• 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.

No excuse for not testing for explosives

Dommyboysinjapan, the quote button is in the lower right corner. Use it.
 
What's amazing is (at this current date 2010) how completely ill informed the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice are.:boxedin:
Once again it's welcome to 2006.

Coming so late to the party, by now you would think they would look at the counter arguments.
Most of all I blame the teacher here. Although you would think they would possess the basic fundaments to fact check these long refuted claims.
Still, I'd love to see more "Scholars". And most importantly those higher up on the disinformation chain.
 
Last edited:
dommyboysinjapan said:
twinstead,

Being scientific means being thorough and looking at all possibilities not satisfying the majority.
Click to expand...

Being scientific first and foremost means going from primary facts to conclusions through sound logic.

The Truth Movement is very much the anti thesis of science.

You and your fellow delusional clowns go from (ignorant) opinions to conclusions through logical fallacies. You and your fellow clowns have not got a shred of evidence in support of your theories.
 
dommyboy, you can't mean being scientific means looking at ALL possibilities, no matter how unlikely, do you? If not, then were does one draw the line at reasonable and unreasonable possibilities?
 
timhau said:
But hey, science means we have to look at every possibility.

I'm currently preparing a peer-reviewed paper about the role of leprechauns and pots of gold in 9/11.
Click to expand...


Leprechauns are more plausible than anything the troofers have. At least leprechauns might have an IRA link, which at least gets the terrorist connection correct.

Plus I saw a scary movie once that had an evil one in it.
 
T.A.M.,

"you look like an Angry Young Man."

What did I say that sounded angry? Be specific.

"It is not an UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM, it is an account of the events, and a well supported theory based on in most cases hard PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, and in all cases, supported by ENORMOUSLY COMPLEX computer modeling."

OK What "hard physical evidence" has ever been provided to support the conspiracy theory that UBL and his Al Qaeda/ Al CIA-da group acted alone to perpetrate the events of 9/11? Hmmmm I think it is pretty safe to assume that this question will receive no response. lol

Was this the same "complex computer modeling" that was done to recreate the angles of shots from Lee Harvy Oswald? Good old proof by imaginative computer models. How nice.

"The 9/11 commission and its report, as a whole, tell a very accurate and precise account of what occurred on 9/11. Out of thousands of pages, and a report of over 500 pages, your high priest David Ray Griffin could only come up with about 100 ommissions or distortions, ALMOST ALL OF WHICH have since been answered, debunked, or deemed irrelevant. You can bad mouth the report all you want, but you can't, by a LONG STRETCH, prove any significant segment of it wrong...CAN YOU????"

Hmmm where should I start? How about the nonsense that the black boxes were never recovered. Please tell me any aircraft crash scene where none of the blck boxes are recovered (no fdr or cvr).
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Hmmm where should I start? How about the nonsense that the black boxes were never recovered. Please tell me any aircraft crash scene where none of the blck boxes are recovered (no fdr or cvr).
Click to expand...

Please tell me any other aircraft crash scene that involved burying the crash site in a million tons of burning rubble.
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
OK What "hard physical evidence" has ever been provided to support the conspiracy theory that UBL and his Al Qaeda/ Al CIA-da group acted alone to perpetrate the events of 9/11? Hmmmm I think it is pretty safe to assume that this question will receive no response. lol
Click to expand...

Shifting goalposts? Wether Al Qaida is behind the attacks or not is irrelevant to the discussion if explosives were used or not.

Hmmm where should I start? How about the nonsense that the black boxes were never recovered. Please tell me any aircraft crash scene where none of the blck boxes are recovered (no fdr or cvr).
Click to expand...

How many aircraft crashes have you seen where the airplanes crashed into 110 story skyscrapers, the wreckages then being crushed by said skyscrapers an covered in the smoldering debris of those buildings for months? I recall two.

Also, for crying out loud, use the quote button.
 
Last edited:
timhau,

"I'm currently preparing a peer-reviewed paper about the role of leprechauns and pots of gold in 9/11"

Were 'leprechauns' used in 1993 by Al Qaeda? Were there multiple witness reports of hearing noises similar to 'leprechauns'? Were there any peer tested papers about the theory of 'leprechauns'? Are there any major groups of engineers and architects with over 1000 members that acknowledge the use of 'leprechauns' as being a valid hypothesis? Were there any 'leprechauns' found in the WTC dust by independent investigators?
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
Hmmm where should I start? How about the nonsense that the black boxes were never recovered. Please tell me any aircraft crash scene where none of the blck boxes are recovered (no fdr or cvr).
Click to expand...

Are you by any chance a "no-planer"?
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
My name is Dom Shenher and I am very proud to belong to the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
Click to expand...

Hi! DOM! Super to see you!

Scholars? You say? Sounds authoritative, like if someone wanted to appeal to an authority they could say that they were an authority like the fine folks at Scholars for the Investigation of an Inside Jobby Job!

A member! wowsers! lets take a look:

Dominic Shenher BA Sociology

FAIL BOAT
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
timhau,

"I'm currently preparing a peer-reviewed paper about the role of leprechauns and pots of gold in 9/11"

Were 'leprechauns' used in 1993 by Al Qaeda? Were there multiple witness reports of hearing noises similar to 'leprechauns'? Were there any peer tested papers about the theory of 'leprechauns'? Are there any major groups of engineers and architects with over 1000 members that acknowledge the use of 'leprechauns' as being a valid hypothesis? Were there any 'leprechauns' found in the WTC dust by independent investigators?
Click to expand...

Thermite wasn't found either.
 
How many aircraft crashes have you seen where the airplanes crashed into 110 story skyscrapers, the wreckages then being crushed by said skyscrapers an covered in the smoldering debris of those buildings for months? I recall two.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you conveniently leave out the other two, particularly Flight 93 which reportedly landed in such soft land that the majority of the 95% of the aircraft that was reportedly recovered was said to have been found underground. Guess those titanium and reinforced steel data recorders were much more delicate than the dna that was reportedly recovered.
(cue the eye rolls)
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
T.A.M.,

"you look like an Angry Young Man."

What did I say that sounded angry? Be specific.

"It is not an UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM, it is an account of the events, and a well supported theory based on in most cases hard PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, and in all cases, supported by ENORMOUSLY COMPLEX computer modeling."

OK What "hard physical evidence" has ever been provided to support the conspiracy theory that UBL and his Al Qaeda/ Al CIA-da group acted alone to perpetrate the events of 9/11? Hmmmm I think it is pretty safe to assume that this question will receive no response. lol

Was this the same "complex computer modeling" that was done to recreate the angles of shots from Lee Harvy Oswald? Good old proof by imaginative computer models. How nice.

"The 9/11 commission and its report, as a whole, tell a very accurate and precise account of what occurred on 9/11. Out of thousands of pages, and a report of over 500 pages, your high priest David Ray Griffin could only come up with about 100 ommissions or distortions, ALMOST ALL OF WHICH have since been answered, debunked, or deemed irrelevant. You can bad mouth the report all you want, but you can't, by a LONG STRETCH, prove any significant segment of it wrong...CAN YOU????"
Click to expand...


Good old "See no evidence, hear no evidence. LALALALALALALALA."

Let us see. Boarding video's. ATC traffic ("We got planes"), passengers and crew calling from the planes, suicide video's, the documented history of the Hamburg cell. CVR data. Testimony of flight instructors. UBL Kandahar tape.

And that contrasts nicely with the Truther clowns having exactly zero bits of information in support of their theories.


Hmmm where should I start? How about the nonsense that the black boxes were never recovered. Please tell me any aircraft crash scene where none of the blck boxes are recovered (no fdr or cvr).
Click to expand...

Air Craft Crash where no black boxes where recovered? 2009 Air France 447 crash, 1992 Amsterdam El-Al crash. from the top of my head..
 
dommyboysinjapan said:
timhau,

"I'm currently preparing a peer-reviewed paper about the role of leprechauns and pots of gold in 9/11"

Were 'leprechauns' used in 1993 by Al Qaeda? Were there multiple witness reports of hearing noises similar to 'leprechauns'? Were there any peer tested papers about the theory of 'leprechauns'? Are there any major groups of engineers and architects with over 1000 members that acknowledge the use of 'leprechauns' as being a valid hypothesis? Were there any 'leprechauns' found in the WTC dust by independent investigators?
Click to expand...

You see, here's the problem: you think the vanity papers that you call 'peer tested' are actually, legitimately peer reviewed. We disagree. You think your 1000 member group really represents the rank-and-file engineering and architectural professional community world-wide. We disagree. You think "independent investigators" REALLY found something suspicious in the dust at the WTC. We disagree.

So where does that leave us? You realize that A LOT of qualified people disagree with you and your 1000 (and we know that not even close to all 1000 are legitimately qualified, but that will be our little secret, okay?). Christ, the contributers to the NIST report alone represent pretty much the cream of the engineering crop of the US.

Are all those other experts wrong, and your little band of 1000 are right? Is that really what you think?
 
Last edited:
You know, I don't even know why we're bothering. He's not even forwarding any sort of real evidence for his claim of thermite use. All he's trying to do is prove thermite via negation of the replies to unsupported assertions.

I suggest that folks stick to one question from here on out: What is your evidence for explosives or thermite use ("or" because, as has been pointed out seemingly a thousand times before, thermite is not an explosive)? And let him try to make an original argument from there.

--------

ETA: And in seeing his last post above, let's also have him stick to the single topic of explosives. The issues surrounding Flight 93 do not disprove the NIST study on the towers collapses, nor do they prove intentional demolitions of the towers. He's just splattering truther talking points all over the place. Everyone should make him stick to one point.
 
Last edited:
dommyboysinjapan said:
It's funny how you conveniently leave out the other two, particularly Flight 93 which reportedly landed in such soft land that the majority of the 95% of the aircraft that was reportedly recovered was said to have been found underground. Guess those titanium and reinforced steel data recorders were much more delicate than the dna that was reportedly recovered.
(cue the eye rolls)
Click to expand...
Those boxes were found. Both from "93" and the FDR (CVR was found but unreadable) from "77".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom