• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
tmd2_1 said:
Why don't you give me some tips...perhaps you can tell me where you learned 175 went down near Pittsburgh. That was no type-o you made the same mistake twice. Or perhaps you can teach where you learned the skills where I literally had to tell where to find the word Sulfur. I mean these things could really help me.
Click to expand...
It was Flt 93 which crashed in PA, you know what I meant but like 911, you can't figure out reality or correct your errors. I can correct typing the wrong number, you can't seem to correct your errors as you post lies from other people and fall for delusional nonsense about 911.

There was no "sulfur on" the steel. You don't understand the paper, and the paper did not have any where the claims there was "sulfur on the steel", like you claim. You copy and paste nonsense and don't understand chemical engineering, eutectic, and more. You have no clue what you are talking about.
 
beachnut said:
It was Flt 93 which crashed in PA, you know what I meant but like 911, you can't figure out reality or correct your errors. I can correct typing the wrong number, you can't seem to correct your errors as you post lies from other people and fall for delusional nonsense about 911.

There was no "sulfur on" the steel. You don't understand the paper, and the paper did not have any where the claims there was "sulfur on the steel", like you claim. You copy and paste nonsense and don't understand chemical engineering, eutectic, and more. You have no clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Again your brilliant rebuttal astounds me. Go watch Jon Cole's video you'll learn all you need to about sulfur as it related to 9/11
 
tmd2_1 said:
I was talking about the planes that hit the buildings square.
Click to expand...
None of the planes hit the building square, you either have no clue what square means, or you never looked at the impacts. Not square. You provided zero evidence.

tmd2_1 said:
I provided more evidence, more sources then everyone else on this thread combined (pertaining to what's in this thread alone)
Click to expand...
You provided no evidence. You provided hearsay, that is not evidence. Zero evidence presented by you for any of your theories, claims and fantasy.

tmd2_1 said:
I provided evidence to hani's poor flying ability along with evidence that what he "did" took a fair amount of skill.
Click to expand...
No evidence, you provided hearsay that was in error. You can't figure this out because you never looked at the FDR (flight data recorder) which proves Hani can not hold a stead bank, can't keep his airspeed constant, and descend erratically. You offered ZERO evidence it took a fair amount of skill. Zero.

tmd2_1 said:
I provided my own reasons as to why hitting the WTC the way they did...would be quite hard.
Click to expand...
It is very easy to hit the WTC with 767/757, and this was proved by terrorist who hit the WTC towers the first time they flew a real jet. You were proved wrong by the terrorist on 911, nearly 10 years ago, proved wrong by the guys you said were from caves.

tmd2_1 said:
I never said any of this was impossible.
Click to expand...

tmd2_1 said:
You definitely seem incapable of changing your thoughts, and ruthlessly attack anyone that shows problems with your dogma.
Click to expand...
You are the one with delusions on 911, you have not got anything right about 911, you use hearsay and false information, spreading lies.

tmd2_1 said:
There is no doubt I have frustrated, stumped, and is some cases infuriated some members here.
Click to expand...
No, you are repeating the lies of 911 truth, and not trying to see they are lies. You do shoddy research, you have no idea why the things you have posted are false, and no idea why hearsay is not evidence.

tmd2_1 said:
Why? Because I provided evidence that is in direct contradiction of their dogma.
Click to expand...
You provided false claims, delusions, and lies, not one piece of evidence. Hearsay is not evidence.

tmd2_1 said:
I didn't back down from anyone...called people out on their crap, you know the ones who think they are simply brilliant, but most importantly I stayed with facts and assumptions based on evidence.
Click to expand...
All you have posted is crap. You offered lies, no facts, and your lies are based on recycled hearsay and fantasy.

tmd2_1 said:
Being on your ignore list..is just about the highest form of a compliment anyone could pay me.
Click to expand...
No, being on his ignore list save him from seeing the nonsense you post. I corrected Flt 175 to 93, the best you can do is say check the link, the link with the lies you posted. You don't try to learn about 911, you spread false information.
 
beachnut said:
None of the planes hit the building square, you either have no clue what square means, or you never looked at the impacts. Not square. You provided zero evidence.

You provided no evidence. You provided hearsay, that is not evidence. Zero evidence presented by you for any of your theories, claims and fantasy.

No evidence, you provided hearsay that was in error. You can't figure this out because you never looked at the FDR (flight data recorder) which proves Hani can not hold a stead bank, can't keep his airspeed constant, and descend erratically. You offered ZERO evidence it took a fair amount of skill. Zero.

It is very easy to hit the WTC with 767/757, and this was proved by terrorist who hit the WTC towers the first time they flew a real jet. You were proved wrong by the terrorist on 911, nearly 10 years ago, proved wrong by the guys you said were from caves.



You are the one with delusions on 911, you have not got anything right about 911, you use hearsay and false information, spreading lies.

No, you are repeating the lies of 911 truth, and not trying to see they are lies. You do shoddy research, you have no idea why the things you have posted are false, and no idea why hearsay is not evidence.

You provided false claims, delusions, and lies, not one piece of evidence. Hearsay is not evidence.


All you have posted is crap. You offered lies, no facts, and your lies are based on recycled hearsay and fantasy.

No, being on his ignore list save him from seeing the nonsense you post. I corrected Flt 175 to 93, the best you can do is say check the link, the link with the lies you posted. You don't try to learn about 911, you spread false information.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a need to reply to you anymore. It's just the same: all I posted was lies...I didn't lie once....I fully admitted I got carried away with remote control planes I was implying that they did in fact exist when there is not 100% proof of it...but provided a lot of evidence that it was most certainly possible.

Then you say I need to improve my research skills...which I'm amazed you are still saying that, with your track record...yep see no need to respond to you.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
I have no idea why I would do that.
Click to expand...

Not surprising.

tmd2_1 said:
I was referring to an e-mail Mark Loizeaux wrote...and that was it.
Click to expand...

The unsourced e-mail states that he was relating that information second-hand from Peter Tully. Good enough for typical truthers, I suppose. People capable of critical thinking would have questions though.

tmd2_1 said:
If you want to by all means go ahead.
Click to expand...

You haven't backed up a single claim yet, I wouldn't dream of asking you to blemish your record now. Keep up the good work.
 
Last edited:
AJM8125 said:
Not surprising.



The unsourced e-mail states that he was relating that information second-hand from Peter Tully. Good enough for typical truthers, I suppose. People capable of critical thinking would have questions though.



You haven't backed up a single claim yet, I wouldn't dream of asking you to blemish your record now. Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

I'll post the e-mail one more time...you tell me where the name Tully is mentioned. I'm sure 911 myths would have done all they can to discredit it. He says there are...... not Peter Tully said there are. Unbelievable really.

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
 
Molten steel would damage the buckets beyond repair. No owner of any STEEL equipment is going to pick up MOLTEN STEEL with his several thousand dollar STEEL equipment. He'd ruin it, be out thousands of dollars and render said equipment useless for the remainder of the recovery effort.

SWING AND A MISS

What a shock.
 
Nobody's proven we can have explosives survive the aircraft impacts and fire yet.....


What a shock.

Resident idiot truther spewing the same idiot truther crap from many years ago. Not a single piece of actual evidence of anything, not even trying to prove the OP, no shock here. Same old, same old.

Did you see the pod?
 
NoahFence said:
So the ONLY people you'll accept answers from are nutters like Gage and the truth movement? How's that work, exactly?
Click to expand...

I believe what makes the most sense to me. I believe what's proven by experiment. I've said this several times...even Ryan Mackey said page 102 of his paper...NIST should run tests on the sulfur. They never did..Cole did watch his video do your own experiment, and prove us both wrong.

Listen if you really want people to believe what you guys are saying...you (and I mean you as in the members of this forum) may try treating people with a little more respect. There's no need to talk down to people, simply have a civil debate/discourse. A great example is the Leslie Robertson Steve Jones debate, while the participants disagreed they showed a tremendous amount of respect for each other...I admit sometimes I have been harsh here... but I've never once called anyone a retard or stupid or anything like that....there is just no need for it.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I was talking about the planes that hit the buildings square. I provided more evidence, more sources then everyone else on this thread combined (pertaining to what's in this thread alone) I provided evidence to hani's poor flying ability along with evidence that what he "did" took a fair amount of skill. I provided my own reasons as to why hitting the WTC the way they did...would be quite hard. I never said any of this was impossible. You definitely seem incapable of changing your thoughts, and ruthlessly attack anyone that shows problems with your dogma. There is no doubt I have frustrated, stumped, and is some cases infuriated some members here. Why? Because I provided evidence that is in direct contradiction of their dogma. I didn't back down from anyone...called people out on their crap, you know the ones who think they are simply brilliant, but most importantly I stayed with facts and assumptions based on evidence. Being on your ignore list..is just about the highest form of a compliment anyone could pay me.
Click to expand...

You provided links to information you choose to believe, not "facts."

"Evidence" as you provided is no more factualy valid than a christian that points to the bible as proof of the existence of "God."

Smith is at least entertaining - you are rehashing the same failed talking points put forth for the last five years - with -0- success anywhere but in the halls of "truther" logic.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I'll post the e-mail one more time...you tell me where the name Tully is mentioned. I'm sure 911 myths would have done all they can to discredit it. He says there are...... not Peter Tully said there are. Unbelievable really.

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
Click to expand...

I've highlighted your disconnect. I've also linked in a previous post the AFP article which identifies the contractor as Tully. Keep pretending to ignore that.
 
WildCat said:
Problem for truthers is none of them have been able to get thermite to cut a steel column. Every attempt ended in hilarious FAIL.
Click to expand...


Again a silly way to show that thermite is a non starter.

Thermite almost certainly can cut beams or at least get them hot enough the get them to fail.

Getting it to do is , again, just an engineering problem not a theoretical one. And sooner or later a twoofer will do just that and in fact I believe one at least has made a creditable attempt.

Actually doing it to the WTC towers would have been a logistical nightmare and covering it up an impossibility. And for what, when its quite clear that planes and fires alone will do the job?
 
AJM8125 said:
I've highlighted your disconnect. I've also linked in a previous post the AFP article which identifies the contractor as Tully. Keep pretending to ignore that.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable did you read what I said. He said there are videos..pictures...not Tully or anyone else said that there videos. It simply says he said there are videos...I mean I don't know what else to say I really don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom