Muslim researcher explains how 9/11 was made

mehmetin said:
I told my qualifications,
Click to expand...

A lie. Not once have you given your qualifications despite being asked multiple times from multiple people.

mehmetin said:
Yes it happened in such impossible succession and nobody explained it yet. So the question is still open: How and Why 4 different teams successded to make 4 successive hijacks?
Click to expand...

Another lie. I've lost track of how many times people have explained this to you. You on the other hand won't explain your theory despite being asked multiple times from multiple people.


If you are going to be this dishonest nobody will ever believe you.
 
mehmetin said:
I told my qualifications, I will not tell more, and you have nothing to ask about my qualifications, you just have to answer by using logical and scientific arguments. If you are unable, you should question your own qualifications and may be ask for help to your criminal president G.W. Bush to supply some help for you using Dr. Bazant kind liar experts.
Click to expand...

Okay, I get it.
You lied.
You are not a scientist at all.
May Allah have mercy on you, the serial liar.
 
mehmetin said:
You are wrong, I never used my qualifications to support my claims. I just explained my "motives"! My claims are supported by logics and science.
...
Click to expand...

Still you lie in your presentation - there you claim to be a scientist, but I see that you are not as you are unable or unwilling to back this claim up, and continue to lie about it.

If this is a lie in your presentation, how are we supposed to believe anything else in it?
 
mehmetin said:
I told my qualifications, I will not tell more, and you have nothing to ask about my qualifications, you just have to answer by using logical and scientific arguments. If you are unable, you should question your own qualifications and may be ask for help to your criminal president G.W. Bush to supply some help for you using Dr. Bazant kind liar experts.
Click to expand...

Of which country is G.W. Bush the current president? You are not keeping up. Why do you say he is my president? Take a look at my avatar. What does that tell a genius scientist like you?
 
mehmetin said:
You are wrong, I never used my qualifications to support my claims. I just explained my "motives"! My claims are supported by logics and science.

I am Turkish, Sideroxylon is also living in Turkey, that's whay I asked him if he is Turkish. There is nothing wrong in that question. That information has no consequences, jus to know it for myself. He can also send a PM if he don't want others know that.
Click to expand...

Telling porkies. The Big Man is going to be peeved with you. I don't blame anyone for not telling you where they live.
 
Last edited:
A Laughing Baby said:
Here's a realistic one: the hijackers coordinated so that they'd have a window to hijack in, and by coincidence, their hijackings happened successively within that window. There's really no statistical justification to say that correlation or successive occurrence proves outside manipulation or control. That's an awfully large conclusion to jump to.

I think the issue here is you're looking for an explanation of an event that requires none, or in other words, I think you may be looking to give a tangible cause to pure coincidence. What your motives for doing so may be does not concern me. That you would make such a basic statistical mistake as an engineer, however, does.
Click to expand...

I think they (Muslim extremists) wanted to stagger the attacks. They wanted to hit the first tower by surprise and while everyone in NYC was watching out the window and all the cameras were rolling, in comes the second. I'm sure 93 had similar intent in DC. Wouldn't be shocked if its target was the Pentagon too (following the smoke right to the target).

Bastards. :mad:
 
=mehmetin;7012019]Even if the odds of an mid air collision are tiny, they can not dare to risk such possibility and the ymust check that the plane is flying in the right direction toward their target and they must be sure that nothing will disrupt the plot.
Click to expand...

so how does remote control do that any better than a half decent automated system?

"Hardest or easiest, the problem is that the plane must fly the last part under autonomous fly, without any influence from outside. That's the rule of automatic systems based on PID regulation loops.
Click to expand...

Why? that make no sense at all:confused: Please link to source for that info.
 
mehmetin said:
On those videos of Muslims you can recognise nobody and you saw no figures taking pleasure. In the same time, other videos of peaople killing for pleasure were hidden from you http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752918,00.html
Click to expand...

So you can't say they were not Muslims can you? and I never said that Westerners are incapable of killing for pleasure so what is point of your link.
We are all human beings equally capable of great good and great evil.
 
mehmetin said:
Yes it happened in such impossible succession and nobody explained it yet. So the question is still open: How and Why 4 different teams successded to make 4 successive hijacks?
Click to expand...


We have repeatedly explained it, you just choose to ignore a very reasonable explanation.

You are simply repeating the same Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
 
Mehmetin are you kidding me? The question is still open? Really? You STILL, after been given many, many rational and patient responses as to why your "4 successive hijacks" means NOTHING, think it holds some kind of significance? How could 4 hijacks on 4 different planes NOT be successive? Would you prefer they be simultaneous? How would the hijacks have been performed in order to make you NOT suspicious?

I'm beginning to think you are just sticking your fingers in your ears humming "Muslims are perfect" and not listing to a word anybody else says.
 
Last edited:
mehmetin said:
You are wrong, I never used my qualifications to support my claims. I just explained my "motives"! My claims are supported by logics and science.
Click to expand...

Whatever, Mehmet. All very unimpressive behaviour, though.

As to your claims and their support by logic and science, this thread stands as a testament to the quality of your argument and the consensus is rather against you. Why not get those guys who agreed with you to back you up and provide some new perspective on your claims?


I am Turkish, Sideroxylon is also living in Turkey, that's whay I asked him if he is Turkish. There is nothing wrong in that question. That information has no consequences, jus to know it for myself. He can also send a PM if he don't want others know that.
Click to expand...

You are the one making the astounding claims, while I'm just some guy on the Internet. I prefer to keep a degree anonymity and so I declined your initial request to disclose information that is not relevant to the discussion. I will tell you this for free though, I become intransigent to even reasonable requests when expressed as a demand. I have nothing more to say on this.
 
You know... In "defense" of mehmetin, I have to point out an observation of mine: I see a lot of people here who seem to be confused about his "succession" argument; they're arguing the single point about the timing of the hijackings, but I'm not sure that's the whole argument.

I think mehmetin's argument is not simply that the planes were hijacked in succession, but that everything else also happened in succession; the first plane to take off was the first plane to be hijacked was the first plane to crash, the second plane to take off was the second plane to be hijacked was the second plane to crash, etc.

The only part of that which is even remotely interesting is the last leg; hijacking to crash. The major factor being the distance between the point of hijacking and the target. Even then, the succession of the crashes can be reasonably explained by the succession of the hijackings, which is itself adequately explained by the succession of the take-offs and is not much of an issue at all.

So, even though I think his entire argument still amounts to nothing, it looks to me as if more than few of his opposition are ignoring parts of it. It seems that mehmetin himself hasn't even caught on to that. Oh well...
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
You know... In "defense" of mehmetin, I have to point out an observation of mine: I see a lot of people here who seem to be confused about his "succession" argument; they're arguing the single point about the timing of the hijackings, but I'm not sure that's the whole argument.

I think mehmetin's argument is not simply that the planes were hijacked in succession, but that everything else also happened in succession; the first plane to take off was the first plane to be hijacked was the first plane to crash, the second plane to take off was the second plane to be hijacked was the second plane to crash, etc.

The only part of that which is even remotely interesting is the last leg; hijacking to crash. The major factor being the distance between the point of hijacking and the target. Even then, the succession of the crashes can be reasonably explained by the succession of the hijackings, which is itself adequately explained by the succession of the take-offs and is not much of an issue at all.

So, even though I think his entire argument still amounts to nothing, it looks to me as if more than few of his opposition are ignoring parts of it. It seems that mehmetin himself hasn't even caught on to that. Oh well...
Click to expand...

Good point. I didn't notice that myself. You'd think the NWO and their Zionist puppeteers would have mixed it up a bit to throw intrepid investigators like mehmetin off their trail ;)
 
Last edited:
mehmetin said:
Yes it happened in such impossible succession and nobody explained it yet. So the question is still open: How and Why 4 different teams successded to make 4 successive hijacks?
Click to expand...


Impossible succession? :jaw-dropp Man, I just don't get you.

2 aircraft were hijacked from each airport. They knew how to do it. They KNEW that hijackers don't fly planes into buildings. This is why we responded the way we did. They had the element of surprise. If they can hijack one, multiple 'teams' can hijack multiple aircraft. Please explain why you think this is seemingly impossible, because I sure as hell can't see it.

WHY?
Because THEY DON'T LIKE US. Why would you need it explained further? But just for funny-ha ha's, I will.

The timing needed to be close (it was FAR, FAR from precise) so that
A) The shock value would be increased. Every camera in the city of NY was on the north tower, then the second tower was hit on live tv with millions of people watching.

B) They left no time for a response from the military. If you hijacked two airplanes at 8:00am, by 10:00am every airplane in the sky would have known about it and adjusted accordingly. After striking their targets, what happened? FAA Orders an immediate grounding of EVERY aircraft in the sky. This would have included 2 aircraft which wouldn't have been hijacked yet, rendering them useless to the hijackers.

get it?

no, of course you don't. Common Sense isn't in your bag o' tricks.
 
mehmetin said:
Even if the odds of an mid air collision are tiny, they can not dare to risk such possibility and the ymust check that the plane is flying in the right direction toward their target and they must be sure that nothing will disrupt the plot.
Click to expand...

Actually, the risk of a mid-air collision was high, and if it weren’t for the actions of a few ATC controllers, it very well could have happened.
mehmetin said:
Hardest or easiest, the problem is that the plane must fly the last part under autonomous fly, without any influence from outside. That's the rule of automatic systems based on PID regulation loops.
Click to expand...

What the hell is “autonomous fly”. No wonder I didn’t get hired by United.:)
Autonomous flying aircraft do not carry a crew, passengers, or any money making payload. The altitude record for autonomous flying aircraft is held by a group of Stanford University students at a little over 7000 ft.
 
mehmetin said:
If the events reated themself 4 times over 4, that means any coincidence could not be considered. Have a look to your statistics lessons.
Click to expand...

They were repeated 4 times.To my knowledge, there weren't 16 planes hijacked on September 11th. As I said, you're searching for causation in a single instance of correlation. You have 4 data points. 4. From a largely arbitrary standpoint, you have decided that the time factor of these 4 data points proves beyond a doubt that an outside entity had a hand in controlling the occurrences.

What! You think that 3000 people dead is not an event that requires to be explained up to the smallest detail? Don't fool yoruself, those events should be totally explained for justice and to avoid their repeat.

The succession of the hijacks should be explained!
Click to expand...


Perhaps you missed this explanation:

A Laughing Baby said:
Here's a realistic one: the hijackers coordinated so that they'd have a window to hijack in, and by coincidence, their hijackings happened successively within that window.
Click to expand...

You're conflating the concept of "explanation" with the concept of "narrative." Tragically and strangely enough, many things in life do not have an explanation that can be wrapped up into "this occurred because an evil mastermind carefully orchestrated the entire day down to the second." Many times, especially when it comes to acts of terrorism, the narrative explanation is simply "a radicalized group with an agenda sought to exploit existing holes they observed in their target's security, and did so successfully." That's it. That's all there is to it.
 
twinstead said:
Good point. I didn't notice that myself. You'd think the NWO and their Zionist puppeteers would have mixed it up a bit to throw intrepid investigators like mehmetin off their trail ;)
Click to expand...


Oh, absolutely. It obviously occurred to Them™ that any kind of simultaneity in the hijackings and crashes would have been unbearably suspicious, so They™ figured staggering the events would throw everybody off. They must have felt that a completely random sequence of events was overkill.

Unfortunately, it seemed that They™ could not anticipate that the sheer intellectual prowess of a single Muslim research would bring the whole thing crashing down by pointing out the FACT that, in the described situation, anything other than complete randomness is impossible—absolutely impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom