Trouble in Conspiradroid Land

[pomeroo]

Really?

Not a one?

Maybe we lack the arrogance to claim we have all the answers!

Of course you don't have any shortage in that department so you are quite comfortable making such absurb statements.

MM

Well, MM, your falsehoods have been exposed on so many other issues, you may as well take a crack at explaining what ALL demolition experts get wrong. Start with either Brent Blanchard's paper or the seismic data from the Lamont-Doherty labs.

 

[Alt+F4]

Fact: wtc 7 was a controlled demolition anyone with half a brain can see that

Evidence please?

1. Names of the persons who planted the demolitions.
2. Names of the PAPD officers who allowed the perpetrators access to the building.
3. Dates and times when the demolitions were planted.
4. Types of explosives used and where they were planted in the building.
5. Names of the persons who set off the explosives on 9/11 and by what means they did it.

If you don't have the answers to these questions, then how could you possibly know that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

I've seen your photograph on your website. You look like a young Tony Blair therefore you ARE the son of Tony Blair. Why? Because I say so.

 

[pomeroo]

Mindreading. That must be worth a cool million bucks eh Dave?

Danny Jowenko looked, he saw, he made his call.

He researched, he looked again, he made the same call.

Skeptics saw, got upset, put whatever lame spin they could on it!

Jowenko was still the expert...the skeptics were still the stubborn fools,

MM

So, how did the "expert" go so far wrong when he stated that the collapses of the Twin Towers did not resemble demolitions at all? He says that he has "no problems" with the mainstream account of planes crashing into the buildings, causing their eventual collapses.

Take your time.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Mindreading. That must be worth a cool million bucks eh Dave?

Danny Jowenko looked, he saw, he made his call.

He researched, he looked again, he made the same call.

Skeptics saw, got upset, put whatever lame spin they could on it!

Jowenko was still the expert...the skeptics were still the stubborn fools,

MM

so do you agree or disagree with jowenkos statements on WTC 1 and 2?

 

[uk_dave]

Mindreading. That must be worth a cool million bucks eh Dave?

Danny Jowenko looked, he saw, he made his call.

He researched, he looked again, he made the same call.

Skeptics saw, got upset, put whatever lame spin they could on it!

Jowenko was still the expert...the skeptics were still the stubborn fools,

MM

Commision a report by a reputeable firm of demolition experts and publish the report for review by their peers.

Then I might listen.

Until then, all you've got is one demolition contractor who believes wtc7 was cd because he believes it was possible for it to be cd.

That aint good enough.

 

[jackchit]

No, the collapses of the Twin Towers were not demolitions, according to Jowenko.

Why he holds his bizarre views on WTC 7 is a mystery, but an unimportant one. When NIST releases its comprehensive report this summer, conspiracy liars will reject it without reading it.

We rationalists hate the slanders you fantasists heap on the family members of the jihadists' victims. We hate your all-out assault on reason and logic. Fact-free scoundrels like yourself poison the public discourse with your pernicious falsehoods and then scamper off when challenged.

Remember, you're the bad guys and you will lose.

Remember your bumble bee quote, you can make a report that proves bumble bees cannot fly yet as we all know from our own eyes they can.
Well the same applies to wtc7 you can make up all sorts of crap as to why it fell but when you look with your own eyes you can see it falls perfectly into its own footprint, a classic CD tell.
You know what a tell is ronny? its a poker term for when someone is lying.
Now you should be ashamed of yourself ronny boy and you should be asking why this occured not just whoreing yourself to a fairytale that makes no sense.
Your referal to the twin towers shows you are trying to divert the focus away from WTC7 which is an obvious CD.
Want me to come on hardfire? I guess not

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

He researched, he looked again, he made the same call.

Do you know what his researched involved?

 

[uk_dave]

.... you can see it falls perfectly into its own footprint, a classic CD tell.

I love how you guys say this stuff with such certainty.

Been studying controlled demolition of 47 storey steel framed structures for long, have you?

 

[David Wong]

Do you know what his researched involved?

And why disregard all the hundreds of other experts in the world who contradict him?

 

[jackchit]

And why disregard all the hundreds of other experts in the world who contradict him?

Hundreds? name me 50.
it shouldn't be to hard as 50 is a fraction of 100's

 

[beachnut]

Fact: wtc 7 was a controlled demolition anyone with half a brain can see that no matter how many "bumble bee can't fly" reports you spew ad nausium.

That is a false fact, try again. You are missing the sound of RDX. Darn, no sound to support you, no evidence to support it, not a thing.

Saying WTC7 was a CD is a lie. Sorry, but when you have some evidence you can post a fact.

Why are truthers fact less people with no capacity to research 9/11 with knowledge and judgment? Try another fact, this one is not.

I have yet see a fact that is real from the truthers, have you?

 

[pomeroo]

Remember your bumble bee quote, you can make a report that proves bumble bees cannot fly yet as we all know from our own eyes they can.
Well the same applies to wtc7 you can make up all sorts of crap as to why it fell but when you look with your own eyes you can see it falls perfectly into its own footprint, a classic CD tell.

Why are your eyes to be trusted? You are quite unintelligent and you have no background in demolition. I'm an avid amateur card magician. I'll bet that I can employ certain sleights right under your nose and you won't notice a thing. Demolition experts say that the collapse of WTC 7 does not resemble a demolition; you say it does. They're smarter than you and they know much more. Why are you right? Where do they make their mistakes?

You know what a tell is ronny? its a poker term for when someone is lying.

Your definition is incorrect. By the way, I am, in all immodesty, a far stronger poker player than you. I will say no more on the subject.

Now you should be ashamed of yourself ronny boy and you should be asking why this occured not just whoreing yourself to a fairytale that makes no sense.

The fairy tale is fitting the collapse of WTC 7 into your imaginary conspiracy. Now, there's something that makes no sense!

Twoofer: You're trapped! Tell us why you blew up WTC 7.

Member of IVC: Purely for the hell of it.

Twoofer: C'mon, now, what was the real reason?

IVCer: My imagination fails me. Suggest a possible motive.

Your referal to the twin towers shows you are trying to divert the focus away from WTC7 which is an obvious CD.

The Twin Towers are at the heart of the conspiracy liars' insane and pernicious fantasy. WTC 7 is merely an afterthought. The loons switched to it in desperation as their other falsehoods were exposed and debunked. None of the liars can fit WTC 7 into their absurd conspiracy.

Want me to come on hardfire? I guess not

You guessed right. Ignoramuses recycling discredited nonsense are a dime-a-dozen.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Remember your bumble bee quote, you can make a report that proves bumble bees cannot fly yet as we all know from our own eyes they can.
Well the same applies to wtc7 you can make up all sorts of crap as to why it fell but when you look with your own eyes you can see it falls perfectly into its own footprint, a classic CD tell.

But if you actually watch a flying bee from a distance, you can't see it's wings. It looks like it's just levitating to-and-fro.

By your twisted logic, it would then be appropriate to posit that bees don't actually have wings.

 

[steve s]

...but when you look with your own eyes you can see it falls perfectly into its own footprint, a classic CD tell.

Oh really? Tell that to the people who died in the collapse of the Sampoong department store in Seoul, Korea. It collapsed straight down. Are you going to claim it was a CD too?

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/channel/blog/2005/09/explorer_collapse.html

BTW, didn't the wreckage of WTC7 completely block the street that ran along side it? That would be tough to do if it collapsed entirely in its own footprint.

Steve S.

 

[bje]

"Fact: wtc 7 was a controlled demolition anyone with half a brain can see that no matter how many "bumble bee can't fly" reports you spew ad nausium."

Yet you are wholly incapable of presenting any evidence, jackchit. We listen to your claims that WTC 7 collapsed in 6+ seconds when you know the videos clearly show WTC 7 collapsed in 13+ seconds.

You don't have the guts to admit you're completely wrong, either.

 

[Travis]

Jackchit if we are to proceed down the road of discussing the collapse of WTC7 I think we need to do this in an ordered manner.

1) First summarize what the proposed mechanism for collapse and the predicted sequence of events were in the NIST WTC7 draft report.

2) Acknowledge whether or not you agree that the proposed scenario in the NIST draft report, if it had actually occurred, would have led to the predicted collapse event.

3a) If you say the NIST proposal is impossible (and again remember that we are not yet considering if they actually happened only if the hypothetical situation would lead to a building collapsing) then please provide the reasons why you don't think the building would collapse under those circumstances.

3b) If you concede that the NIST proposal is sound but you don't think the actual circumstances matched those in the NIST proposal then provide the counter evidence that this is so.

4) Having established your belief/non-belief in the NIST mechanism you will have to propose a scenario for the collapse of WTC7 that is more plausible and matches known evidence.

5) Upon completion of the previous steps you would now have to present a motive for someone to do what you claim they did.

6) After establishing a motive the next step is to provide evidence on how the person with the motive executed their plan and had it match the collapse scenario as outlined in step #4.

7) When all the previous steps are completed you still need to explain why the entire hypothetical scenario makes more sense and is more likely to have happened than all other possible scenarios.

 

[bje]

Correct. Not one.

Really?

Not a one?

Correct. Not one.

Maybe we lack the arrogance to claim we have all the answers!

No, your arrogance is that you claim the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. And that "9/11 was an inside job."

Without real evidence. That is your display of supreme arrogance, MM.

Of course you don't have any shortage in that department so you are quite comfortable making such absurb statements.

You just illustrated my point very well for me, MM. You have no evidence.

 

[Dave_46]

<snip>
when you look with your own eyes you can see it falls perfectly into its own footprint,
<snip>

Do you know what snowshoes are?

The buildings fell in their own footprints only if the buildings were wearing snowshoes.

 

[beachnut]

Hundreds? name me 50.
it shouldn't be to hard as 50 is a fraction of 100's

Truthers have 0.00067 percent of all US engineer behind them. Most engineers, 99.99plus percent, are not in the truth movement.

Same with pilots. P4T have about 30 pilots. I will let you figure out the percent, but the AF produced up to 2000 pilots in the 60 and 70s, and up to 500 a year. A few failure pilots have joined the liars of 9/11 truth.

It appears most of the professionals in the truth movement have some sort of political bias or have gone off the deep end, this is a big tell.

Unless I have missed someone, there have been not facts to support the 9/11 truth movement. Show us someone who has a fact.

As we get further away from 9/11, there will be people like Tenant who will say he warned Bush about a big thing coming. I have to go after those people and ask them why they did not put out a flyer to the pilots warning them their throats were going to be cut. I have to ask Tenant why he did not put agents on all the domestic flights to kill the terrorist, even if it was against the law. I seem to have a problem with liars, if I had known 9/11 was coming I would have told the world and done something. I hate I told you so people who actually could have done something but now cover their backsides with lies. (what would you do if you were in charge of something like the CIA and you knew? I would tell and take care of business. When I was in charge I stopped stupid ideas and plans before people died, what did Tenant do?)

If you have some facts tell us. I you are just a CTer full of talk amuse us. But since you will never have a fact you will never have a fact to present, will you?. Facts will be useful, otherwise you are a fact less truther with nothing of substance to say or prove on 9/11. The movement is full of lies and false information, what makes you different?

No facts, the basic trouble. What is the next far out story? Has the CT world on 9/11 slowed? When the kids at LCF gain knowledge will some see the lies in the cult propaganda?

 

[The Great Hairy One]

But how can they do that while trying to reach level 60 in World of Warcraft!

HEY!!!

I have four lvl 60 characters.

Cheers,
TGHO