• 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.

Truth hypothesis

tj15 said:
It's amazing how difficult it is for truthers to answer the question about what their hypothesis for 9/11 is.
Click to expand...


Yup. Four days and still not a single Twoofer has posted here - not even Red Ibis with a snarky one-liner. Gee, I wonder what might be keeping them away!
 
Truthers: I'm not even asking you to prove any parts of your hypothesis; I just want to know what you think the conspirators "grand plan" was.
 
tj15 said:
So the UL test included fireproofing?... But in reality, the fireproofing was blown off during the impacts?

Sorry... I know this is all old stuff. I just never really looked into the stuff about these experiments with how much the floors sagged.
Click to expand...

Yes it is amazing, the UL tests proved that the SOFP actually worked...amazing. I guess that is why the builders had it sprayed on in the first place...lol

TAM:)
 
You all have it wrong. It was the big bad wolf who blew the towers down, but since he is an illuminati, they hired Pixar to doctor up a CGI version with planes in it.
 
I've invited Jammonius to join in,but I'm not holding my breath.Bill Smith and the Critta will not join in either,because then they would have to provide a full and coherent theory but they haven't got one.
 
Truthers... I'm not even going to ask you to prove the different parts of your hypothesis. I just want to know what you think the plan for 9/11 was.
 
good luck with that

tj15 said:
Do any truthers here have a plausible hypothesis for what they think happened on 9/11?

Sorry if this has been asked multiple times before.
Click to expand...
Here was my attempt, just in case you'd like to see how it went.

This is actually how I found the jref forum, from research related to my insistence that 'truthers' on another forum give some type of affirmative theory. The most typical responses were "we don't need no stinking hypothesis - we are just asking questions" or the ever-popular "that's why we need a new investigation."
 
Let's try this:

Truthers, please answer these questions...

1. Were planes used on 9/11?
2. Were the towers/WTC7 brought down with CD?
3. Was thermite what brought down the towers/WTC7?
4. Were conventional demolition explosives what brought down the towers/WTC7?
5. Were the planes remote controlled?
6. Were "terrorists" on board the planes?
7. Were the calls and recordings on the planes fake?
8. Did an airplane hit the Pentagon?
9. Was flight 93 shot down?
10. Was a shootdown of flight 93 a part of the "plan?"
11. According to the "plan," did flight 93 have a target?

These questions should do for now. They are all yes/no questions.
 
tj15, I think you and I are holding a lonely vigil here!

Jammonius has posted on another thread (Missing our Twoofs) that your question: "Do any truthers here have a plausible hypothesis for what they think happened on 9/11?" is actually incredibly biased, leading, fallacious, mendacious, salacious, deceptive, demeaning, derogatory, convoluted, contradictory, contraceptive and downright evilllll. I note that he didn't actually post his reply here, even though he had obviously read the thread.

So at least one Twoofer is aware of tj15's thread, but he won't post on it. Who knew!
 
Nearly 3 weeks now and still not a single Truther post. If any lurkers remain out there, draw your own conclusions. Meanwhile, the sound of crickets and rolling tumbleweed, along with shutters flapping in the wind, continues to amuse.
 
Fonebone offered a hypothesis

carlitos said:
Here was my attempt, just in case you'd like to see how it went.

This is actually how I found the jref forum, from research related to my insistence that 'truthers' on another forum give some type of affirmative theory. The most typical responses were "we don't need no stinking hypothesis - we are just asking questions" or the ever-popular "that's why we need a new investigation."
Click to expand...

Here was my attempt, just in case you'd like to see how it went.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5431133#post5431133
How do you think this attempt went Carlitos ? --Fonebone

Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time __Bovee
 
Last edited:
designed to easily penetrated steel bunker doors

DGM said:
The request was for a "plausible hypothesis".

Why you dig up the "flying pig" is beyond me. :confused:
Click to expand...


I agree-The hypothesis is quite beyond you and so you quite naturally label the hypothesis "implausible" .
Confused ?
Here is a cameo of a modern turbofan jet engine powered " flying pig "--
An AGM86D CALCM cruise missile.
363814b4cfbded00f5.jpg


Go back to your video game. -Fonebone
 
Fonebone said:
I agree-The hypothesis is quite beyond you and so you quite naturally label the hypothesis "implausible" .
Confused ?
Here is a cameo of a modern turbofan jet engine powered " flying pig "--
An AGM86D CALCM cruise missile.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814b4cfbded00f5.jpg[/qimg]

Go back to your video game. -Fonebone
Click to expand...
Except the engines (at least parts of them) were recovered and are way to large to fit your "hypothesis".

Sorry, back to your delusion.

ETA: Not many missiles also carry landing gear (also recovered). :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom