Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 761433 Views
*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #120 on: February 15, 2017, 02:42:39 AM »
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #121 on: February 15, 2017, 02:44:15 AM »
Quote
does that sound like controlled demolition to you?

Sorry Rayzor but you lowered the bar first.


So rather than address the questions I raised, you resort to irrelevant videos,   ask the company who did that demolition,  where did they place the charges?  I'm going to bet it wasn't up in the top half of the building.


 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #122 on: February 15, 2017, 02:46:58 AM »
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #123 on: February 15, 2017, 02:50:19 AM »
You keep asking about controlled demo...If my company were hired to do a demo (which we aren't a company that does that, but would only require a few certs on top what we already have to do so) here is how I would do it.

I would use the fact the building was almost vacant and prep for months or a year the buildings in advance. (Remember, most foot traffic in the buildings was from Subway traffic below. Buildings only became 70 percent occupied months before the destruction with companies that just "appeared"..And some how many of those same companies helped with the clean up and removal of materials after the destruction...CCA public records).

I would wire shape charges in lower levels (1000s of reports of explosions) reversed directional on the I beams, standard in cuts on the outers.

Upper levels, I would run thermite in a horizontal v in staggered directions varying ever 4th floor. Capped with a small load c4 charge on each v converged tail.

I would use the planes/missles ECT as a diversionary tactic..No different than a magician. After letting that simmer for a bit, I would then drop the towers. Controlling from building 7, I would start the sequence...First hit the thermite for show and weakening..(reports of liquid metal 3 minutes before collapse.)..

Then timed upper c4 charges to blow out the cut Vs....Then hit the shape charges on the ground floors...Then the mid floors c4...And down she comes.

Rinse and repeat....

Then when all looks good, do the same with evidence/building 7 and hope no one asks why the hell that one fell (should have thought the last one through)



Beauty of a cut...But thermite is very nasty burning and leaves a ton of slag..

It would be a work of art if it wasnt the essence of evil...
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #124 on: February 15, 2017, 02:52:54 AM »
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?

.

Regardless of what you think you've "got" on BHS the fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?


Edit.

If you want speculation and not facts I could fill this thread with pages of the occult connections/coincidences alone.

Or I can talk about shpayze lazers?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 02:57:01 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #125 on: February 15, 2017, 02:57:16 AM »
You keep asking about controlled demo...If my company were hired to do a demo (which we aren't a company that does that, but would only require a few certs on top what we already have to do so) here is how I would do it.

I would use the fact the building was almost vacant and prep for months or a year the buildings in advance. (Remember, most foot traffic in the buildings was from Subway traffic below. Buildings only became 70 percent occupied months before the destruction with companies that just "appeared"..And some how many of those same companies helped with the clean up and removal of materials after the destruction...CCA public records).

I would wire shape charges in lower levels (1000s of reports of explosions) reversed directional on the I beams, standard in cuts on the outers.

Upper levels, I would run thermite in a horizontal v in staggered directions varying ever 4th floor. Capped with a small load c4 charge on each v converged tail.

I would use the planes/missles ECT as a diversionary tactic..No different than a magician. After letting that simmer for a bit, I would then drop the towers. Controlling from building 7, I would start the sequence...First hit the thermite for show and weakening..(reports of liquid metal 3 minutes before collapse.)..

Then timed upper c4 charges to blow out the cut Vs....Then hit the shape charges on the ground floors...Then the mid floors c4...And down she comes.

Rinse and repeat....

Then when all looks good, do the same with evidence/building 7 and hope no one asks why the hell that one fell (should have thought the last one through)



Beauty of a cut...But thermite is very nasty burning and leaves a ton of slag..

It would be a work of art if it wasnt the essence of evil...

Let's be a bit clearer,  you are saying that's how you would do it,  ok,  I get that,   but you aren't quite committing to saying you think that's how it was done? 

Let's cut to the chase,   what's your theory as to how it was done?

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #126 on: February 15, 2017, 03:00:01 AM »
He's a lost cause man.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #127 on: February 15, 2017, 03:00:37 AM »
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?

You said we saw it....So it's true....Right?

Well I saw a plane pass into the building without leaving a mark..



I can show multiple videos of that happening....

So you just gave yourself reason to question it....Because what we "saw" was "impossible" right?

And fyi.... A CDMA phone call would be impossible in 2001 at that speed and altitude, I can bring 100 percent confirmation of that if you would like. It was too slow porting...There was a cycle word I can't remember what he used to be honest, it would get stuck in a spider web like loop.



Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #128 on: February 15, 2017, 03:03:23 AM »
Regardless of what you think you've "got" on BHS the fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?

No I'm not kidding on any of those points.   

How did the plane penetrating and exiting the building "violate the laws of physics"?   
How do you think the laws of thermodynamics were violated by the fires?

As far as free fall,  I've already covered that over and over,  go back and read my earlier answers.


If you want speculation and not facts I could fill this thread with pages of the occult connections/coincidences alone.

Or I can talk about shpayze lazers?

For some reason,  I find that the most truthful thing I've seen you post. 

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #129 on: February 15, 2017, 03:05:47 AM »
I can't believe this made it 5 pages. watch YouTube, or google, you'll find all the answers you need. at this point now all I'm reading is nonsense.

can't believe a building that wasn't even hit by a plane, just magically falls, like it was a controlled demo from debris. your kidding me with that right? just completely falls, seriously?

hahaha umm okay

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #130 on: February 15, 2017, 03:08:26 AM »
For some reason,  I find that the most truthful thing I've seen you post.



Someone bit off more than he can chew and is grasping at straws.

Edit.

I can't believe this made it 5 pages. watch YouTube, or google, you'll find all the answers you need. at this point now all I'm reading is nonsense.

can't believe a building that wasn't even hit by a plane, just magically falls, like it was a controlled demo from debris. your kidding me with that right? just completely falls, seriously?

hahaha umm okay

Rayzor is a trooper.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 03:12:28 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #131 on: February 15, 2017, 03:11:31 AM »
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?

You said we saw it....So it's true....Right?

Well I saw a plane pass into the building without leaving a mark..



I can show multiple videos of that happening....

So you just gave yourself reason to question it....Because what we "saw" was "impossible" right?

And fyi.... A CDMA phone call would be impossible in 2001 at that speed and altitude, I can bring 100 percent confirmation of that if you would like. It was too slow porting...There was a cycle word I can't remember what he used to be honest, it would get stuck in a spider web like loop.

Ok, let's be 100% clear on this,  you claim that the aircraft impacted the building and didn't leave a mark,  I want to be 100% sure, because last time I repeated what you said you falsely accused me of lying.

At what speed, altitude and location, do you think would it be impossible to make a CDMA call. Go ask your mate about CDMA before you get yourself in too deep,  I have a CDMA base station cell controller sitting on my workbench not 3 feet away from where I'm typing,  I'm planning on scavenging a few parts for an upcoming RF project.  It's pretty useless for anything else.  But I could fire it up and measure some times, If I had any CDMA handsets left.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #132 on: February 15, 2017, 03:15:15 AM »
For some reason,  I find that the most truthful thing I've seen you post.



Someone bit off more than he can chew and is grasping at straws.

Edit.

I can't believe this made it 5 pages. watch YouTube, or google, you'll find all the answers you need. at this point now all I'm reading is nonsense.

can't believe a building that wasn't even hit by a plane, just magically falls, like it was a controlled demo from debris. your kidding me with that right? just completely falls, seriously?

hahaha umm okay

Rayzor is a trooper.

I'm curious,  what do you think a straw man argument actually is?    Show me an example in this thread?
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #133 on: February 15, 2017, 03:24:54 AM »
For some reason,  I find that the most truthful thing I've seen you post.



Someone bit off more than he can chew and is grasping at straws.

Sad thing is, I have literally only said 2 percent of what I could on this....Haven't even made a dent...Just like the magic planes lol.


My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?

You said we saw it....So it's true....Right?

Well I saw a plane pass into the building without leaving a mark..



I can show multiple videos of that happening....

So you just gave yourself reason to question it....Because what we "saw" was "impossible" right?

And fyi.... A CDMA phone call would be impossible in 2001 at that speed and altitude, I can bring 100 percent confirmation of that if you would like. It was too slow porting...There was a cycle word I can't remember what he used to be honest, it would get stuck in a spider web like loop.

Ok, let's be 100% clear on this,  you claim that the aircraft impacted the building and didn't leave a mark,  I want to be 100% sure, because last time I repeated what you said you falsely accused me of lying.

At what speed, altitude and location, do you think would it be impossible to make a CDMA call. Go ask your mate about CDMA before you get yourself in too deep,  I have a CDMA base station cell controller sitting on my workbench not 3 feet away from where I'm typing,  I'm planning on scavenging a few parts for an upcoming RF project.  It's pretty useless for anything else.  But I could fire it up and measure some times, If I had any CDMA handsets left.


Well to be honest I thought you were talking about in real life...But yes..If you are talking about what we "saw" on television...Then yes...Didn't leave a mark..That is what we saw, I was just stating it.



Another amazing feat from a different "camera".


As for your CDMA , we are talking way more than a receiver rayzor. We need actual service. I don't need my buddy unless you just want to hear more technical terms. He helped me at multiple conferences, a VP at Ericsson...Came from Nortel(the company who built the actual trunk equipment in the trade centers, Actually survived the bombing years ago) before Ericsson bought them..we have build structures for their mobile services in areas with "fake trees" that hold the equipment...I am definitely not going to "get into anything"....

If you want to make a call...You have to be fully ported..The towers talk to each other, determine where to port you depending on your position. You must be authenticated etc etc etc...They do this "preemptively" otherwise your call would drop all the time...

Between altitude and speed...This would never happen, even if you struck gold and found service for a minute, you would never be allowed to place a call from not being authenticated (this was also before the 911 service lock outs we have now)....It would just continuously tower bounce....

Things are different now, but we are talking then..

Long story short...No captian...Ain't gonna happen.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 03:28:00 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #134 on: February 15, 2017, 03:26:56 AM »
straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

Where do you want to start?

The most compelling argument you have,   direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used would  be good.

Direct physical evidence of demolition charges?

Is this your way of saying you don't want to play anymore?

This is normal, no biggie...He is thinking he is leading me into a corner, but only cornering himself. I was dealing with this in college, he is about 600 debates behind lol. This rodeo is an old boring one.

Though I would say rayzor, please try to be a little more unique in your debate.

Anyways...As I have told many people before you, and I will tell many after you...I am only stating as a fact the buildings did not fall as stated.

I then suggest alternative theories based off available evidence for what brought them down, motivation, the who, ect.

So to confirm...If this were a court, I would present a purely factual case against the official report...Then a circumstantial case against the actual causation and aggressors.

As to you comment of "I saw the plane"....Reality doesn't work the way we saw it.



This is not reality.... rigid and brittle aluminum does not pass through concrete, steel vertical exoskeleton, steel horizontal exoskeleton reinforced with concrete, then we get into the real tough stuff that can flex and absorb impacts the central core inches of reinforced I beams...Pass through all of that times 2 all the way to the other side.

This is not trick photography, I have seen multiple angles of plane number 2 on professional reply equipment and watched it frame by frame more times I could stomach. There is always about 5-14 frame delay of where the plane literally goes inside the building..No mark, no debris.... Nothing....Sunny skies in new York...Then BOOM!! An explosion on the front and back.

What is left? A Wylie Coyote like imprint straight out of the cartoons...The EXACT width of the plane end to end.....

A third rate magic show is more convincing.

I am sure you will say something as "well they were going fast so that makes it possible" which is what NIST said to idiots they knew were just smart enough to know nothing at all, as well as the general uneducated public.

However, as people who work in the field know, you reach a point of diminished return on energy with any material, especially brittle rigid aluminum.

Once you get to a certain speed, you actually lose energy through atmospheric friction, heat, and many other factors at the point of impact per square inch. It spreads, not focuses. You can either look at aviation manuals, or see some cool experiments we did shooting aircraft aluminum at reinforced concrete and steel at over 1200 mph (more than double the speed reported, which was impossible in itself for a craft that size that low. Not only that, but controlled by idiots that couldn't even control a 100 mile-an-hour Cessna...But thank goodness their paper passport survived right on top of the wreckage so we knew who they were... titanium/reinforced steel and concrete/aluminum was the only thing that could be "vaporized"...The paper was too strong)

The planes would have been like porcelain to those buildings, not a magic knife that can literally cut through the building without even a mark. Then suddenly explode cartoon style.. Not to mention, that type of maneuverability is all but impossible at the proposed speeds and altitude, especially with am idiot navigating it.

I lost where I was....


Damn it...You see what I mean...I have too much info in my head, I get off on tangents.

As you say, you are bouncing all over the place.   Let's take it one step at a time. 

1. Do you agree there is no direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2.

2. You seem to be asserting that WTC1 and WTC2 were not hit by Boeing 767's of  AA11 and UA175,  be clear in what you are asserting.   You seem to be implying it's some kind of trick photography?

Personally, I like the second definition more.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 03:33:28 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #135 on: February 15, 2017, 03:37:01 AM »
straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

Personally, I like the second definition more.

In the context of a debate it's commonly the first definition that is used,  and as I suspected you didn't actually know that,
otherwise you would have given an example,  you seemed to imply that you thought a straw man was someone who grasped at straws.


Quote from: disputeone
Someone bit off more than he can chew and is grasping at straws.

Can't say I'm totally surprised.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #136 on: February 15, 2017, 03:43:43 AM »
You said we saw it....So it's true....Right?

Well I saw a plane pass into the building without leaving a mark..

Well to be honest I thought you were talking about in real life...But yes..If you are talking about what we "saw" on television...Then yes...Didn't leave a mark..That is what we saw, I was just stating it.

I'll defer to you on the CDMA,  I don't agree that it was impossible,  but I see no way to resolve the issue.  Let's move on to bigger issues.

