The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

tempesta29 said:
What steel? Where is this steel? I'm willing to bet that rigorous analysis of all of the steel would have yielded results consistent with my theory. For now, we have no more steel.
Click to expand...

i showed you wtc steel. its available for you to look at, touch, even smell.

what say you?
 
tempesta29 said:
Yes, I do, and I've been over it repeatedly in this thread alone. Capitalizing the word zero does not make it more true.



No, it's a theory based on an analysis of available facts. That analysis I've made, both over the course of this thread and others. That's exactly what a theory is: an analysis of facts.
Click to expand...

You're wrong about having a theory, at least in any scientific sense.

Obstinacy is not a sign of either intelligence nor knowledge, you know. I'm not surprised that you cling to your many fallacies though, as your whole 'controlled demolition due to vast and unseen conspiracy' viewpoint falls apart immediately if you don't.

Oh well. Your loss...
 
tempesta29 said:
I can't confirm that they were. We know at least some of them were not, according to evidence.
Click to expand...

Explosions that would have come from an EXPLOSIVE would have been in the rea of 130+ db. This would have been heard in Hoboken. Got proof?

tempesta29 said:
An odd, possibly unanswerable question. Is it possible that there are explosives that are undetectable by dogs? I see no evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Explosives contain chemicals that the dogs are trained to detect. Do you know of some unknown explosive? if so, I will check with Capt. McGee to see if that is one his dogs are trained for.



tempesta29 said:
What steel? Where is this steel? I'm willing to bet that rigorous analysis of all of the steel would have yielded results consistent with my theory. For now, we have no more steel.
Click to expand...

No, there would not be. If there was, someone would have seen it. ATF guys know what stress failures look like, and they know what an explosive fracture look like. it would not have been missed by FEMA either, or any of the other agencies that inspected the steel.
 
tempesta29 said:
Documented how? You mean it was written down after being assumed? The north face, structurally, is completely intact during collapse. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. The columns that make up the north face, for 2.25 seconds, were unable to resist collapse to any degree. There is no logical reason for this.
Click to expand...

Seriously, wich part of "as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provide negligible support" you don't understand?
 
tempesta29 said:
No, it's a theory based on an analysis of available facts. That analysis I've made, both over the course of this thread and others. That's exactly what a theory is: an analysis of facts.
Click to expand...
Can you restate this analysis of "facts"? I seem to have missed it.
 
Tempesta29 is welcome to go to the Staten Island Botanical Garden, scrape the wtc steel that's there for all to see, analyze his sample for explosives residue, and get back to us with his results.

what say you, Tempesta29?
 
dafydd said:
You have not presented any facts yet.
Click to expand...

I love this peanut gallery, you perhaps most of all. Do you care to be called out on your above claim, or would you just prefer to retreat to your prior employment of spectator?
 
tempesta29 said:
I love this peanut gallery, you perhaps most of all. Do you care to be called out on your above claim, or would you just prefer to retreat to your prior employment of spectator?
Click to expand...

I am patiently waiting for you to present a coherent theory of the events of 911. All you have done is furnish us with baseless speculation fueled by ignorance. You ignore all the evidence that contradicts your CD fantasy. Perhaps you could quote some of the 'facts' that you have presented. You believe that explosives brought the buildings down,but that is your delusion,not a fact. You seem to be incapable of understanding the answers given by those here who know what they are talking about. Have you ever considered the possibility that you could be wrong about this?
 
tempesta29 said:
That's ironic considering you just linked to a post where you admit you're wrong.
Click to expand...
Sigh.

In no way, shape, or form do I "admit [I am] wrong" in the post of mine I linked to. Simply took one of countless chess pieces off the board for the purposes of discussion since you made such a fuss (though didn't address why). I did it with confidence, because you're mated one way or the other.

So sport, it's back in. There would be an astoundingly large trail of communication for this, the largest conspiracy in history.

Now, instead of "laughing" and slipping away like an oiled BB, why don't you tell me why I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
I love this peanut gallery, you perhaps most of all. Do you care to be called out on your above claim, or would you just prefer to retreat to your prior employment of spectator?
Click to expand...
Maybe you should collate all your "facts" in a single post, and then write a theory that explains these "facts" as well as all those actual facts you've ignored or hand-waved away?

Of course, we all know you can't do this. No truther has done this yet, and I doubt you'll be the first.
 
WildCat said:
Maybe you should collate all your "facts" in a single post, and then write a theory that explains these "facts" as well as all those actual facts you've ignored or hand-waved away?

Of course, we all know you can't do this. No truther has done this yet, and I doubt you'll be the first.
Click to expand...

I have asked every truther who has ever been here to do that very thing. None ever has. Remember Java man?
 
Javaman hasn't been back since. Maybe he's working really hard on it, gathering all the facts and such......




*yeah right, who am I kidding?
 
triforcharity said:
Javaman hasn't been back since. Maybe he's working really hard on it, gathering all the facts and such......




*yeah right, who am I kidding?
Click to expand...

Perhaps Tempesta and Javaman should team up and pool their facts. After all,two heads are better than........what am I saying!?
 
WildCat said:
Maybe you should collate all your "facts" in a single post, and then write a theory that explains these "facts" as well as all those actual facts you've ignored or hand-waved away?

Of course, we all know you can't do this. No truther has done this yet, and I doubt you'll be the first.
Click to expand...

The 100% Impossible Chance That Tempesta29 Will Be the First.

Even presuming that it can be done (which it can't, as the OP asserts and the discussion that follows confirms) he clearly doesn't have the chops.
 
Personally, I think the fact that Wikileaks never found or released anything supporting that it was an inside job really put the issue to rest. First, Wikileaks certainly had the motive to publish any such details had they found any. Second, it suggests that the conspiracy (should it exist) be so tight that it is kept in more confidence and is run more efficiently than Clinton's order to diplomats to spy on the U.N., secret operations within Pakistan, and secret operations within Afghanistan. A conspiracy this large holding such valuable and potentially lucrative information just could not have been run without a leak.
 
Pythonic said:
Personally, I think the fact that Wikileaks never found or released anything supporting that it was an inside job really put the issue to rest. First, Wikileaks certainly had the motive to publish any such details had they found any. Second, it suggests that the conspiracy (should it exist) be so tight that it is kept in more confidence and is run more efficiently than Clinton's order to diplomats to spy on the U.N., secret operations within Pakistan, and secret operations within Afghanistan. A conspiracy this large holding such valuable and potentially lucrative information just could not have been run without a leak.
Click to expand...

I agree. In true conspiracy theorist form, however, truthers dismiss Wikileaks as everything from a CIA front to a Zionist plot for not exposing the obvious (to them) fact that 9-11 was an inside job. Of course, had Wikileaks found material that implicated someone other than Al Queda for 9-11, they would be hailed as heroes.

Nature of the beast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom