• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apparently you felt compelled to make a defacto confession that you wouldn't know a lie if you told one. History and facts of the attacks are quite clear and illogical within the officila story.

Christophera said:
I've added to correct what what might be seen as a typo.

Evidence your vague assertion if you still have one.

Er...so you 'corrected' yourself not by removing the contradicting lexemes, but by tacking on a prepositional phrase that in no way changes the fact that "...clear and illogical [facts]..." is a contradiction.

It is as if I said, "The lake is crystal clear and muddy," and then when someone pointed out the contadiction to change that to, "The lake is crystal clear and muddy on Wednesdays."

Notice how the contradiction hasn't been removed, I've simply tacked on a prepositional phrase. This is exactly what you have done.

Would you like to correct yourself once again? Until you are actually able to express yourself in a precise and logical manner, it is doubtful that you will be taken seriously.
 
This I recognize and because of my experience and witnessing the construction of WTC1 via an intimate video produced by PBS (then removed from their archives and their history) in 1987 which I saw in 1990.

oddly, it seems the same might have happened to your "Encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation" (sic) or will you reply and provide

AN ISBN NUMBER FOR THIS BOOK?

BV
 
I don't understand everyone's reluctance to accept the truth.
Let me recount the full history of this foul and vile plot.

<snip>

What's not to believe?


:-]

BTW dontcha know? the pixies did it!
checkout my sig, all is explained there.

BV
 
Can you twist this into something that justifies ignoring lies that murderers hide behind? Go ahead, give it a try, I know you can do it.

<spam removed>

YOU have twisted all sorts of evidence in a spectacularly inept, stupid attempt to involve numerous innocent people in your cretinous concrete core conspiracy. as your web of idiocy unwound you have accused (off the top of my head),

US gov:
PBS:
NIST:
FEMA:
American Natives:
NYPA:

and many others i can't remember right now, of direct involvement or of being accessories after the fact in the events of 9/11.

i'm sure that list will grow and grow until it includes the mailman and your next-door neighbours cat. before that chris i'd suggest you go and see a frickin shrink

BV
 
The Port Authority of NY and NJ or simply referred to as the Port Authority. Sorry I have a stick up my behind about agency names.

np thanks

over here we have the "British Port Authority" a government body who, i think, manage all ports in the UK. is the PA a US government agency as such?

BV
 
@BELZ...






Hello, Belz. No kidding here:

If you talk long enough about this
s*it you will someday enter the world
where he lives.



And there is NO WAY OUT....







Just in case you missed it, Belz. I was NOT joking.
 
Chris, you really are the master of cognitive distortions. A textbook example.

We need comprehensive logic here. One cannot bite off a select piece of an event and apply logic and expect it to suffice in the case of exposing an infiltrated government and 3000 capitol crimes.
Emotional reasoning - making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences).

Making should statements - concentrating on what you think "should" or ought to be rather than the actual situation you are faced with, or having rigid rules which you think should always apply no matter what the circumstances are. (See wishful thinking).
That 2 towers would fall at near free fall speeds almost identically to the ground demands consideration of everything OUTSIDE the official story because due process was violated in dealing with capitol crimes.

All-or-nothing thinking
- thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma).

The last paragraph justifies the action of NOT attempting to explain events with plane impacts and fires to justifiably determine if an explanation for the identical near free falls can be explained because it is absolutely unheard of, PERIOD.

Making the below sentence preposterous with its implication of collapse.

Overgeneralization
- taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization).

Mental filter
- Focusing exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest, like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing. (See misleading vividness).

Spelling is not important here. The fact that 3000 humans were murdered and a government that is supposed to be dedicated to the well being of its people through lawful performance is what is important.

Jumping to conclusions
- assuming something negative where there is actually no evidence to support it. Two specific subtypes are also identified:
  • Mind reading - assuming the intentions of others
  • Fortune telling - guessing that things will turn out badly. (See slippery slope).
Magnification and Minimization - exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:
  • Catastrophizing - focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.
Complex events are not easy to analyse PARTICUARLY if you do not have enough information. I happen to have more than most people and so can provide logical, comprehensive analysis
Disqualifying the positive - continually "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading).

The consideration of delay was something I had though of because it is an issue and I can only compensate for it logically with the proposition that Atta was indeed an accomplished pilot and decided beforehand and adjusted his flight path accordingly. It was not a last minute consideration.
Personalization (or attribution) - Assuming you or others directly caused things when that may not have been the case. (See illusion of control). When applied to others this is an example of blame.
Are you asking to have it both ways. Atta cannot think of whacking WTC 1 lower and instead hits it further up where it will do less damage, but the other pilot who showed up to find his target on fire had to compensate and in the process cannot get a direct hit and almost misses but is considered by you to be deciding to hit it lower?


It doesn't make sense within human nature and events as they have happened. What does make sense is that the pilots knew each others targets and were told that impacts at certain elevations would do more damage.
Labelling - related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming. Rather than describing the specific behavior, you assign a label to someone or yourself that puts them in absolute and unalterable terms.

No, ............... identical collapse does not make sense to the ground twice, never.


There were carefully considered risks. Leaving the planes in the control of bonafied terrorists only exposed the perps to an out of sequence impact/fall sequence. You are helping to cover for that, as they anticipated. The use of not fully controlled pilots or remotes isolated them and maintaining anonymity while reinforcing/creating what appears as true terrorist attacks.
Well done, in one post you have demonstrated every cognitive distortion that you accuse continually of others! I salute you, sir!
 
Oliver, you never answered my question - is your avatar actually you because I always assumed Oliver was a boys name (I'm English BTW, living in Ireland). I'm confused :confused:
 
np thanks

over here we have the "British Port Authority" a government body who, i think, manage all ports in the UK. is the PA a US government agency as such?

BV
It is not affiliated with the US federal government. It is a quazi interstate government agency between the states on NY and NJ. It controls interstate transportation, bridges & tunnels between NY and NJ and airports and seaports.

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/

http://www.panynj.gov/AboutthePortAuthority/FacilitiesandServices/
 
Last edited:
Chris, you really are the master of cognitive distortions. A textbook example.


Emotional reasoning - making decisions and arguments based on how you feel rather than objective reality. (See appeal to consequences).

Making should statements - concentrating on what you think "should" or ought to be rather than the actual situation you are faced with, or having rigid rules which you think should always apply no matter what the circumstances are. (See wishful thinking).

All-or-nothing thinking - thinking of things in absolute terms, like "always", "every" or "never". Few aspects of human behavior are so absolute. (See false dilemma).


Overgeneralization - taking isolated cases and using them to make wide generalizations. (See hasty generalization).

Mental filter - Focusing exclusively on certain, usually negative or upsetting, aspects of something while ignoring the rest, like a tiny imperfection in a piece of clothing. (See misleading vividness).


Jumping to conclusions - assuming something negative where there is actually no evidence to support it. Two specific subtypes are also identified:
  • Mind reading - assuming the intentions of others
  • Fortune telling - guessing that things will turn out badly. (See slippery slope).
Magnification and Minimization - exaggerating negatives and understating positives. Often the positive characteristics of other people are exaggerated and negatives understated. There is one subtype of magnification:
  • Catastrophizing - focusing on the worst possible outcome, however unlikely, or thinking that a situation is unbearable or impossible when it is really just uncomfortable.
Disqualifying the positive - continually "shooting down" positive experiences for arbitrary, ad hoc reasons. (See special pleading).


Personalization (or attribution) - Assuming you or others directly caused things when that may not have been the case. (See illusion of control). When applied to others this is an example of blame.




Labelling - related to overgeneralization, explaining by naming. Rather than describing the specific behavior, you assign a label to someone or yourself that puts them in absolute and unalterable terms.





Well done, in one post you have demonstrated every cognitive distortion that you accuse continually of others! I salute you, sir!
He has already stated nothing will convince him.
 
Oliver, you never answered my question - is your avatar actually you because I always assumed Oliver was a boys name (I'm English BTW, living in Ireland). I'm confused :confused:

Oops - Sorry, i thought you knew it from others
in here. It´s my loved girlfriend and i use her as
my Avatar because she´s keeping me friendly if
i talk to guys like pDOH... :)
 
He has already stated nothing will convince him.
I know, but I just wanted to point out that his favourite term (cognitive distortion) that he loves so much is ironically the exact description of his posts. I figured that using his own terms against him nullifies his personal attacks. Well it might work...
 
So what? Where is your evidence? Like written statements or videotaped confessions or interviews with the pilots? You keep on failing to show us evidence that the planes hit the wrong towers and the wrong tower fell first. And while you're at it, evidence of the fires going out would also be much appreciated. I asked you multiple times before, and you failed to deliver each and every time. Stop sidestepping. Put up or shut up.

As long as you fail to use common sense you will fail to percieve raw evidence which exists as common knowledge.
 
As long as you fail to use common sense you will fail to percieve raw evidence which exists as common knowledge.
Meaningless drivel. Is that really the best you can do? Another cognitive distortion? It's not fooling anybody, not even you...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom