Muslim researcher explains how 9/11 was made

I
t was not necessary in the case of 4 different teams. Also it's extremely complex and impossible to make.
Click to expand...
Texas Sharpshooter fallacy

But if the hijacks were made by ONE team using hightech, than it's absolutely necessary; the controlling people can only manage one plane at a time. The automatic control system making the last minutes of route up to the target, the team can begin the next plane's action some minutes before the impact. That's what we see
Click to expand...
.

Argument from incredulity. Tracking multiple targets has been done for decades so its no problem to also control multiple aircraft/missiles either. They just did that on the attacks on Gadaffi. Please prove that its impossible that your putative gov. agents could only control one aircraft at a time. In fact it seems otherwise in your theory as they supposedly take over another plane before the previous one has crashed! How could they do that if they could only control one at a time:D
 
Has mehemtin explained how, according to his own graph, one team can be controlling two planes at the same time? I mean, that some pretty poor succession; it's like different members of the team weren't even coordinating with each other.
 
Last edited:
mehmetin said:
That’s the only kind of words you can tell. And you think that will reach me! You do not know me, and such design problems are all past events for me.
Click to expand...

You have lost me. What past design problems are you referring to?


You should read my book. Detailed design is explained there, I will not copy my book here up to the smallest detail. Any way, I explained the facts here, but you are unable to understand anything, it’s so much easier to deny! Isn’t it?
Click to expand...

Have you published just the one book? That didn't describe the events of 9-11, did it?

When will you begin to understand anything? Or when will stop denying everything that you refuse to believe?
Click to expand...

Someone parodied the way you leap to your central command conclusion and you seemed to think they were supporting you. It's not me, it's you who needs to reach an understanding, namely that you have not made an argument for your claim.

In those 34 pages, you got two right arguments :
1- The install place of the actuators is not in the nose of the plane. It should be under the cockpit.
2- I should consider the influence of the landings on Newark airport.

As you can see, I remain honest and I am ready to concede everything I am wrong, and that will never change. I definitely decided to accept the truth and refuse the wrong. That does not change anything to me. I just come closer to the truth.
Click to expand...

So you are conceding that there is nothing suspicious about the 41-minute delay at Newark?

But you, you are still unable to understand the reasons of the succession of the hijacks!
Click to expand...
You are unable to understand that your "argument" is a non sequitur.

I am not trying to be facetious in recommending you read this:
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html
 
Somebody should tell him that we can launch Tomahawks much faster than one every 41 minutes... Obviously one half of his fantasy isn't talking to the other half. :rolleyes:
 
Mehmet, on slide 74 (titled my motives) of the PowerPoint doc that I downloaded from your website, you describe yourself as a scientist? Based on what qualifications do deserve such a title?
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
Mehmet, on slide 74 (titled my motives) of the PowerPoint doc that I downloaded from your website, you describe yourself as a scientist? Based on what qualifications do deserve such a title?
Click to expand...
When he was a kid he saw the movie "Weird Science".
 
abaddon said:
Originally Posted by mehmetin
There was no need to make any hole. All places were accessible from inside the lift shafts. There were key places to install explosives to make collapse all the buildings in sequential manner from top to bottom. I explained that in my power point, slides 49 to 54.1.

I never claimed it was a conventional demolition. It was a special demolition designed to make the tower collapse from impact level and moving downward. By radio controlled explosives, it’s just necessary to send radio signal at the required speed. For technology tools, it’s a child game.

Mark Loizeaux disagrees with you. Do you know who he is?
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Loizeaux did not consider the case of radio controlled explosives. Without considering radio control it's impossible to demolish the towers, so he is right.

I can understand why Loizeaux did not consider, he is not researching 9/11, he is only demolition professional. But AE911 leader R. Gage did not consider radio control too. And here is the problem: R. Gage is presenting himself as a researcher and leader of "TRUTH" group! If he was honest in his work, he should consider that.

Ask Loizeaux and Gage to come here and we discuss the subject. A good challenge for JREF, for Gage, for Loizeaux, ... Finally Muslims and non Muslims will consider the subject with professional vision.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Quote:
But if the hijacks were made by ONE team using hightech, than it's absolutely necessary; the controlling people can only manage one plane at a time. The automatic control system making the last minutes of route up to the target, the team can begin the next plane's action some minutes before the impact. That's what we see

Argument from incredulity. Tracking multiple targets has been done for decades so its no problem to also control multiple aircraft/missiles either. They just did that on the attacks on Gadaffi. Please prove that its impossible that your putative gov. agents could only control one aircraft at a time.
Click to expand...

It's not only tracking a plane. It's also controlling it and giving the required order to the right plane. It's like you remotely control two small modelism car at the same time. This is not possible. You need two people for that. And for security reasons you need a backup person for each one; you must preview 8 persons for 4 planes. In such secret operation, you will not involve 8 people when two are ennoguh. As conclusion, we must consider ONE (+ ONE) people controlled the planes.

sheeplesnshills said:
In fact it seems otherwise in your theory as they supposedly take over another plane before the previous one has crashed! How could they do that if they could only control one at a time:D
Click to expand...

That happened in all planes. That means each plane made the last minutes fly on autonomous situation, like a tomahawk missile does it. During that autonomous operation, the team started tne hijack of the next one. Actually they were controlling one plane, the other one was on autonomous fly.
 
R.Mackey said:
Somebody should tell him that we can launch Tomahawks much faster than one every 41 minutes... Obviously one half of his fantasy isn't talking to the other half. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You must understand that this is not regular tomahawk launching operation! Or are you unable?

You should read my power point first. After that your questions are welcome.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Mehmet, on slide 74 (titled my motives) of the PowerPoint doc that I downloaded from your website, you describe yourself as a scientist? Based on what qualifications do deserve such a title?
Click to expand...

According to your comments, my qualifications seems to be higher than yours.

Once again: Are you Turkish or not?
 
mehmetin said:
This requires some longer investigation, I do not have enough time now. But I will do it.
Click to expand...
Requires about 5 minutes. Are you afraid to admit the data (and countless real world experiences relayed here) proves that you're wrong.

We know it's embarrassing to admit something you worked on for years was shown to be wrong with 5 minutes work. Admit it, caulk it up to experience and spend 10 more years on another "theory".
 
mehmetin said:
You are wrong. Loizeaux did not consider the case of radio controlled explosives. Without considering radio control it's impossible to demolish the towers, so he is right.

I can understand why Loizeaux did not consider, he is not researching 9/11, he is only demolition professional. But AE911 leader R. Gage did not consider radio control too. And here is the problem: R. Gage is presenting himself as a researcher and leader of "TRUTH" group! If he was honest in his work, he should consider that.

Ask Loizeaux and Gage to come here and we discuss the subject. A good challenge for JREF, for Gage, for Loizeaux, ... Finally Muslims and non Muslims will consider the subject with professional vision.
Click to expand...

Why do you think CDI uses det-cord and never uses remote control?
 
mehmetin said:
There was no need to make any hole. All places were accessible from inside the lift shafts. There were key places to install explosives to make collapse all the buildings in sequential manner from top to bottom. I explained that in my power point, slides 49 to 54.1.
Click to expand...
If a building is to be demolished in a controlled fashion, it would indeed require them to use the correct techniques to prepare for the demolition. This means placing explosives all over the building, and not just in lift shafts.

I never claimed it was a conventional demolition. It was a special demolition designed to make the tower collapse from impact level and moving downward. By radio controlled explosives, it’s just necessary to send radio signal at the required speed. For technology tools, it’s a child game.
Click to expand...
Once again, there was a complete absence of sounds from such demolitions.

Furthermore, if radio controlled explosives were used, how come they are never used during conventional demolitions?

I explained how the towers were demolished and it’s consistent with all known evidence.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid this is not the case. You just added more factual errors, and

Notice it definitely; even if small details may need some changes, the main claims of my work are defendable before a justice court against the official story.
Click to expand...
No, this is just an example of how nonsensical your claims are.

And you failed to address this:

"And where did the explosion patterns you would expect from controlled demolitions go? A couple of "booms" won't be sufficient to take down a building."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom