Ed Pentagon - TruthMakesPeace

[TruthMakesPeace]

BECAUSE CYANIDE DOESN'T KNOCK YOU OUT, IT KILLS YOU DEAD.

Yes, they were probably gassed to death. I just did not want to dwell on a negative and sad topic. Most intelligent people get the idea. We don't have to spell it out to them, in all caps. Obviously, either way the explanation works, if the occupants were unconscious or passed away by the time the planes hit the buildings.

 

[beachnut]

Yes, they were probably gassed to death. I just did not want to dwell on a negative topic. Obviously, either way the explanation works, if the occupants were unconscious or passed away by the time the planes hit the buildings.

That is a lie. Why do you lie?
Betty Ong was on the phone to her airline giving evidence that terrorist took the plane. You claim she was dead, you lied. You are debunked by a dead person, someone you disrespect by making the dumbest lies you can. Do you feel real good about this? Have you told her parents? What have done besides lie about 911?

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

It doesn't matter if it's possible. It only matters if it did happen. Prove gas was installed in the plane.

The request for proof applies equally well on the OCT. Prove fire can completely collapse a sky scraper. Prove the occupants were alive inside the planes at the time of the crash. Prove there were no assistive explosives on the planes. Prove there were not explosives in the buildings. It cuts both ways. We're critical thinkers because we demand proof - even if a statement comes from the Government. This theory explains the evidence and witness statements equally well, if not better than the OCT, which asks us to accept that 19 guys intentionally killed themselves, without proof. www.911Pentagon.org

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

That is a lie. Why do you lie?

You seem to like that word lie. You think anyone who thinks any different than you is a liar, and that it is an effective debating technique. Lie means to know something is false, yet assert it as true. I know the OCT is false. So we have a difference of opinion, but neither of us is lying.

Betty Ong was on the phone to her airline giving evidence that terrorist took the plane. You claim she was dead

The proof of her call ended about 15 minutes before Flight 11 struck WTC 1. That is plenty of time for the gas to go off, kill everyone on board, including the pilots, and turn the flight by remote control from JFK or EWR to WTC1.

 

[triforcharity]

The request for proof applies equally well on the OCT. Prove fire can completely collapse a sky scraper.

Fire causes steel to weaken. Steel is what was holding up the building. Do you need a calculator?

Prove the occupants were alive inside the planes at the time of the crash.

Betty Ong's (IIRC) recorded phone call, as well as many other occupants making phone calls after the hijacking occured.

Prove there were no assistive explosives on the planes.

Explosives don't do well when it comes to fire, nor to shock.

Prove there were not explosives in the buildings.

No explosives detected, no explosive residue found, no eyewitness accounts or recordings of massive booms found on video.

It cuts both ways.

Too bad it minces your arguments to a fine paste.

We're critical thinkers because we demand proof - even if a statement comes from the Government. This theory explains the evidence and witness statements equally well, if not better than the OCT, which asks us to accept that 19 guys intentionally killed themselves, without proof.

The hijackers made suicide videos prior to their deaths.

There you go. Have fun.

 

[triforcharity]

The proof of her call ended about 15 minutes before Flight 11 struck WTC 1. That is plenty of time for the gas to go off, kill everyone on board, including the pilots, and turn the flight by remote control from JFK or EWR to WTC1.

But the problem is, the erratic flying starts well before that.

Go back to the drawing board and start again.

Your whole promise has no logic, or evidence.

 

[beachnut]

The request for proof applies equally well on the OCT. Prove fire can completely collapse a sky scraper. Prove the occupants were alive inside the planes at the time of the crash. Prove there were no assistive explosives on the planes. Prove there were not explosives in the buildings. It cuts both ways. We're critical thinkers because we demand proof - even if a statement comes from the Government. This theory explains the evidence and witness statements equally well, if not better than the OCT, which asks us to accept that 19 guys intentionally killed themselves, without proof. www.911Pentagon.org

You can't do physics, so you make spread the dumbest lies. Why are you spreading lies on 911, why are you so gullible and unable to support your claims?
Fire can destroy buildings. You failed to research it.
Occupants were alive, we have tapes of them talking. You failed to listen.
No explosives in the planes, no blast effects. You failed to look.
No explosives in the buildings, no blast effects. You failed to look.

You have to prove your claims, the evidence already proves 19 terrorists are solely responsible, you can't do anything more than post to the work of morons, you can't support their work with evidence.

You have delusions. 19 terrorist are reality. You presented lies from an idiot, what do you have? Do you have to post to the work of morons, can't you do your own work?

You posted a web site of lies, no Pulitzer prize because lies do not earn respect.

This is your evidence, insane moronic claims backed with nothing.

Opportunity to pre-plant explosives under a plausible cover
WTCs: ACE Elevator Company working in the elevator shafts and ceiling panels of WTC

How can you post this nonsense? Do you like making fun of those who died on 911? Why do you repeat moronic lies? What is your goal? To be disrespectful and immature?

 

[beachnut]

You seem to like that word lie. You think anyone who thinks any different than you is a liar, and that it is an effective debating technique. Lie means to know something is false, yet assert it as true. I know the OCT is false. So we have a difference of opinion, but neither of us is lying.

The proof of her call ended about 15 minutes before Flight 11 struck WTC 1. That is plenty of time for the gas to go off, kill everyone on board, including the pilots, and turn the flight by remote control from JFK or EWR to WTC1.

There was no remote control, that is the dumbest claim made on 911, and it proves you have nothing but lies. You are a liar, or someone who enjoys spewing stupid lies from morons you find on the Internet. This is the best you can do, post lies. You are good at finding lies and posting them.

Another lie, her call ended at impact.

You spread lies and failed to research 911. You can't support a single claim you make with facts and evidence. That is failure, 10 years.


The flight data recorder shows terrorists making inputs to the control column. Darn, no one was gassed. Is that your own moronic lie, or did you plagiarize it? You are a liar, and can't figure out 911 given the answers.

Why have you failed to take your claims to CBS? 60 Minutes? Are you afraid, are you a liar? Are you a failure?

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Hijackers still alive? REally?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

It is not a lie if someone disagrees with you. You have no proof of many of the OCT claims. Is that a lie too? I don't have time for ad hominems. James Randi set up this forum for intellectual discussion, not name calling. Just state your arguments like an intelligent adult, and I will respond. You have raised good questions, but your ad hominems only detract from their impact. If I did not respond to you, I have you on Ignore, and may copy your post to the JREF Moderator. I don't have time to debate name-calling kids. Such behavior detracts from the forum. Read your post as if someone it sent to you, and you will know why.

 

[beachnut]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

It is not a lie if someone disagrees with you. I'm going to put you on Ignore if you keep up that childish behavior.

LOL, that is a lie, you are fooled because you can't do rational research. You failed again, you should check your sources, they have to be checked. You post lies, you can't figure out reality.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

The BBC made you lie. LOL, are you really this gullible, or just giving me typing practice?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456983/html/

You posted to the BBC which says 19 terrorists did it, not your failed claims of gas, lies which you spread.

 

[triforcharity]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

It is not a lie if someone disagrees with you. You have no proof of many of the OCT claims. Is that a lie too? I'm going to put you on Ignore if you keep up that childish behavior.

Liar.

 

[beachnut]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

It is not a lie if someone disagrees with you. You have no proof of many of the OCT claims. Is that a lie too? I'm going to put you on Ignore if you keep up that childish behavior. Just state your arguments like an adult, and I will respond. If I did not respond to you, read your post to your self, and ask if you would spend your time on such a person. That goes for everyone.

You are a lair, who posts lies without thinking about it, without checking your claims. You have not tried to support your lies, you failed. You do shallow researched and post lies. What are you called when you post lies about 911? Is there any lie on 911 you don't like?

The gas lie is really stupid, since the terrorists are making inputs to the flight controls. You don't do reality based evidence.

You failed to refute the official story. You can't do much more than post web sites filled with lies made up by idiots.

 

[A W Smith]

Well DUH. A drunken driver weaves because he over compensates when steering. A beginner riding a bike weaves erratically from over compensating.


crap inaccurate flying.

That means that the pilot would have to compensate/counter for every steering/operating mistake.

Just like a drunk driver, Whats your point? I mean besides this.

 

[A W Smith]

The request for proof applies equally well on the OCT. Prove fire can completely collapse a sky scraper. Prove the occupants were alive inside the planes at the time of the crash. Prove there were no assistive explosives on the planes. Prove there were not explosives in the buildings. It cuts both ways. We're critical thinkers because we demand proof - even if a statement comes from the Government. This theory explains the evidence and witness statements equally well, if not better than the OCT, which asks us to accept that 19 guys intentionally killed themselves, without proof. www.911Pentagon.org

No, no it does not, The fallacy you are committing is explained below.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

 

[fess]

Yes, they were probably gassed to death. I just did not want to dwell on a negative topic. Obviously, either way the explanation works, if the occupants were unconscious or passed away by the time the planes hit the buildings.

Being that you completely ignored me before, let me re-address my previous post. Considering that cyanide gas quickly dissipates, how many cylinders would be needed to incapacitate the crew and passengers? Where would these cylinders be stored? Have you ever been in the baggage area of an airliner? There isn’t an abundance of room available, is there? How would the baggage handlers have missed seeing these cylinders? How were the cylinders plumbed into the aircraft air handling system?

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Gradual cabin depressurization vs. Cyanide gas

Being that you completely ignored me before, let me re-address my previous post.

Sorry if I missed your post, and want to answer as many questions as possible which are asked in an adult, intellectual manner.

Considering that cyanide gas quickly dissipates, how many cylinders would be needed to incapacitate the crew and passengers?

You bring up a good question. A simple explanation is preferable to one that raises complications.

The www.911Pentagon.org site has recently changed to propose gradual cabin depressurization instead of gas. Simply removing breathable air would serve the same nefarious purpose as gassing. Opening a valve by remote control, to let air escape, could have accomplished this. During extreme fuselage depressurization, the oxygen masks would be ineffective.

Where would these cylinders be stored?
How would the baggage handlers have missed seeing these cylinders

The web site used to propose they were put in the baggage section by agents on the baggage handling crew.

Have you ever been in the baggage area of an airliner? There isn’t an abundance of room available, is there?

I have looked. Cyanide tanks could have been in the luggage area. The flights less populated than the average so there was more room.

How were the cylinders plumbed into the aircraft air handling system?

If you mean connected to the Oxygen system, the theory proposes that agents on the ground crew did it.

Depressurization is a simpler explanation. So a covert ground crew could have installed remote controlled air release valve(s).

 

[beachnut]

... If you mean connected to the Oxygen system, the theory proposes that agents on the ground crew did it.

Trying to explain a delusion?

What Oxygen system? How does it work? Where does the air come from for the aircraft?

Why do you spread lies?

 

[Clayton Moore]

But the problem is, the erratic flying starts well before that.

Go back to the drawing board and start again.

Your whole promise has no logic, or evidence.

Your logic has no premise.

ROTFL.

 

[beachnut]

Your logic has no premise.

ROTFL.

You don't understand flying, 911, or the Holocaust; and you have the same failed evidence for all your claims. Nothing. Why can't you support your claims with evidence? How will you wake up American since you are evidence free?

Let's get our America back, the America with conscience. Back from the evil oligarchy hiding behind neoconservatives and the mainstream media.

You are pushing lies, you don't have a conscience.

 

[TruthersLie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

It is not a lie if someone disagrees with you. You have no proof of many of the OCT claims. Is that a lie too? I don't have time for ad hominems. James Randi set up this forum for intellectual discussion, not name calling. Just state your arguments like an intelligent adult, and I will respond. You have raised good questions, but your ad hominems only detract from their impact. If I did not respond to you, I have you on Ignore, and may copy your post to the JREF Moderator. I don't have time to debate name-calling kids. Such behavior detracts from the forum. Read your post as if someone it sent to you, and you will know why.

<facepalm>

Did you even bother to LOOK AT THE *********** DATE? did you do any further research to find out that they confused the names and identities in the early days after the attack? did you even bother to do 5 minutes of research to determine that the FBI updated the list and all of THOSE hijackers are dead.

Of course not. It is so much easier to live in denial. Try again.

Have you bothered to check with the SEC yet? didn't think so.
have you bothered to read the technical analysis which destroys your claim?