[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
lapman said:
Ok, let's start with the Jowenko video. He only sees the last 6 seconds, without sound and is only told that there were fires in the building. He had no knowledge of the extensive damage that was done to it by the WTC1 collapse. In the side by side, the controlled demo fell faster than WTC7 and the WTC7 portion did not show the complete collapse which includes the roof caving in. Of course in his critique of the tower collapse sequences of "Loose Change" he goes into great detail of how the towers collapsed, the "squibs" and says that it is impossible to bring the towers down that way with explosives.

On this quote:
Blowing up and imploded or demolished are very different things. No mention of "fire in the hole," "explosives being detonated" or anything else that would be associated with a controlled demo. Of course the mention the "Pull It" quote. Of course, "Pull it" and implosions are not interchangeable. Never have been and never will be.
I love this quote:
That video snippet was shot sometime between the towers and 7 collapse. So, it was some sort of delayed echo that bounced all around the city and then returned? How that sound is related to the towers is beyond me unless they found a way to bend time and space.
Click to expand...
Would you now address the two videos that I posted.
 
pomeroo said:
Referring us back to a post that confirms your irrationailty won't help you to dupe anyone.


The falsehood consists in your refusal to acknowledge corrections to the fabrications you peddle. The Raytheon tests you allude to did NOT involve flying pilotless commercial airliners.



Demonstrably false. You lied when you pretended that heavily-armored airliners, "military bad boys," actually exist. They do not, and your error has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Your refusal to acknowledge it is highly dishonest.





You are lying. There is not a "scintilla" of truth to your fantastic scenario. You are not making an honest mistake, Instead, you are drawing from your deep reservoir of hatred for America to concoct this absurd scenario. You have invented this far-fetched nonsense out of whole cloth. The planes used by the jihadists in their attacks were commercial airliners that they hijacked. Offutt AFB played absolutely no role whatever in the events of 9/11/01. Your fixation on an irrelevant celebrity golf tournament is as bizarre as it is pointless.
Click to expand...

Your continued 'ad homs' which somehow get the moderator, will no longer get past me.
You have said that I have no authority on here. I think I have authority enough to decide who I will and will not communicate with. Anyway, we'll find out. I take exception to being called a liar, twice now. In consequence, I will no longer be responding to any posts from you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
lapman said:
It's called extensive training of the pilots and if it was automated, then definitely no erratic movement since it would have been too difficult to program that.

False statement. I've seen the "analysis" of the first video. The sound is traveling 1.8 miles and against the wind in less than a second. That makes it a phony. The second one only has the sound of something happening sometime after the tower collapses and the WTC7 collapse. Not proof at all.
So, point out the explosion in this video. Or this one.

Ok, I sit corrected, it was around 400.

Your turn.
Click to expand...
1. Too difficult to program what?
You are lining up a plane that is already homing in. What's the odd tilt here and there?
2. This quote
"He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex".
is from this webpage,
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=191548&Disp=179
Kindly be a little less cavalier with your consideration of this page.
3. What 400 are you talking about.
 
lapman said:
It's called extensive training of the pilots and if it was automated, then definitely no erratic movement since it would have been too difficult to program that.

False statement. I've seen the "analysis" of the first video. The sound is traveling 1.8 miles and against the wind in less than a second. That makes it a phony. The second one only has the sound of something happening sometime after the tower collapses and the WTC7 collapse. Not proof at all.
So, point out the explosion in this video. Or this one.

Ok, I sit corrected, it was around 400.

Your turn.
Click to expand...
Kindly ignore question three of my previous post.
I didn't realise that an underscore could also be a reference.
I don't see the relevance in linking the dancing Israelis with jewish victims of 9/11. There's good and bad in all.
Why should 'bad' Israelis care about 'good' jews any more than 'bad' christians would care about 'good' aryans ?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
2. This quote
"He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex".
Click to expand...

I believe that's the interview with Barry Jennings, they claimed they were keeping his identity secret but they blurted his name out twice on the radio.

At any rate. Are all explosions caused by CD charges?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
1. Too difficult to program what?
You are lining up a plane that is already homing in. What's the odd tilt here and there?
2. This quote
"He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex".
is from this webpage,
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=191548&Disp=179
Kindly be a little less cavalier with your consideration of this page.
3. What 400 are you talking about.
Click to expand...
Malcolm, find some real facts and then we can discuss why you have no support for the OP. Good luck.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
1. Too difficult to program what?
You are lining up a plane that is already homing in. What's the odd tilt here and there?
Click to expand...
Because those automated systems don't have commands to just tilt a wing here and there.
2. This quote
"He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex".
is from this webpage,
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=191548&Disp=179
Click to expand...
Yeah, told, not witnessed. "All over the World Trade Center complex" and not "All over building 7." Anything can make a sound that could be taken as an "explosion." Avery and Burmas are trying to pimp their next movie. The they are talking about happened after noon.
Kindly be a little less cavalier with your consideration of this page.
3. What 400 are you talking about.
Click to expand...
The ones in the article I posted.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Absolutely not.
WTC7 came down by controlled demolition all right and I would have no difficulty in persuading an unbiased jury of that fact.
Silverstein admitted the building was 'pulled' and only verbal gymnastics that border on the ludicrous can say any different.
Why should a steel framed building be expected to fall when fire had never before brought down a steel framed building.
Kindly don't even try to persuade me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Very open minded of you. Totally wrong, but I guess that is your mistake to make.

If you wish to continue a sensible discourse...
Click to expand...

Continue? You have just said that you will never accept anything other than what you already believe and you don't want to even see the evidence that proves you wrong. What then is there to discuss in a "sensible discourse"? About the only thing you have right is that I don't need to waste my time here. You see what you want too because you want to believe it to be true. That you're not even willing to challenge your beliefs or have them challenged is ample enough evidence that you are not here to discuss anything, so as of this post, I'm not bothering to waste time on you.
Edited by chillzero: 
Moderated Thread
 
Redtail said:
I believe that's the interview with Barry Jennings, they claimed they were keeping his identity secret but they blurted his name out twice on the radio.

At any rate. Are all explosions caused by CD charges?
Click to expand...
I'm taking CD to = controlled demolition.
All explosions caused by CD charges?
Surely one is more than enough evidence of an inside job.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Have you got that infoemation from your local fire station yet?
Remember, you did make the claim.
Click to expand...

As my original reply to this apparently didn't pass muster with the mods, I'll try again.

Malcolm, I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Furthermore, it was I who suggested that YOU speak with your local authority's building control department to get expert opinion on the performance of steel in fire. You have not. No surprise there.

You're not interested in facts, just fantasy.
There is nothing more to be said to you.
 
lapman said:
Because those automated systems don't have commands to just tilt a wing here and there.

Yeah, told, not witnessed. "All over the World Trade Center complex" and not "All over building 7." Anything can make a sound that could be taken as an "explosion." Avery and Burmas are trying to pimp their next movie. The they are talking about happened after noon.

The ones in the article I posted.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I have properly explained the system involved.
An executive jet already airborne, lifts up and guides the attack plane by remote control. This system can guide the attack plane, left, right - I suppose port. starboard to be pedantic. Up, down etc, even speed up or slow down.
No big deal so far.
Because the attack plane is coming from Offutt (due east) it cannot be flown down the full length of Manhattan Island, as the first plane was, because by now, all the worlds cameras will be on it and film the accoutrements. It has to circle and come in from the sea. During this manouevre it is guided by hand from the control plane. Because of this turn, the attack plane on tower 2 does not have the luxury of a steady straight flight in, as the first attack plane had. Hence the dithering.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Very open minded of you. Totally wrong, but I guess that is your mistake to make.



Continue? You have just said that you will never accept anything other than what you already believe and you don't want to even see the evidence that proves you wrong. What then is there to discuss in a "sensible discourse"? About the only thing you have right is that I don't need to waste my time here. You see what you want too because you want to believe it to be true. That you're not even willing to challenge your beliefs or have them challenged is ample enough evidence that you are not here to discuss anything, so as of this post, I'm not bothering to waste time on you.
Edited by chillzero: 
Moderated Thread
Click to expand...
I will accept any evidence that the plane that hit the south tower was 175.
No one has been able to produce any such evidence because 175 did not hit the south tower.
This case is easy.
1. Moslems didn't do it, unless Bin Laden was able to hypnotise Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and others. Then Bin Laden had to get explosives into the twins and WTC7. Then he had to get British troops posted close to Iraq etc etc. There's just too much to list.
2. It WAS an inside job.
3. Someone had to OK that inside job. Who would approve a mish mash of six stone weaklings taking over four planes when they have the clean and guaranteed two remotes from Offutt plus a pentagon flyover.
It was an inside job and somebody had to approve it.
No one would approve the hijack bit, ergo the attack came from Offutt.
It's called logic.
 
T.A.M. said:
The issue of horizontally projected debris from the WTCs as a bone of contention with truthers has always puzzled me.

For instance, when you take a big mac from Mc Donalds, and smash it with your fist, do you expect the inner contents to simply drip out and fall to the ground? No, they are projected horizontally outward at a very fast speed.
Click to expand...
Why does this make me think of Gallagher?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
You call remote control of large planes 'hokum' and at the same time post a piece that acknowledges that such remote controlled flights have been going on since 1984?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yawn. I brand as hokum the statement that elephants have huge mouths full of long tusks and at the same time I post a photo of a hippopotamus.

Your often-corrected falsehood about the capability of Boeing 757s and 767s being flown by remote-control has nothing to do with experimental planes that can be flown by remote control. The planes that were hijacked by the jihadists could not have been flown by remote control. Apathoid's paper, which you are unable to comprehend, explains why not.
 
Malcolm:

No, I am not saying the tower "pancaked", but nice try to sucker me in, which would be followed by an ALL CAPS posting of...

"YOU ARE WRONG. YOUR VERY OWN NIST HAS DISMISSED THE PANCAKE THEORY."

No, what I am saying is that the collapse initiation involved A large, 20 storey mass falling onto the rest of the building essentially from 20-24 feet (three storeys gap from impact zone).

This would be similar, in terms of what would happen to the contents of the building, to a fist hitting a big mac from about 10-12" above it. the contents would expel horizontally outward.

Another, less accurate, but more comedic analogy, would be the "Animal House" scene where John Belushi squishes his cheeks together while his mouth is full of food, and then says "I'm a zit".

TAM:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom