General 9/11 Conspiracy Discussion

Oystein said:
Were the ears actually turned inside out?
If not, please interprete this expression for us!

(Hint: We have no way of telling what specific injury is referenced here, only that it affected the ears. )
Click to expand...

Almost happened to me in the front row at a Rush concert.

Handicapped seating, directly in front of the subwoofer for Peart's drums.

Even my custom molded earplugs couldn't save me.
 
Axxman300 said:
Nobody has provided evidence?

If you'd bother to read through the multitude of 911 threads here you'd find those pictures showing both towers and 7 leaning as the fires did their job.

Right off the bat you base your claim on a lie that is easily debunked, and has been debunked multiple times on this board.
Click to expand...

No, I've brought this up before and nobody, NIST nor any photographic expert, even a layman, has brought forth evidence that WTC 7 or the tops of either tower were leaning. The reports of leaning that day were all most likely half-truth rumors.
 
MicahJava said:
No, I've brought this up before and nobody, NIST nor any photographic expert, even a layman, has brought forth evidence that WTC 7 or the tops of either tower were leaning. The reports of leaning that day were all most likely half-truth rumors.
Click to expand...

Which is something you have fully embraced when those "half-truth rumors" support some CTist half-baked theory.
 
BStrong said:
How's that work? does he (or you) not know how long he was out or was he in and out for 2 to 6 days?

That counts out HE.

If a victim of an HE detonation is close enough to receive that level of burn injury, the burns would be nothing more than an injury noted when the body parts of the corpse were recovered.

Levels of burn injury in individuals surviving an explosive detonation are under 30%. - Individuals suffering burns from HE above that 30% would typically also suffer various traumatic amputations and internal injuries that would make survival highly unlikely outside of immediate trauma care.

The injuries you cite are very consistent with being inside a structure that failed.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that his interpretation of exactly what happened before he lost consciousness must be true. Even an expulsion of fire produced by the cheap and easily traceable explosives you cite did not literally have to be close enough to touch Ron for him to have gotten burns and get hit in the head by something to make him unconscious. Keep in mind that Ron thinks he lost consciousness by getting hit on the head by something. What's more likely, the object that hit him in the head originates from the ground floor and somehow related to the expulsion of fire and other heat he saw a fraction of time earlier, or that he was hit by a small piece of debris falling from the top? He seems to have been trapped in an area where deadly debris could not hit him.
 
MicahJava said:
You are assuming that his interpretation of exactly what happened before he lost consciousness must be true. Even an expulsion of fire produced by the cheap and easily traceable explosives you cite did not literally have to be close enough to touch Ron for him to have gotten burns and get hit in the head by something to make him unconscious. Keep in mind that Ron thinks he lost consciousness by getting hit on the head by something. What's more likely, the object that hit him in the head originates from the ground floor and somehow related to the expulsion of fire and other heat he saw a fraction of time earlier, or that he was hit by a small piece of debris falling from the top? He seems to have been trapped in an area where deadly debris could not hit him.
Click to expand...

Before I get to the "assuming" issue, let's hear from you about what "Cheap and Easily traceable" means.

In the assumption sweepstakes, you're so far in the lead the rest of us can't see you.

You assume "fireballs" = explosives. I provide visual evidence to the contrary. I pose the question of what materials were proven to be on the scene that would produce fireballs, and you run for the tall grass and deflect with a video of a CD that bolsters my evidence and refutes yours.

You bring up specific injuries to an individual. I explain why the injuries noted are not consistent w/ blast injuries. You clearly assume that no other mechanism was present that could have caused those injuries, and you're still not answering the simple question I asked "what materials were known to be present that would produce fireballs?"

Is this going to turn into another example of you running away from answering simple questions related to your assertions?

It didn't work with "Pin-the-Headwound" on the drawing or what "The world's best snipers" had to say about LHO's marksmanship and I strongly suspect it won't cut it in this thread either.

The question of the day remains:

"What materials were known to be present that would produce fireballs?"

Run away from it at your own risk.
 
MicahJava said:
...For example, they imply that explosions that cause fire were not seen with the WTC. We know this is false. Want witnesses who saw fireballs DURING THE ACTUAL COLLAPSE shooting out of the ground floors? Look no further than Ron DeFranceso or reporter Carol Martin. DeFrancesco even had the burns to prove it!
...
Click to expand...

MicahJava said:
You are assuming that his [DeFrancesco's] interpretation of exactly what happened before he lost consciousness must be true...
Click to expand...
That's some pretty funny stuff. Only a really committed CTist could cite as evidence for his scenario the testimony of a witness which the CTist then must imply may not be "exactly what happened" for it to work. That's gold, Jerry, gold, I tellya!
 
turingtest said:
That's some pretty funny stuff. Only a really committed CTist could cite as evidence for his scenario the testimony of a witness which the CTist then must imply may not be "exactly what happened" for it to work. That's gold, Jerry, gold, I tellya!
Click to expand...

Yup. It sounded just that ridiculous. This is getting into CIT territory.
 
turingtest said:
That's some pretty funny stuff. Only a really committed CTist could cite as evidence for his scenario the testimony of a witness which the CTist then must imply may not be "exactly what happened" for it to work. That's gold, Jerry, gold, I tellya!
Click to expand...

He has his injuries as evidence for what he remembers. So we know for sure that somehow there was some kind of a fiery explosion on the ground floor.
 
BStrong said:
Before I get to the "assuming" issue, let's hear from you about what "Cheap and Easily traceable" means.

In the assumption sweepstakes, you're so far in the lead the rest of us can't see you.

You assume "fireballs" = explosives. I provide visual evidence to the contrary. I pose the question of what materials were proven to be on the scene that would produce fireballs, and you run for the tall grass and deflect with a video of a CD that bolsters my evidence and refutes yours.

You bring up specific injuries to an individual. I explain why the injuries noted are not consistent w/ blast injuries. You clearly assume that no other mechanism was present that could have caused those injuries, and you're still not answering the simple question I asked "what materials were known to be present that would produce fireballs?"

Is this going to turn into another example of you running away from answering simple questions related to your assertions?

It didn't work with "Pin-the-Headwound" on the drawing or what "The world's best snipers" had to say about LHO's marksmanship and I strongly suspect it won't cut it in this thread either.

The question of the day remains:

"What materials were known to be present that would produce fireballs?"

Run away from it at your own risk.
Click to expand...

Um, silly, I already posted a video of a regular explosive demolition that produced fiery explosions.
 
MicahJava said:
Um, silly, I already posted a video of a regular explosive demolition that produced fiery explosions.
Click to expand...
Um, silly. Were explosive demolition charges known to be present at the WTC?

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
 
Then what is the official story on the things seen by Ron DiFrancesco and Carol Marin?

Sent from my early 2000's HP Laptop using Prayer
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Um, silly, I already posted a video of a regular explosive demolition that produced fiery explosions.
Click to expand...

It produced a flash, not a fireball of the type cited by your favorite sources.

Still running away from the question - "What materials were known to be present that would produce fireballs?"

It didn't work in the JFK thread. It won't work here, and for free bonus points towards your night master fact avoidance wings - let's hear from you about what "Cheap and Easily traceable" means."

You wrote it, now you get to explain it.
 
MicahJava said:
Then what is the official story on the things seen by Ron DiFrancesco and Carol Marin?
Click to expand...
Try answering the question:

What materials were known to be present that would produce fireballs?

Once you find the correct answer (it's not difficult!), you have practically answered your own question!

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
 
MicahJava said:
Then what is the official story on the things seen by Ron DiFrancesco and Carol Marin?

Sent from my early 2000's HP Laptop using Prayer
Click to expand...

I have no idea.

Your sources, your problem.

Might want to work on your responses to the questions on the table.
 
Oystein said:
Try answering the question:

What materials were known to be present that would produce fireballs?

Once you find the correct answer (it's not difficult!), you have practically answered your own question!

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Do you think jet fuel had something to do with it?

Sent from my NeXT Computer through sadomasochism
 
MicahJava said:
Do you think jet fuel had something to do with it?

Sent from my NeXT Computer through sadomasochism
Click to expand...

Don't be coy.

Somebody playing for time may use coyness as a defense, but it does their argument no good.

It's unflattering.

Try answering the two questions I posed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom