9/11: A Conspiracy Theory

Transcript and sources: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=2594

Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.

• Category

  News & Politics

[Leighton Lawrence]

how about you go look it up yourself! the sad thing Is you don't even express any inquiry about his involvement with the CIA. its just whoopty do whatever. because the CIA isn't known for hiding ANYTHING. im not writing an English essay I don't need to go find sources for you. you're just fighting blindly for the official story at this point. trying to force some reasonability behind every little improbable coincidence, regardless of whether it defies logic or basic scientific probability.

[Wim Ahlers]

By the way, you still have not answered the question:

What caused the substantial internal collapse of WTC 5?

Is there any answer to be expected soon?

If not than I am going to assume that you agree with all other scientific observations and accept that the cause for this substantial collapse was fire and fire alone.

If you disagree than please answer the question yourself.

[Wim Ahlers]

Yes, using a vague non-denominated reference to the general term "The Government" is very old. This non-argument is observed to be used, or abused if you prefer, a lot within the truther community. Like other terms. such as shill, dis-info agents, sheep, etc.

And that is all fine and dandy, but at the same time the truther movement likes to be taken seriously on a scientific level.

But you can't have it both ways. Either adhere to the scientific doctrine or be scientifically not taken seriously.

[Wim Ahlers]

Really?

Do you understand the "?" character?

Its called a question mark.

It is usually placed at the end of a sentence when you ask a question.

In a question you ask (or hope!) for an answer.

In this specific case the answer to a confirmation or, equally valid, a rejection, on a specific statement.

Before the answer is given, nothing is assumed. And I assumed nothing.

So how you can conclude based on these facts that I claimed you said there are soundless explosions is beyond me.

[ManAgainstCrime]

Very good point. Shills, pseudoskeptic liars, trolls and deniers use 'the' government as a basic strawman. Part of their basic shill training. It's gotten very old.

[ManAgainstCrime]

“I never said or claimed that you said that there were soundless explosions.”

Another filthy lie.

“Do you know any soundless explosions? If so, I sure like to know.”

1. I never said, or meant soundless explosions.

2. Your comment (“Do you know any soundless explosions?”) clearly implies that I DID say, or meant that.. hence the follow up sarcasm “If so, I sure like to know.”

You’ve been caught lying too many times now. I don’t speak to proven liars.

[Wim Ahlers]

No! Not specific enough.

When was this told? And who told this? And what was actually said? Be specific.

Note: You have to be specific when you accuse. And you accuse. Calling somebody a liar is an accusation.

p.s. I know that information existed that, in hindsight, cound be interpreted that something was likely going to happen. It was many of the potential threats buried in hundreds, if not thousands, of other potential threats received and processed every day by security agencies.

[Wim Ahlers]

In your lengthy reply this was the only thing you said about WTC 5, and I quote you:

"There are plenty of photos showing wtc5 still standing. You cannot in any way whatsoever compare a partial internal collapse of wtc5 with the total global collapse of wtc7."

In no way or shape does this answer the question, and I repeat the question:

What caused the substantial internal collapse of WTC 5?

What you did was formulating an excuse so you could excuse yourself instead of answering the question.

[Funkadelic2]

One important lie: The claim that there were NO warning of impending attacks. Is that specific enough?