More great debunking material from RKOwens4

No one I believe has done a better job smashing 9/11 inside jobbers on Youtube than RKOwens4. This guy's responses to conspiracists are filled with logic and reason. Once I discovered his channel I began saving the conversations he was having with all the inside jobbers on his channel. Now RKO hasn't been on his channel in years and I don't know if he has an account here. Anyway I've just decided to post these conversations here for anyone to use as reference as I did when I used to debate inside jobbers.

Note: I have ommited any long paragraphs that don't focus on addressing 9/11 Inside Job theories. None of these conversations have been edited. Also since Mr.Owens stopped debunking in 2011 don't expect anything recent. ALL CREDIT GOES TO RKOwens4. HIS COMMENTS ARE IN BOLD

RKOwens4 on WTC Collapse, arresting hijackers, and stand down theories

Quote:

"No doubt you do not understand how the Center Cores were constructed even though the blue prints are on the net. You can eve see some photos. Those flimsy asa floors are not going to pull it down and straight down at that." The official report doesn't say that the floor trusses pulled the core columns down. It says they pulled the perimeter columns inward. (By the way, instead of next saying how you *think* the floor trusses were too weak to pull the perimeter columns inward, provide calculations, not assumptions.) So, you're trying to prove the official explanation wrong, but you don't even know what the official explanation is. No offense but maybe you should learn more about the way the buildings were built and what the official explanation for why they collapsed is, before you tell others to do this. "CIA sould of made some arrests right nope wrong absolutly none." Because the government can't arrest someone for being SUSPECTED of having ties to terrorism. In this country, you need evidence before you can arrest someone. Even if they did arrest them, they would have had no evidence of any crime to be able to hold them, so they would have had to let them go. You truthers always talk about how you're afraid that America is going to become a police state where the government can arrest you for any reason at all, without evidence, and how we need to fight to make sure this doesn't happen.  But when it comes to the hijackers pre-9/11, you all say how the government should have arrested the suspected terrorists. Which is it, truthers? Do you want America to be a police state, or do you want the government to only be able to arrest you if they have evidence? "What I am saying is that at the end of the day the CCs should have still been standing." No one says they collapsed from fire. They collapsed because they were unstable, having lost their lateral support and probably having their bases crushed like a soda can by the falling debris. Anyway, how does the cores collapses 15-20 seconds AFTER the rest of the building indicate controlled demolition? When do demolitions ever demolish the rest of the building, and then wait 15-20 seconds to take down the core? "History shows us that fire alone is unable to bring down a building when it is constructed like the CCs" Huh? What do you mean by, when a building is constructed like the core columns? Whatever you mean, it's irrelevant because you have to remember that no two buildings are ever constructed alike. If this were the case, then every building on earth would look exactly the same. Same height, same everything. Not only that, but every fire is also unique. What other office fire in history has been started by having a hijacked airliner crash into it? there were no drills involving a hijacked plane taking place on the morning of 9/11, no matter what conspiracy theory websites would have you believe. when the norad commanders testified to the 9/11 commission, they said that the drills that WERE taking place actually helped their response, since everyone was already at their stations and it only took 30 seconds to purge all simulation information from the computer screens. There was also no change of protocol before 9/11. Again, another total lie of the "truth" movement. I have a video about this, but requiring intercept approval from the Secretary of Defense was standard procedure in 1997, under the Clinton Administration, and is I think a reasonable requirement... if you're gonna kill potentially hundreds of innocent passengers. That's a huge decision to have to make.

RKOwens4 on Pentagon videos, WTC explosions, 9/11 Commission, and Al Qaeda CIA theories

Quote:

What video evidence are they hiding? The first two editions of Loose Change complained about how the government should release the video from the Citgo gas station and from the Doubletree Hotel (near the Pentagon) which was confiscated shortly after the attack -- in May 2006 (over three years ago), both of these tapes were released, alongent, but the Vi with two other videos of the attack recorded from the Pentagon. There was some hope (even from myself) that the highway cameras may have gotten a clear view of the vrginia DOT responded to inquiries from conspiracy theorists by saying that all of their traffic cameras statewide are set for live traffic monitoring only, and aren't set to record. "if you analyze the destruction of the towers you can see the explosives" You mean explosives that don't make any sound, and only appear once the collapse is already well underway? Yeah, that's how all controlled demolitions work... they wait until something else causes the building to start to fall and then they set off explosives once it's already collapsing. Like I've said before, the fact that the puffs don't appear until after the collapse has begun indicates that the collapse caused the puffs, the puffs didn't cause the collapse. "When ever I have a question, he answers, though I have maybe 5 videos of him & Jason encounter here in Ny and how Jason made him look bad." How did Jason make me look bad? Can you name a single claim that he gets correct, either in the brief video I uploaded or in the video shot by some onlookers who gathered around us? He tried claiming that Steven Jones disproved that the metal was aluminum. When I told him how Jones only heated it up to 800 degrees and the fires in the towers were at 1800 degrees F (aluminum begins to glow at about 900-1,000 degrees F), he couldn't give a good answer and changed the subject. Made me look bad? Or him? He tried to tell me that Barry Jennings is evidence that there were explosives in WTC7. When I called him out on this and told him that even Barry Jennings himself disagrees with Jason's claims about HIS words, he knew he was caught in a fib and immediately began cursing and started with the name-calling. Made me look bad? "With the only "official" 9/11 report now nearly totally discredited" There's only one official 9/11 report now? I assume you don't even know about the NIST report on the Twin Towers or the NIST report on WTC7, which haven't been discredited one iota by anyone in the 9/11 truth movement (despite what they would claim). And as someone who has research every aspect of 9/11 for years, I believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is for the most part accurate in describing the events of the day. Sure, there are some things I disagree with, and even some of the members of the Commission themselves say they disagree with, like whether it was really George W. Bush who gave the initial shoot down order or whether it was Cheney, acting in fear, even though he didn't have the power to give that order. Still, there are no contradictions proving that 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB. Not one. in four long postings, you talk basically about how John Farmer believes that the official version of events on that morning is almost completely untrue. However, never in any of your postings did you say what John Farmer believes DID happen on that morning. Well, since you conveniently avoided doing that, I'll tell you what he believes, based on the article that you are pulling quotations from: "The truth about what happened, Farmer says, is that as hijackers rammed jetliners into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania farm field, nobody at the operational level of government had a handle on what was happening." I, as well as most other "debunkers", agree with that 100%. A lot of people, especially NORAD and the White House, tried to cover up their incompetencies and shift blame away from themselves. Many even outright lied in trying to do that. Still, that DOES NOT prove that 9/11 was an inside job. Bin Laden has been a CIA Operative since the 1980's when the CIA was funding the Mujahideen and Taliban with Billions of dollars to fight the Soviets." Eh, no. Bin Laden was never trained or funded by the CIA. Not in the 1980s, not ever. The aid sent by the U.S. during the war against the Soviets went to the Afghan mujahidin, not the volunteer groups like al-Qaeda or the Taliban. "Personally neither I nor my brothers saw evidence of American help..." -Osama bin Laden, Fisk interview, 1996 Even Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's number two man, says that they never received any training or funding from the Americans. Sure, you'll probably just say they're lying because they're CIA agents, but truthers have never been able to present a single shred of evidence that bin Laden or al-Qaeda was ever trained or funded by the CIA. It's just a claim that gets repeated so often that most people believe it.

Stand Down, UL, and WTC 7 theories

Quote:

"Cheney's interview with Russert is also very strange in that he admits F-16s were scrambled but they decided to let a plane smash into the Pentgaon. It's quite curious overall and I think your video on intercepts is rather misleading." It's not misleading. In fact it's very simple. Fighter jets WERE scrambled. But there's a difference between scramble and intercept. The first fighter jets were ordered scrambled at 8:40 (BEFORE the first plane even hit) and were airborne at 8:52. But, of course, even though both pilots were flying at supersonic (which was nonstandard) it still took them 33 minutes to fly from Massachusetts to New York City, and both planes had already crashed into the World Trade Center. So, again, there's a difference between scrambled and intercepted. "Small Private Plane Ordered to Land in Vicinity of Bush Ranch" Took place AFTER 9/11, buddy. You're not going to get by on my like that. My video about the intercepts says that there was only one domestic intercept BEFORE 9/11. Of course we all know that things improved greatly after 9/11. "In [a second incident, in] Wood County, Sheriff's senior Dispatcher Rodney Mize said a private plane was forced down by two military pilots" Again, after 9/11. "What about Pane Stewart's jet as well?" What about it? I already discuss it in one of my videos. It took 76 minutes to be intercepted from the first sign of trouble. The longest period of time that any of the 4 hijacked planes on 9/11 was ever in the air was 44 minutes. One hit its target just 16 minutes after being hijacked. "There was at the very least a major failure by the White House." Agreed. This doesn't prove inside job. Even the 9/11 Commission concluded this, and I'm sure you don't believe that the 9/11 Commission believed 9/11 was an inside job. "I'd also like to see debunking of Able Danger, O'Neill and FBI KNOWING exactly who the terrorists were and being called off by the White House." So what if they knew the (eventual) hijackers were living in the United States? They hadn't committed any crimes, and had no reason to be arrested. It's like saying that the government knew that Oswald was living in the United States before he assassinated JFK. So what? He hadn't committed any crimes prior to the assassination and had no reason to be arrested. A FEW of the hijackers were suspected of having links to terrorism, but that's not good enough to hold someone in prison. "underwriters labratories did tests to certify the steel used in the wtc,," False. UL never had anything to do with the World Trade Center's steel, ever. In no way shape or form. Just another total lie of the 9/11 "truth" movement. "if me and my 1000 friends sneezed,,,,,,,,,would that blow off the fire proofing too you ignorant *********** scumbag" So you're saying that a 767 crashing into steel beams at the speed of a bullet and then having a massive explosion blasting through the entire floor shouldn't have knocked the fireproofing off because... sneezing on a steel columns wouldn't knock the fireproofing off? Is this your idea of a joke? "down again,,,,,,,,,,,from different angles,,,,,,,,,and try to explain the core being blown open" What?  The cores remained standing for about 15 seconds after the rest of the building fell, then they just collapsed downward into the dust due to the lack of lateral support. There is no peeling going on. "if building seven was a collapse of natural causes,,,,,,,,,,,,,it would have started gradual,,,,,,,,,,,and had asymetrical leaning or sagging" Dude, that's EXACTLY what did happen. The FDNY noticed that the building was leaning to the south at 2:30, nearly THREE HOURS before the building collapsed. That's why they determined that the building was in danger of collapse and pulled everyone back three blocks. This was superb decisionmaking on the part of the FDNY, which saved countless lives from being lost when WTC7 did collapse. But people like you, who weren't even on the scene of WTC7 on 9/11, are apparently suggesting that the firefighters don't know what they're talking about and you know better than them. ",,,,,,,,,,,it would never hurtle itself strait down the path of resistance you ignorant bastard" So, what direction should it have fallen in? Upwards? Toward the sky? :sigh: Truthers......

9/11 Investigations and more CIA Osama theories

Quote:

With the only "official" 9/11 report now nearly totally discredited" There's only one official 9/11 report now? I assume you don't even know about the NIST report on the Twin Towers or the NIST report on WTC7, which haven't been discredited one iota by anyone in the 9/11 truth movement (despite what they would claim). And as someone who has research every aspect of 9/11 for years, I believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is for the most part accurate in describing the events of the day. Sure, there are some things I disagree with, and even some of the members of the Commission themselves say they disagree with, like whether it was really George W. Bush who gave the initial shoot down order or whether it was Cheney, acting in fear, even though he didn't have the power to give that order. Still, there are no contradictions proving that 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB. Not one. in four long postings, you talk basically about how John Farmer believes that the official version of events on that morning is almost completely untrue. However, never in any of your postings did you say what John Farmer believes DID happen on that morning. Well, since you conveniently avoided doing that, I'll tell you what he believes, based on the article that you are pulling quotations from: "The truth about what happened, Farmer says, is that as hijackers rammed jetliners into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania farm field, nobody at the operational level of government had a handle on what was happening." I, as well as most other "debunkers", agree with that 100%. A lot of people, especially NORAD and the White House, tried to cover up their incompetencies and shift blame away from themselves. Many even outright lied in trying to do that. Still, that DOES NOT prove that 9/11 was an inside job. Crospieler, as I said below, bin Laden was never trained or funded by the U.S. 9/11 truthers have never been able to provide any kind of document indicating this, and even bin Laden himself has said that this never happened. This U.S. DID provide money to the Afghanistan army in the 1980s in their fight against the Soviets, but the Afghan army refused to distribute any of the funding to the volunteer groups. And the name al-Qaeda was not a name created by the CIA (not that this would be proof any anything at all). It doesn't mean "the database", it means "the base". It was established in the late 1980s as the name for their training camps, and the name stuck. "OSama isn't afraid and never was. Infact he's not hiding, he's dead. Benazir Bhutto said he was murdered by Omar sheikh and look what happened to her, coincidence I'm sure." Benazir Bhutto was clearly trying to explain who Omar Sheikh was by saying he was the man who murdered U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl, though she mispoke and said he was the man who murdered Osama bin Laden. Omar Shiekh was captured and arrested in February 2002 and has been in custody ever since, so wouldn't have even possibly been able to kill Osama bin Laden! Also, Benazir Bhutto talked many times AFTER this interview, before her death, where she talked about the need to capture Osama bin Laden and criticized the Pakistani government for not doing enough to capture Osama bin Laden... speaking in the context that he is still alive and needs to be captured.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2eIFZdC