Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
johnny karate said:
What reasoning do you offer for implying that thousands of people witnessed the very distinctive phenomena of the controlled demolitions of three enormous buildings and not one thought it might be worth mentioning?
Click to expand...

This has been shown to be inaccurate in hundreds of posts. The fact that you continue to perpetuate such a blatantly false statement is in your incontinent parlance, lying.
 
RedIbis said:
This has been shown to be inaccurate in hundreds of posts. The fact that you continue to perpetuate such a blatantly false statement is in your incontinent parlance, lying.
Click to expand...

Really? You have testimony from a witness who believes they saw a controlled demolition?

Please provide it.
 
johnny karate said:
Really? You have testimony from a witness who believes they saw a controlled demolition?

Please provide it.
Click to expand...

You went from this:

"the very distinctive phenomena of the controlled demolitions"

to "believes they[sic] saw a controlled demolition"

Reporting distinct phenomena and belief are two entirely different things, though I'm not surprised you seem to prefer the latter.

You're trying to leverage the discussion in the direction that if subsequent interviews have not overtly stated belief in CD, the opposite then must be true. I've explained this to you before, consider abandoning it as a tactic in argumentation.
 
RedIbis said:
You went from this:

"the very distinctive phenomena of the controlled demolitions"

to "believes they[sic] saw a controlled demolition"

Reporting distinct phenomena and belief are two entirely different things, though I'm not surprised you seem to prefer the latter.

You're trying to leverage the discussion in the direction that if subsequent interviews have not overtly stated belief in CD, the opposite then must be true. I've explained this to you before, consider abandoning it as a tactic in argumentation.
Click to expand...

A controlled demolition is a very distinctive phenomenon. That none of the witnesses reported this distinctive phenomenon nor expressed a belief that one occurred is of particular significance when trying to determine if one did in fact occur.

The only "leverage" I'm trying to apply is that which will disallow dishonest frauds from equating "explosion" with "controlled demolition", as I find that particular canard as tiresome as it is idiotic.

And if you'll allow me to get meta here for a moment: How hard do you think it should be to establish that two of the world's tallest buildings were brought down with explosives in broad daylight in front of thousands of people?
 
johnny karate said:
A controlled demolition is a very distinctive phenomenon. That none of the witnesses reported this distinctive phenomenon nor expressed a belief that one occurred is of particular significance when trying to determine if one did in fact occur.

The only "leverage" I'm trying to apply is that which will disallow dishonest frauds from equating "explosion" with "controlled demolition", as I find that particular canard as tiresome as it is idiotic.

And if you'll allow me to get meta here for a moment: How hard do you think it should be to establish that two of the world's tallest buildings were brought down with explosives in broad daylight in front of thousands of people?
Click to expand...

Suppose there had been an explosion and no plane in the Twin Towers and the building had completely collapsed as a result in front of all those people ? Do you think they would have believed it ? Would they have accepted that it could happen ?

No of course they would not. That's why the planes were necessary- as the unknown quantity in the equation. But now that we know that the planes actually weighed only one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building I think people will have questions to ask.

Accept it guys. You are fully outed for what you are. It's only a matter of getting people to do something about it. Where there is a will there is a way.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
You live and you learn Tri. the next long list will be my own particular ordering of explosion statements. I dare say I can make the new list(s) even more interesting and attention-grabbing than the previous ones while still staying inside the rules.

I or others can use the long list(s) of expert testimony to bludgeon it into people's heads that 9/11 was an inside job. You can ride around on the outside bleating about how it is all taken out of context/similies and so on and I wish you luck with that.
Click to expand...

So basically, you're going to find statements, twist them even more than they have, and present them as fact? Great. Should be easy to debunk.
Just remember to cite your sources!

When you can find one that actually STILL believes there were bombs in it, let me know.
 
bill smith said:
I suppose the homes of the future for old broken-down debunkers will need a good supply of cartoon characters to keep their intellectual levels at par. Long live dafydd duck and Macky Moose.
Click to expand...

You know, you really should not use people's names like that.
 
The planes weren't necessary. If the government wanted to bring down the towers with explosives and blame it on terrorists, they would have done so, claiming the terrorists planted the explosives.

It's a lot less retarded than what bill smith is proposing.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Suppose there had been an explosion and no plane in the Twin Towers and the building had completely collapsed as a result in front of all those people ? Do you think they would have believed it ? Would they have accepted that it could happen ?

No of course they would not. That's why the planes were necessary- as the unknown quantity in the equation. But now that we know that the planes actually weighed only one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building I think people will have questions to ask.

Accept it guys. You are fully outed for what you are. It's only a matter of getting people to do something about it. Where there is a will there is a way.
Click to expand...

Without the planes being crashed into the buildings, there wouldn't have been the multistory, simultanious fires.

Without the planes, there would not have been the tremendous structural damage.

Without the fires, there wouldn't have been the incredible amount of structural failure.

Without the structural damage, there wouldn't have been the incredible structural failure.

Remove any ONE of these, and it wouldn't have collapsed.

You see Bill, all of these event have to occur for the building to collapse.

Its like fire Bill. You must have 3 things to have fire.

Heat, oxygen, and fuel. Remove any ONE of the items, and there is no fire.
 
triforcharity said:
So basically, you're going to find statements, twist them even more than they have, and present them as fact? Great. Should be easy to debunk.
Just remember to cite your sources!

When you can find one that actually STILL believes there were bombs in it, let me know.
Click to expand...

Some people say that the time to lay it on thick is here. Think about it ?....you saw the firemen's statements and how hugely powerful they are. Combined with all these hundreds or thousands of impressive military figures and scientists and so on it's dynamite.

We really don't need to argue the nicities though we have no problem doing that. It just takes too long. We have the volume and you have your athetic excuses. Volume will trump you.
 
triforcharity said:
The names of the posters here that you have twisted. I believe that this is against the rules. Lets see what the mods think.
Click to expand...

Dear me Tri but you sound kind of panicky. Any resembleces are coincidental. Even if they were not they would be entirely harmless. Try not to be so sad in future.
 
triforcharity said:
Without the planes being crashed into the buildings, there wouldn't have been the multistory, simultanious fires.

Without the planes, there would not have been the tremendous structural damage.

Without the fires, there wouldn't have been the incredible amount of structural failure.

Without the structural damage, there wouldn't have been the incredible structural failure.

Remove any ONE of these, and it wouldn't have collapsed.

You see Bill, all of these event have to occur for the building to collapse.

Its like fire Bill. You must have 3 things to have fire.

Heat, oxygen, and fuel. Remove any ONE of the items, and there is no fire.
Click to expand...

You probably need something to burn too so make that four items. lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom