Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
paperboy05 said:
I've noticed that from the lurking I've done the last couple weeks. For being so certain about something, they aren't too certain about anything.
Click to expand...

It's very odd. The turn up here rabbiting on about the 'truth',and when you ask them what the truth is,they clam up. What are they hoping to achieve if they won't confide in anybody. "We demand a new investigation!"....... "Ok,show us the evidence that you have discovered''....."Shan't!!!!!"
 
tempesta29 said:
Jesus.

The above post assumes that the only way a terrorist could attack a target is with planes. Is the combination of planes and bombs not a possibility? Just because planes hit the WTC doesn't mean other types of attacks hadn't been planned and/or executed. Reports of secondary devices were common on 9/11.
Click to expand...

True, it could have been planes, bombs and dustifying rays from space or planes, bombs ,dustifying rays from space and ninja elevator repairmen, the possibilities are endless.
 
Clayton Moore said:
What crap. It's amazing and pathetic at the same time. At the same time the truth is so obvious that trying hide the truth should be considered an accessory after the fact offense.

The towers could have been lumped together as coincidence but WTC7 and the stand down of the American military put that to rest.
Click to expand...

So you countered EMH's post with more bare assertion. At least you're consistent.
 
dafydd said:
You say you have a theory. I suspect that you are lying. Prove me wrong please. Be a brave truther!
Click to expand...


First you quote that I claimed to have a theory, get bonus points in quoting me claiming that I have a "complete theory", like the number stated and you approved. Go ahead now, or better retract immediately because it was only a week or so when we had that exchange, and you don't want to admit to such a bad memory, do you? Proceed.
 
paperboy05 said:
At the risk of being a newbie and taking this thread OT; what exactly is the "probable story" of 9/11 if the official story is improbable?
Click to expand...

The Jews did it, proof is the Dancing Israelis, Silverstein's last name and Jews being warned not to go to work on 911.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The above is just disinformation. All three buildings went down swiftly and evenly. Damage may occur swiftly but never evenly. And global collapses of huge buildings don't happen in threes. Especially when there had never been a global collapse of huge building without it being a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Bad things always happens in threes, it's the rule of the Ko.
 
Clayton Moore said:
It just shows there is an agenda afoot. The reason people don't know every aspect of the biggest news story in American history is because the MSM has subjected it to a blackout.
Click to expand...

Most people have packed up and moved on, some are stuck like a fly in amber their wings always in motion but never moving.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
The towers could have been lumped together as coincidence but WTC7 and the stand down of the American military put that to rest.
Click to expand...

Stand down... man, we can play forum nostalgia with these posts: When was the first time you saw this card played? :D

Well, anyway:
Yeah, we might as well give nothing but links from here on out. Clichés are indications that he's not even trying, so why should we? If I choose to respond in the future, it'll be limited to repeats of what's been said before.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Stand down... man, we can play forum nostalgia with these posts: When was the first time you saw this card played? :D

Well, anyway:
Yeah, we might as well give nothing but links from here on out. Clichés are indications that he's not even trying, so why should we? If I choose to respond in the future, it'll be limited to repeats of what's been said before.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a no fly area is?
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Stand down... man, we can play forum nostalgia with these posts: When was the first time you saw this card played? :D

Well, anyway:
Yeah, we might as well give nothing but links from here on out. Clichés are indications that he's not even trying, so why should we? If I choose to respond in the future, it'll be limited to repeats of what's been said before.
Click to expand...

Popular Mechanics ahahahahahhaa lulz
 
dafydd said:
You say you have a theory. I suspect that you are lying. Prove me wrong please. Be a brave truther!
Click to expand...


You made a claim in your first sentence. A claim that you know is false, in case you don't have the attention span of a three year old. You dare to accuse me of lying about the claim you are lying about. You want me to prove you wrong? Nothing easier than that, and i'll do so because you will certainly not be able to produce a quote where I claim to have "a theory", let alone "a complete theory", and given experience i'm certainly not expecting that you will retract and admit you were just running your mouth. So here, for the giggles, is our exchange (bolding mine):

dafydd said:
And you are more qualified than he to speak on the subject? The sandcastle analogy would be better applied to the theories of truthers,whatever they may be. No truther here has ever told me exactly what they think happened on 911. Do you have a full theory?
Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:
On the "truth movement" and new developments? I'm certainly more qualified than him [Mackey] on that subject. I have a working hypothesis about what happened on 9/11 but you should ask yourself why you think that this is so important to know about. Like all of us I can't know the details, so you're asking me to speculate. And additionally, what you're doing is known as a disinformation tecnique called "demand complete solutions", so it doesn't make you look good and it doesn't make me look bad because I never pretended to know it all. So better drop it. :)
Click to expand...

dafydd said:
So you have no full theory. Got it. Give me some details of your working hypothesis. How does it differ from the official story?
Click to expand...


Be a brave debunker and stick to the truth. And maybe look up "working hypothesis" one day. It's a specific term. :rolleyes:
 
jaydeehess said:
ElMH; a point I like to add is that this is certainly a rare occssion (possibly the first) in which a high rise suffered the ignition of large area multi-floor fires all within seconds rather than over the course of hours as would be the case in a more common fire situation.
Click to expand...

Yes, this. As jaydeehess pointed out, having such an extreme fire changes everything. A fire rating for something like a wall, SFRM, whatever may be defined in terms of hours of resistence to temperature "X". But physically, what's really happening is that a material is absorbing "Y" amount of energy over "T" amount of time. And there's an end stage where it ultimately succumbs to the fire (for example, with drywall the end stage would be the last of the water getting baked out of the gypsum. That's the end of its fire resistance). When you have far, far more energy than normal, you're going to shift that equation. Time "T" becomes far shorter. And that becomes significant in terms of what it means for the rest of the structure.
 
Childlike Empress said:
You made a claim in your first sentence. A claim that you know is false, in case you don't have the attention span of a three year old. You dare to accuse me of lying about the claim you are lying about. You want me to prove you wrong? Nothing easier than that, and i'll do so because you will certainly not be able to produce a quote where I claim to have "a theory", let alone "a complete theory", and given experience i'm certainly not expecting that you will retract and admit you were just running your mouth. So here, for the giggles, is our exchange (bolding mine):








Be a brave debunker and stick to the truth. And maybe look up "working hypothesis" one day. It's a specific term. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are not talking to a truther,I know what a working hypothesis is. Any chance that you will be sharing your working hypothesis with us anytime soon? You will have to air it one day if you want da troof to come out. If you don't have any details,(your words) then what are you talking about? Let's start with something simple. Do you believe that explosives were involved?
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
You are not talking to a truther,I know what a working hypothesis is. Any chance that you will be sharing your working hypothesis with us anytime soon? You will have to air it one day if you want da troof to come out. If you don't have any details,(your words) then what are you talking about? Let's start with something simple. Do you believe that explosives were involved?
Click to expand...


Hahaha, you must confuse me with somebody else. You don't know what a working hypothesis is, just like aggle-rithm and the gang over there. And you still didn't read what I told you in that other thread. Including that I'm not interested in engaging with you. You know, that hilarious exchange butchered by auto-mod which we had a few days later. And you seem to think that I will just ignore your lies and suddenly change my mind (hmm, did I write this before?) Just give it up, daf.
 
Last edited:
Dafydd isn't the only one who wants to know your idea of what's more likely to have happened. Whether it's a hypothesis or a working hypothesis or whatever, why be so shy about it?
 
Let me quote myself again, Gnome:

Childlike Empress said:
Why should I? It wouldn't be something new at all. Several people have delivered a "theory" - which is not the same as a "working hypothesis" and I would have to make up -, for example out of my head Jim Hoffman (as proof of concept) or our own 9/11 Investigator. You would just dismiss it as "not plausible" and that's it. Nobody gains.

Wait. Maybe somebody would gain. I asked dafydd why it is important to him (and you?), because I suspect that the answer is what aggle-rithm so ostensively described in his demand to me. He wants me to say something stupid, ill-formulated or plain false so he can "debunk" it and sort me into one of the little cupboards "truthers" belong into. Preferably "kook" or "liar". It's not malice, it's a psychological self-defense mechanism.

I'm not going to feed it.
Click to expand...


I post on factual aspects, and if you are interested, read my posts (did you do so with the "LIHOP" thread?) and if there's something wrong with them, please correct me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom