• 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.

[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
malcolm kirkman said:
Certain, because Raytheon showed it could be done (and more) just days before.
Click to expand...

Lie. Post evidence of this.
How can a couple of Boeings that belong to Boeing be classed as missing?
Click to expand...
Nuts! A "military" Boeing would belong to the military, dipstick!

What passengers? Remote control = remote, away from = no one on board.
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that you go from A to B to W (having "remote" somehow equal "no one on board"), you of course have some evidence for this other than DA's smarmy contentions about Cleveland? (Oooh, crap, I forgot... they flew them into the Pacific.)
No one came forward? You mean like Mineta?
Click to expand...
Did you just google and find Mineta under "whistle-blower". Please cite the relevant portions of his statements. We're not answering, we'll just link you to five hundred other posts that have already refuted that crap. (Don't get Gumboot started on the NORAD stand-downs, okay?)

They had and still have the MSM, they thought it was enough.
They'll still hoping it is. That's one more mistake.
Click to expand...
Is it just me or does anyone else detect a horrible inability to communicate for someone in league with Mensa? I'm taking votes on what those three sentences (and I use the term loosely) mean.


ETA: DAMN YOU, WOLFSHADE! (Well, I took some of the optional answers...)
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Boeing have been the subject of RICO legislation since the early nineties.
Click to expand...
Red herring.
malcolm kirkman said:
Of course y'all know all this. When are y'all going to stop pussyfooting around and try and patch together a viable hijack scenario?
Or are y'all just palying for time, trying to work some nonsense scenario out?
Click to expand...
Address the 9/11 Commission Report or admit that you are unable to refute it.
 
I, for one, find Malcolm boring. He brings no new evidence, and re-opens long ago debunked subjects. He doesn't wish to discuss anything reasonably. He ignores the answers to his questions, and never admits when he is proven wrong. Like most CTers, he also presents conjecture as "facts."

I will no longer feed this troll.

Just one more thing...have you ever drunk a soda? I ask because an experiment I often mention to those who don't believe that an alluminum plane can penetrate the WTC. You take two soda cans, drink one down. Do these next steps in order. Take the empty can and throw it as hard as possible at your front window. Now take the full can and throw it as hard as possible at the same window. Note the results.

MEB-SG
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Boeing have been the subject of RICO legislation since the early nineties.
Of course y'all know all this. When are y'all going to stop pussyfooting around and try and patch together a viable hijack scenario?
Or are y'all just palying for time, trying to work some nonsense scenario out?
Click to expand...


IBM has been the subject of RICO investigations, too. Was IBM behind 9/11, too? Or maybe DirecTV? Or....

Stop with the idiotic innuendos and broken English, and provide some meaningful evidence of your claims. Otherwise, go take a dump elsewhere.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
That's why the twins went UP, before they came down.
Click to expand...

They went up before they came down? I think you might want to recheck that one.

malcolm kirkman said:
Anything going UP, has to be blown UP. Because gravity acts only in a downward direction. I'll get you a book on it, when you can join your writing letters together into a word.
Click to expand...

So if I drop a ball on the ground it won't bounce unless I put explosives under it and blow it up? Wouldn't that make basketball a rather dangerous sport?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
That's why the twins went UP, before they came down.
Click to expand...
No, they didn't.
Anything going UP, has to be blown UP.
Click to expand...
No.

Because gravity acts only in a downward direction.
Click to expand...
False. The gravity of an object attracts a mass to its center of mass.

I'll get you a book on it, when you can join your writing letters together into a word.
Click to expand...
Any book you've ever read must be 100% wrong.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Boeing have been the subject of RICO legislation since the early nineties.
Of course y'all know all this. When are y'all going to stop pussyfooting around and try and patch together a viable hijack scenario?
Or are y'all just palying for time, trying to work some nonsense scenario out?
Click to expand...

People have presented you with viable hijack senarios from what actually happend, to palying your game of procedures that were not in place till after 9/11. You just can't accept who fantasticly wrong you are.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Affirming the consequent fallacy.


They didn't belong to Boeing, they belonged to the airline companies.

People boarded the flights, at airports. Family and friends wished their loved-ones well and have not seen them since.

Could you point out where Mineta has declared himself to be a whistleblower?

Begging the question.
Click to expand...
You confuse the attack planes with the cover up planes.
I'm referring to the remote controlled, no one on board attack plane, that hit the south tower.
All your other remarks are confirming your consequent fallacy.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
You confuse the attack planes with the cover up planes.
I'm referring to the remote controlled, no one on board attack plane, that hit the south tower.
All your other remarks are confirming your consequent fallacy.
Click to expand...
well lets talk about the cover up planes, what happened to them, and the passengers and crew onboard?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
You confuse the attack planes with the cover up planes.
I'm referring to the remote controlled, no one on board attack plane, that hit the south tower.
All your other remarks are confirming your consequent fallacy.
Click to expand...
It's affirming the consequent:
P1: If A then B
P2: B
C: Therefore A

This is fallacious because of the following:
P1: If A then B
P2: If C then B
P3: B
C: ?

And welcome to Ignore you waste of bandwidth.

ETA: The only way affirming the consequent can be logically sound is
P1: If A then B
P2: B can only be a result of A
P3: B
C: Therefore A
 
Last edited:
malcolm kirkman said:
You confuse the attack planes with the cover up planes.
I'm referring to the remote controlled, no one on board attack plane, that hit the south tower.
All your other remarks are confirming your consequent fallacy.
Click to expand...

You confuse reality with fantasy.
 
a viable hijack scenario
Click to expand...

We've given you one, mutliple times. As of you your refutaions are that:

a) The crew could have fought back, but you ignore that they were trained not too and that no crew ever had previously.

b) The passangers would have fought back, but then ignore that no passangers ever have except those on Flight 93, and that was after Flights 11, 175 and 77 had hit their targets alerting the passangers onboard 93 to their likely fate.

c) No one would authorise it, assuming that someone actually needed to authorise it, something you have not proven and is not accepted as required in our senario.

d) That the plane had to hit WTC because it had explosives in it, which you have no proven and is not accepted as required in our senario.

thus your 4 objections to our hijacking senario have all fallen flat. Why then do you refuse to accept that we have presented a valid Hijacking senario.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom