Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
DC said:
NIST came up with the best explanation. Best documented evidence presented, especially when one compares to what the diverse CT Theories presented as evidence, supporting their hypothesis of a CD.
Click to expand...

So didn't you think that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition even more than the Twin Towers did ?
 
Well I think it entirely fair that I pull Grizzly up on his very bad behaviour above.
Click to expand...
The "point" of that rewrite was to direct you to the inherent flaw of your argument, not to rewrite your posting history. If I seriously wanted to do that it'd have been incredibly stupid to do it on the same page within a few responses of the source content.

I feel it perfectly fair to confront you directly with your own line of logic to demonstrate a point, something you clearly don't appreciate having to discuss. Oh well... to be fair, I'm reminded of why Oystein's point should be well taken.
 
Last edited:
Never before in recorded Human history did man collide 2 hadrons with 7 TeV, but that didn't prevent the LHC from colliding 1000's hadrons with 7 TeV
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
So didn't you think that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition even more than the Twin Towers did ?
Click to expand...

i not only did, i still do, it looks like a CD indeed. And NIST's FEA does not really fit the observed collapse.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
The "point" of that rewrite was to direct you to the inherent flaw of your argument, not to rewrite your posting history. If I seriously wanted to do that it'd have been incredibly stupid to do it on the same page within a few responses of the source content.

I feel it perfectly fair to confront you directly with your own line of logic to demonstrate a point, something you clearly don't appreciate having to discuss. Oh well... to be fair, I'm reminded of why Oystein's point should be well taken.
Click to expand...

I am not going to bother hunting you down on this Grizzly. The Readers present and future can see it for themselves simply by reading my post and then the post where you deleted some of my quoted text and substituted your own forgery leaving it under my name. The 'ftfy'is meaningless of course as there is no indication of any change having been made to my text. As in the traditional strike-through for instance or perhaps high-lighting.. This is indeed a departure and a new low for debunkers.

You must be really tired of bumping along the bottom..
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I am not going to bother hunting you down on this Grizzly. The Readers past, present and future can see it for themselves simply by reading ny post then the post where you deleted dome of my quoted text and substituted your own forgery snd leaving it under my name. The 'ftfy'is mwaningless of course as thee is no indication of any change having been made to my text. As in the traditional strike-through. This is indeed a departure and a new low for debunkers.

You must be really tired of bumping along the bottom..
Click to expand...

I guess you never learned your lesson about quote mining the witnesses statements. Doesn't it suck to know that your statements can be used in the same way? Or is reverse psychology not your speciality?
 
bill smith said:
It sounds like you are on your way back to the Truth DC.
Click to expand...

I think that WTC7 looked like a CD. I think it looked a lot like a CD.

Am I on my way to the truth Bill?

No, the fact is that the collapse (looking at it with an untrained eye, a lack of knowledge as to what had happened to the building in terms of fire etc...) looked very much like the way a building falls when explosives are used to bring it down.

However, what I have not seen is any evidence that explosives were used to bring it down. What I have not seen is any of the tell tale signs of Controlled Demolition such as footage with a loud sequence of explosions, or a sequence of flashes, just prior to collapse, as one sees in controlled demolition.

Show me those, and have absolute proof the videos or audio is authentic, and I'll pay attention.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I think that WTC7 looked like a CD. I think it looked a lot like a CD.

Am I on my way to the truth Bill?

No, the fact is that the collapse (looking at it with an untrained eye, a lack of knowledge as to what had happened to the building in terms of fire etc...) looked very much like the way a building falls when explosives are used to bring it down.

However, what I have not seen is any evidence that explosives were used to bring it down. What I have not seen is any of the tell tale signs of Controlled Demolition such as footage with a loud sequence of explosions, or a sequence of flashes, just prior to collapse, as one sees in controlled demolition.

Show me those, and have absolute proof the videos or audio is authentic, and I'll pay attention.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

This is a good day TAM. I'm expanding exponentially my collection of debunkers who think that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC wrote 07.09.2010

'' i not only did, i still do, it looks like a CD indeed. And NIST's FEA

does not really fit the observed collapse.''

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6306562&postcount=40 hyperlink

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAM wrote 07.09.2010

'' I think that WTC7 looked like a CD. I think it looked a lot like a CD.''


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6306673&postcount=49 hyperlink


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
This is a good day TAM. I'm expanding exponentially my collection of debunkers who think that WTC7 looked like a comtrolled demolition..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC wrote 07.09.2010

'' i not only did, i still do, it looks like a CD indeed. And NIST's FEA

does not really fit the observed collapse.''

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6306562&postcount=40 hyperlink

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAM wrote 07.09.2010

'' I think that WTC7 looked like a CD. I think it looked a lot like a CD.''


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6306673&postcount=49 hyperlink


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Sure...feel free use that quote. I am sure many others here, if they are honest, would say they agree.

Now here is another you can use,

"I do not believe in any way, that the collapse of WTC7 was via controlled, or uncontrolled, demolition."

TAM:)
 
bill smith said:
This is a good day TAM. I'm expanding exponentially my collection of debunkers who think that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC wrote 07.09.2010

'' i not only did, i still do, it looks like a CD indeed. And NIST's FEA

does not really fit the observed collapse.''

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6306562&postcount=40 hyperlink

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAM wrote 07.09.2010

'' I think that WTC7 looked like a CD. I think it looked a lot like a CD.''


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6306673&postcount=49 hyperlink


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

hey i wouldn't call me a debunker, i only debunked 1 claim, and that was a debunker claim :D

the others do the debunking here.
 
bill smith said:
This is a good day TAM. I'm expanding exponentially my collection of debunkers who think that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC wrote 07.09.2010

'' i not only did, i still do, it looks like a CD indeed. And NIST's FEA

does not really fit the observed collapse.''

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6306562&postcount=40 hyperlink

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TAM wrote 07.09.2010

'' I think that WTC7 looked like a CD. I think it looked a lot like a CD.''


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6306673&postcount=49 hyperlink


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

With only 1 debunker getting you into position for a smackdown? Haven't you noticed?? :confused:
 
T.A.M. said:
Sure...feel free use that quote. I am sure many others here, if they are honest, would say they agree.

Now here is another you can use,

"I do not believe in any way, that the collapse of WTC7 was via controlled, or uncontrolled, demolition."

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I wonder if some of the usual suspects like Oystein, Grizzly. Sarge etc would like to make statements that they also believe that WTC7 looked like a Controlled Demolition at this point ? You should call on them too TAM. Call it an honesty check..

All debunkers welcome..
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I wonder if some of the usual suspects like Oystein, Grizzley. Sarge etc would like to make statements that they also believe that WTC7 looked like a Controlled Demolition at this point ? Call it an honesty check..

All debunkers welcome..
Click to expand...

I sense a distrubance in the force. That Bill Smith doesn't know what a similie is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom