Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
leftysergeant said:
No "massive girders" went "whirling through the air."

TONS of aluminum cladding, but no girders.:D
Click to expand...

That's correct. Thanks for the answer but I rather had Billy boy had made a fool of himself. Oh well, plenty of opportunities to come :)
 
triforcharity said:
Well, I guess in the strictest of terms, yes, 7WTC when it collapsed, looked like another building that collapsed...... but of course, didn't sound like, or actually act like, a CD. But, whatever.
Click to expand...


Well, you know the old saying: "If it looks like a duck, doesn't swim like, and doesn't quack like a duck, then it's probably a duck."
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Well, you know the old saying: "If it looks like a duck, doesn't swim like, and doesn't quack like a duck, then it's probably a duck."
Click to expand...

OR
If it looks like a duck, paddles about like one with webbed feet, quacks like a duck, has a green head,,, it requires a deep investigation to determine if its really a platypus pretending to be a male mallard duck
 
grandmastershek said:
You are confusing discussed with proven.
Click to expand...

To be honest it was one of the things I wanted to demonstrate pretty clearly with the use of the "first in history argument." Well actually it proves mine, and probably everybody else's point. They will ignore/dismiss any alternative explanation that doesn't suit their argument.

What red attempted was to rationalize why thermite would be a viable explanation despite there being no precedent of it's application in any controlled demolition. Which is fine before you begin to pick it apart by asking for proof that it was present in the first place. But the problem is if you make an argument based on "firsts" in the TM logic train, one can ignore this anyway since a "first time in history" by default proves that what is observed is impossible. Yet skeptics such as he and bill will make an "exception to the rule" if it concerns countering any argument that might violate their beliefs.

Red did this when he cited the Columbia incident in December 2008 as well... Which tells me he's perfectly capable of making some pretty rational comparison's yet I never hear a single word uttered aboutciting the dangers of fire in steel construction through both the material properties (and experimentation) that shows steel has an inherent vulnerability to fire. And that the safety record of steel framed high rise construction does not erase this danger. He doesn't seem content on why he can't apply the same principals in this case.

I call BS at this crap.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Well things seem to be moving ever onwards and upwards in the ever-growing 9/11 Truth movement..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72eIYJhPeEI&feature=player_embedded#!..
Click to expand...

New levels of lies and idiotic delusions. Why are you fooled by 911 truth?

LIE #1 They say new evidence. They lied. No new evidence, old debunked delusions presented as new lies; a big lie.

Bill they lied to you; no new startling scientific data. oops

They lied to you, no new groups, they made up names for groups, all the people in the new groups are the same dolts already in other groups.

Dolts for 911 truth is a new group they are all in. How pathetic; they are all nuts for 911 truth.
 
RedIbis said:
Where did I say anything about thermite? You really should stop attempting to speak for me.
Click to expand...
I don't need to speak for you, you speak for yourself. You wrote it:
RedIbis said:
Your problem is that nanoenergetics have been discussed as a viable demolition material...
Click to expand...

Full text:
RedIbis said:
Too bad, I'll ruin it for you. You were attempting to put Bill in a position where if he argues that the collapse hypothesis of WTC 7 could not have been from fire because it's never happened in history then since thermite has never been used to bring a bldg down then his argument fails by his own logic.

Your problem is that nanoenergetics have been discussed as a viable demolition material and yet as NIST reminds us fire has never brought down a steel framed high rise, so your argument fails because your analogy is invalid.
Click to expand...

Same things as bill smith... "first in history "doesn't work" with thermite - or as you back to - "nanoenergetics", yet it does with fire and steel buildings...
First in history doesn't apply to the Columbia incident, but it does to fire and steel buildings

Indeed total BS. As selective standards tend to be.

Ya know since bill smith has resumed his activity in this thread since I posed him the question maybe he can now try to answer for himself. Hey bill, why don't you try and give the question a whack. It's been a couple of days, perhaps you were giving yourself time to ponder the question?
 
Last edited:
Just a reminder, I will be in full 9/11 CT subforum SILENCE as of 12AM tonight/tomorrow AM. Out of respect to those who lost their lives, and those who risked their lives on that day, I hope many of you do the same.

TAM:)
 
Okay, last post today in 9/11 CT from me. I'm downloading the album "America the Beautiful" by the Washington National Cathedral Choir on iTunes. I'm really touched by the song "My Shepherd Will Supply My Need" which was performed during the 9/11 memorial service on September 14.

 
Bell said:
Okay, last post today in 9/11 CT from me. I'm downloading the album "America the Beautiful" by the Washington National Cathedral Choir on iTunes. I'm really touched by the song "My Shepherd Will Supply My Need" which was performed during the 9/11 memorial service on September 14.

Click to expand...

Thanks Bell, now I got tears straming down my face.....thanks buddy......:o
 
I lost track of the time so I bugged up. Guess I'll observe my silence effective after this post. See ya guys later...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom