Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The letters in clayton moore can be rearranged to spell acolyte moron. I find that highly suspicious.

It must be painful to have to prove that every single word of the "official" story is false.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
How would a substantial amount of kerosene splash away from the initial fireball in the first place? Then how would that kerosene NOT bypass the lobby into the bottom of the shaft?
Click to expand...

Read and learn:

Argument from incredulity: Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1.P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2.It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

i.e. the fuel went boom.
 
Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal Part 16 on YouTube

Hi all,

This was my most difficult YouTube rebuttal video to produce, because it gets me where I live. I've helped hundreds of grieving families go through the wrenching process of preparing funerals or memorial services, I got really upset when I heard about Dylan Avery hiring a private investigator to investigate eyewitness Barry Jennings's cause of death. I tried to keep my cool, but didn't entirely succeed, as you will see in the video from the way I looked while talking about this.

Here's a link to Part 16, Eyewitness Accounts and Foreknowledge of Destruction of Building 7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajIr2G4wFn4

Responses will mostly be found on the Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal thread.

Chris Mohr
 
Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin
Bombs synchronized to explode in the lobby when the plane crashed makes much more sense....
Ever hear of remote control?
Click to expand...


Unreal. The crap you make up as you go along isn't even remotely plausible. You need to try harder.


There were no bombs in the lobby. Nobody came out with injuries consistent with a concussion event.
 
The explosion sequence had a bit of a delay, 10's to 100's of milliseconds.

In the case of flight 11, the bulk fuel had to atomize before ignition.

Also flight 11 (main body or components) sheared right through the core. This allowed bulk fuel to enter the tops of the elevator shafts. When ignition conditions for the fuel are achieved, the explosion begins.

The burn front travels down the elevator shaft following the bulk fuel. The fuel may still be in large droplets and doesn't entirely light. This creates an fuel rich explosion front (driven or falling?). The explosion that is visible on the outside might be smaller than the explosion moving through the core, and the elevator shafts.

ANY opening to air that the fuel rich front reaches, will become an independently expanding fireball.

Fuel rushing down the elevator shaft is understating it.
 
Craig4 said:
You have intercepted radio signals for a remote control? How about a device from either end? Could have doesn't matter. Provide evidence for what did happen.
Click to expand...

What did happen was three complete and totally destructive collapses that could not have occurred by gravitational energy alone after the fire damage that caused the collapses to begin at a specific focal point was no longer a contributing factor. That is why the NIST report explained how the collapses began but not how they were able to continue beyond the initial structural failure.
 
That is why the NIST report explained how the collapses began but not how they were able to continue beyond the initial structural failure.
Click to expand...

Do you want to know how we know that you haven't actually bothered to read the report, much less the much shorter and to the point FAQs? It's ignorant statements like this.
 
Clayton Moore said:
What did happen was three complete and totally destructive collapses that could not have occurred by gravitational energy alone after the fire damage that caused the collapses to begin at a specific focal point was no longer a contributing factor. That is why the NIST report explained how the collapses began but not how they were able to continue beyond the initial structural failure.
Click to expand...
Numbers? Equations? Anything?
 
leftysergeant said:
Got a point?
Click to expand...
He believes everyone that has not come to agree with the magnificent cover up he takes pride in having "discovered" is dumber than bricks... Although I don't think it matters to anyone what he thinks of them; lunatic conspiracy theories don't care about evidence
 
Grizzly Bear said:
He believes everyone that has not come to agree with the magnificent cover up he takes pride in having "discovered" is dumber than bricks... Although I don't think it matters to anyone what he thinks of them; lunatic conspiracy theories don't care about evidence
Click to expand...

lunatic conspiracy theories don't care about evidence

I do not come from Earth's moon.

The NIST report is an embarrassing admission of how thoroughly the material (evidence?) was destroyed. Take the known videos and add a narrator and that is the NIST Report. They actually showed some integrity by not going past basic conclusions. The report should not be construed as being absolute and final. Any direct physical evidence directly contradicting or modifying the NIST conclusion, probably no longer exists (if it ever did). A narrative SUPPORTED by confessions and other evidence could amend or modify the NIST conclusions.

If there are other factors involved in the collapses at WTC, indications for the existence of this evidence will have to be found somewhere else.

This part of the official narrative (The WTC Site Only) appears to be supported (or at least very difficult to dislodge). There are a lot more loose threads about 9-11 to pull on.

Would anyone have any objections to me pulling the legs off of the spider, when I find it?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom