questions up so as to ignore the main parts of the questions. I know Larry will kick my ass and although I think Larry is a nut, Im afraid that the 'nut' will destroy me with facts.

I knew you were a pussy. Your answer proves it.

the_last_name_left said...

L: Translation

No - it doesn't need translation. I said what I did.....I meant what I said.

L: I knew you were a pussy. Your answer proves it.

Hmmm. You always make too many assumptions.

Larry said...

Yeah, you basically said "NO" to my challenge to you for a real time debate. A "no" means you are chicken shit to debate me in REAL time--- meaning, you would have no time to run to a site and post a picture or copy and paste someone else's answer and you wouldnt have the opportunity to chop up my questions and deliberately take them out of context so as to ignore most of the question. Why do you do that if the truth is on your side?

the_last_name_left said...

L: A "no" means you are chicken shit to debate me in REAL time

Sure.

And I'm a liar too, right? lol

Larry said...

"And I'm a liar too, right? lol"

Finally! A confession!

the_last_name_left said...

So, come on Larry - we've spent an age rehashing the arguments over "the official story".......

Time to look at your alternative hypothesis with the same criticial attitude.

Let's see how your version explains all the available evidence......let's see how viable your hypothesis is.

Oh - but we have nothing to go on, because you're too chicken to even give an hypothesis.

So, come on, L........WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION? WHO WHAT WHEN HOW?

And then we can subject it to critical appraisal.

Can't do that until we have a hypothesis.

Ah - the safety and comfort of "just asking questions".

Anonymous said...

theres a new thing, danceing around the truth. ignoreing and spinning. finaly there the who cares. youve won larry. its over.

the_last_name_left said...

YOU ARE A COWARD AND A CHEAT, LARRY.

THIS THREAD IS THE PROOF. LOOK AT ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED OF ME - AND WHICH I ADDRESSED - AND YET YOU ARE TOO COWARDLY TO GIVE YOUR OWN OPINION OF THE ONLY QUESTION I ASKED YOU.

COWARD. FRAUD.

I'm gone - enjoy your sycophants.

the_last_name_left said...

I asked Larry a question - what's his explanation of what happened re controlled demolition on 911.

Larry is too scared to answer.

He said:

L: L: Not until you answer the [questions] I asked BEFORE the ones you did.

We answer [questions] IN ORDER, thats how it works. If you dont answer mine, you dont get to IGNORE mine and ask new ones.


HAHAHAHA - you get to ask nearly 100 questions before you will address one?

Oh wow - you must be so confident of your explanation.

Here's the list of questions Larry demands an answer to before he will answer any.

1) Where did they get the ORIGINAL DNA to match it????

2) How could they scientifically explain why a building collapses due to fire when it

wasn’t hit by a plane?

3)When has ANYONE ever said that the firemen were involved with the demolition of WTC 7?

Name ONE time anyone has EVER said that.


4) Hani Hanour---the supposed pilot of Flight 77 at the Pentagon----that maneuver was

easy??

5) What about the dozens of witnesses who said they saw a plane of some sort fly over

their heads toward the Pentagon on 9/11, but they werent standing in what would have

been the official story flight path of Flight 77?

6) If steel is a poor conductor----how did the tiny steel beam NatGeo tested get weak

then?

7) If it’s a poor conductor, how did the towers collapse at all?

8) how did the steel get weak enough to melt?

9) how did the steel get weak enough to melt?

10) How can it even SOFTEN if steel is a POOR conductor of heat?

11) how would it SOFTEN and give way in just 56 and 105 minutes---ESPECIALLY when the

majority of the jet fuel burnt up in the initial explosion upon impact!

12)Will you EVER show me an example of a universal collapse before or since 9-11 that

was NOT a controlled demolition????


13) What about Popular Mechanics claim they found DNA of the hijackers in the WTC

rubble?

14) Where did they get the original DNA to match it?

15) Will you address NIST’s findings that steel does NOT begin to lose 1 % of its

strength until it reaches 425 degrees centigrade?

16) How could NatGeo’s 9-11 tests be accurate when they ADMITTED most of the jet fuel

vaporized but yet it still got hot enough to melt 110 stories of interconnected steel?

17) why didn’t the buildings sag to one side first real slowly and then crumble over?

18) How did they know what suspects to look for?

the_last_name_left said...

continued


19) How did they know where the hijackers were staying since there's no way they could

have even known who was on the plane?

20) Nowhere in the article does it list the names of whose DNA it was---why is that,

Sherlock???

21) Why did you completely IGNORE my mention of FBI agents LIVING WITH several of the

hijackers on military bases prior to 9/11?

22) if DNA was found in hotel rooms [as YOU said], why didnt Davin Coburn mention that

in his interview with Charles Goyette in 2006?

23) Nowhere in the article does it list the names of whose DNA it was---why is that,

Sherlock???

24) Id like an ANSWER to why it doesnt list WHICH hijackers they collected DNA from in

that article.

25) How would ANYONE know this building was coming down if a building NEVER BEFORE

COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE??

26) How can ANYTHING fall straight down unless the bottom it taken out from under it?

27) Tell me Sherlock, how does a building collapse, in complete symmetry, free fall,

straight down in 6 seconds, in its own footprint while ALL floors below the roof have

their full strength and are intact??

28) “How does a building collapse, in complete symmetry, free fall, straight down in 6

seconds, in its own footprint while ALL floors below the roof have their full strength

and are intact??”

29) how did firefighters, cops, the BBC and CNN KNOW at least an HOUR BEFORE WTC 7

collapsed it was coming down if it NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE?

30) HOW would they know a building was going to collapse WHEN A BUILDING HAD NEVER

COLLAPSED BEFORE IN HISTORY DUE TO FIRE??????

31) WHAT PRECEDENT WAS THEY BASING THIS ON???

32) HOW DID THEY KNOW IF IT HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE???

33) “The acting chief of the fireservice at that time said it was going to collapse -

and they backed people away from it.”

HOW DID HE KNOW THIS?????????????????????????????????

34: giuliani said.........

WHO TOLD HIM THAT???? HOW DID THEY KNOW????

the_last_name_left said...

continued

35)if you go to www.fbi.gov will NOT see 9/11 in the list of Bin Laden’s offenses now,

WILL YOU????? NOPE

WHY??????????????????????????????????????????

36) WHY DOESN’T IT MENTION 9/11?????? HMMMM??????????????????????????????????????????

37) DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THEY FOUND ANY DNA AT ALL???????????

38) Tell me Sherlock, what were those SIGNS of imminent collapse????

39) The question was not “Are they right?”---the question was “HOW DID THEY KNOW?”

40) Gee, Sherlock---give me ONE sign that made [collapse] OBVIOUS????

41) WHO TOLD GIULIANI THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE?

42) what WERE the signs of collapse??

43) The building in those photos and videos did NOT collapse, and that building burned

for nearly 24 hours straight. Care to explain that?

44) HOW DID THEY KNOW IT WOULD COLLAPSE? WHY DID THEY SUSPECT IT?

45) Why did NO one say WTC 4, 5 or 6 would collapse?

46) “We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would

result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini”

HOW WOULD HE KNOW THIS?

47) So, tell me Sherlock------what WERE the signs of collapse??

48) So, they used surveyor transits on the building? In order for you to do this, that

would require a SUSPICION of collapse---and my question, for the 20th time now----WHAT

MADE THEM SUSPICIOUS since it was NOT hit by a plane?

49) Did they put surveyor transits on Bankers Trust, WTC 4, 5 and 6, The Verizon

building and the Post Office too?

50) If not, why???

51) In what direction was it moving from the surveyor tests? Left to right? Was it

swaying?

52) if the building was "moving" then why didnt it FALL OVER or lean over first THEN

collapse?

53) how in the world would it detect the building moving STRAIGHT DOWN?

54) In what direction was the building moving as a result of the surveyor transits? Got

an answer for that?

55) What caused the suspicion to even USE the surveyor transits?

56) HOW DID THEY KNOW IT WAS COMING DOWN?

57) Why didn’t it land on top of Vesey St. and fall on top of WTC 5 and 6???? If it

leaned FORWARD it should have TIPPED OVER and landed on Vesey St. and WTC 5 and

6-----WHY DIDN’T IT???

58) *What caused the suspicion to even USE the surveyor transits?

59) “What caused the suspicion to even USE the surveyor transits?”

60) how did the FBI know THE DAY OF 9/11 WHO ALL 19 HIJACKERS WERE, BY NAME AND THEIR

COMPLETE HISTORY??????

61) Please explain the VAST difference between “new phenomenon” and “extraordinary

event”.

62) WHAT MADE THEM SUSPICIOUS TO EVEN USE THE TRANSITS??????

63) HOW DID THE STATIONS KNOW IT WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE??????

64) why was it completely OMITTED from the 9/11 Commission Report---asshole?

65) Why all the attention WTC 7 collapsing that day? Why not attention to Bankers Trust,

WTC 4, 5 and 6??? They had BIGGER fires and MORE damage---yet they did NOT collapse! Got

an answer for that??

66) WTC 7 WAS COMPLETELY OMITTED FROM THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION.

WHY?????????????????????????????????????????

67) WHY WASN’T HE (Jennings) BELIEVED? WHY WASN’T WTC 7 INVESTIGATED BY THE 9/11

COMMISSION? Did you even watch the fucking videos I sent, you stupid fucker??

68) HOW DID PEOPLE [firefighters, police, news stations, etc…..ANYONE] KNOW THIS

BUILDING WOULD COLLAPSE????

69) EVER HEAR OF THE MANNING MEMO? IF SO, PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME (BY YOUR KNOWLEDGE) WHAT IT IS.


That's pathetic, Larry.

I've addressed almost everything in there.

YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION AT ALL.

Larry said...

You have actually answered NONE of them---and even the few you ADDRESSED, you were debunked on and after being debunked, you simply just ignored my answer on it. The reason why there are so many questions PROVES you ignore them, because I have simply just added to the long list of the ones you dont answer. When you answer one, it gets removed from the list.

the_last_name_left said...

rubbish.

fact remains - you seek to ask questions - but refuse to answer any.

Why do you think people should answer your questions when you won't answer a single one?

the_last_name_left said...

WHO WHAT WHEN HOW - for controlled demolition Larry?

you've asked 70 questions - I addressed them as best I can.

You refuse to even attempt my single question.

That's dishonest - unfair - and cowardly.

Larry said...

OK, look, I realize you have difficulties reading and comprehending, so for the 4th time now, I will post MY ANSWER to your queston. This is NOT a RESPONSE to you asking me "when will you nswer it?" ---it is the ACTUAL ORIGINAL ANSWER I posted on October 1. Are you ready? Let's try this again. Let's see if THIS time, you can actully COMPREHEND that THIS is my answer to your ORIGINAL question. Ready? OK. Here we go:

"So, in other words, you want the 9/11 truth movement to come up with the who, what, where, when and why" all by THEMSELVES when the MAIN PURPOSE of this movement for 8 years now has been to get a REAL investigation started---this time a REAL independent one? The first one was performed by ALL Bush White House appointees----headed by a 20 year White House employee, Philip Zelikow, who co-authored a book with Condi Rice!!!! THATS independent????? How could the White House ever take the blame for any of it when every single member was appointed BY the White House? So, you want ME to give all the answers that would take a solid REAL independent investigation to uncover? Thats an argument from ignorance. We KNOW there IS a cover-up, but we dont know the fine details----thats the whole purpose of the investigation we want started!!!

But, we DO have fine details of whats been covered up. Ive been talking about those fine details non-stop with you for months. In other words: we have enough solid evidence to get the investigation started. But unless someone like me says: "9/11 was done by _____ and ______ and _____ an ______, that means we're full of shit??? There would NEVER be investigations anywhere if all the facts were brought to light and there were never any cover-ups!

Even if we had Dick Cheney HIMSELF ADMITTING on tape that HE orchestrted 9/11---we'd STILL need to do an investigation and go to trial! What is your point??

The fact alone that the first 9/11 ivestigation was a COMPLETE whitewash and 6 of its mebers have already whistleblown and said they were "set up to fail", is all the evidence we need that they are SCARED SHITLESS of having a REAL investigation. If YOU are right and there is NO conspiracy----why all the secrecy?? Why the whitewashing? Why did 9/11 FAMILIES have to BEG and PLEAD for 441 days to get one started? Even when it did, many of the families at the commission held up signs that said "LIES" on them and screamed at the commission during the investigtion?? Why all the lies? Why the hiding???? Hmmmmmm???

Even YOU have distorted my quotes in your answers and have IGNORED many of my questions----and youre a NOBODY. Imagine how much GREATER the lies are from the very people who are actually involved in the cover-up!

You asking me for SPECIFIC answers when you KNOW I have no idea who actually pulled off 9/11, is called an argument from ignorance. Thats when you ask someone to give very specific facts ALREADY KNOWING they cant supply them and therefore you think you have WON the argument because of something they cant answer. We KNOW there's a cover-up----as for WHO did it an WHO ALL is involvd? Thats where the investigation comes in.

Even I have blown you away on MANY MANY points and facts, even to the admittance of your ONE reader of your blog, Socrates. If I was so full of shit, why did your OWN one reader side with ME on your blog???"

70 questions? That means you didnt ANSWER 70. I dont RE-TYPE questions when they've ALREADY been answered SEVERAL times like YOU do.

"You refuse to even attempt my single question.

That's dishonest - unfair - and cowardly."

LIE. I just re-posted it [above] for the FOURTH time and you keep saying Im NOT answering.

the_last_name_left said...

You haven't answered it at all.

You're just squirming to avoid answering it.

You don't have an answer - as you admit.