Let's go back to the video of the aircraft impacting the building,  can you go to the next few frames,  you seem to stop just before the plane hits and use that as proof they didn't leave a mark,  the video evidence I've seen contradicts your assertion,   I won't link to it here,  you can find plenty of examples on line.

So are you claiming all those videos are somehow doctored?   What about the live tv coverage?

What the hell,  you linked to videos so why not. 



« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 03:47:55 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #137 on: February 15, 2017, 03:45:29 AM »
I've been here for quite a while, I have also posted on forums for quite some time. I know what a strawman argument is.



Quality.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #138 on: February 15, 2017, 03:48:00 AM »
No I find the NIST report well researched and complete. It does not bother me the data inputs utilized for modeling outcomes was never released so the results can be verified.

FTFY, you disingenuous _ _ _ _.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #139 on: February 15, 2017, 03:50:52 AM »
Posting up something just for rayzor...The TRUTH...



Fits the other video evidence you accept. (Since you keep ignoring me)


Though one serious question...Where IS the plane??



I have looked through all available public video evidence in high quality equipment for 100s of hours, and have never found one trace of a plane...Nothing on the ground???

Nothing in the building??

Where did it go?? Or was it that vaporized word?...That is NIST favorite word, the magic interchange right? Don't mind that has never happened ever in any plane crash...This was obviously a very magic day.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #140 on: February 15, 2017, 03:52:43 AM »
I've been here for quite a while, I have also posted on forums for quite some time. I know what a strawman argument is.
Quality.

It would seem you don't otherwise you  could have given me an example.  I think you are well out of your depth and clutching  at straws
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #141 on: February 15, 2017, 03:55:38 AM »
Posting up something just for rayzor...The TRUTH...



Fits the other video evidence you accept. (Since you keep ignoring me)


Though one serious question...Where IS the plane??



I have looked through all available public video evidence in high quality equipment for 100s of hours, and have never found one trace of a plane...Nothing on the ground???

Nothing in the building??

Where did it go?? Or was it that vaporized word?...That is NIST favorite word, the magic interchange right? Don't mind that has never happened ever in any plane crash...This was obviously a very magic day.

The plane was shredded by the impact,  did you learn nothing from the simulation?

If you want a serious argument,  then fine,  but stop with the road runner crap,  it makes you look like you aren't interested in the truth.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #142 on: February 15, 2017, 04:13:57 AM »
Rayzor, you really suck dude. Bhs and d1 are beating the fuck out you. I don't even know why they keep responding to you. They have offered plenty if evidence and you keep offering strawmen. You believe the governments stupid report, either for pay or due to brainwashing. You really suck.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #143 on: February 15, 2017, 04:21:02 AM »
Rayzor, you really suck dude. Bhs and d1 are beating the fuck out you. I don't even know why they keep responding to you. They have offered plenty if evidence and you keep offering strawmen. You believe the governments stupid report, either for pay or due to brainwashing. You really suck.

LOL

Thanks,  I appreciate that you haven't got a clue about the subject,  but please kick in with your valuable contributions whenever the drugs wear off enough that you can type.  Nice to see yet another who doesn't know what a straw man is,  you probably think it's something like a scarecrow.

PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #144 on: February 15, 2017, 04:27:10 AM »
straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

Personally, I like the second definition more.

In the context of a debate it's commonly the first definition that is used,  and as I suspected you didn't actually know that,
otherwise you would have given an example,  you seemed to imply that you thought a straw man was someone who grasped at straws.

It was a pun, you utter moron.

Thanks hoppy.

PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.

Notice he is still grasping at straws.

Consider the bolded text of my reply and you can see it is a literal strawman argument. That wasn't the only one you tried to pull.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 04:35:39 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #145 on: February 15, 2017, 04:28:54 AM »
Posting up something just for rayzor...The TRUTH...



Fits the other video evidence you accept. (Since you keep ignoring me)


Though one serious question...Where IS the plane??



I have looked through all available public video evidence in high quality equipment for 100s of hours, and have never found one trace of a plane...Nothing on the ground???

Nothing in the building??

Where did it go?? Or was it that vaporized word?...That is NIST favorite word, the magic interchange right? Don't mind that has never happened ever in any plane crash...This was obviously a very magic day.

The plane was shredded by the impact,  did you learn nothing from the simulation?

If you want a serious argument,  then fine,  but stop with the road runner crap,  it makes you look like you aren't interested in the truth.

And your blind acceptance of the NIST reports, despite the fact the data inputs used for modeling has not been released so the results can be replicated or falsified (i.e., SCIENTIFIC METHOD) is indicative of a total _ _ _ _ .

« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 04:31:34 AM by totallackey »

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #146 on: February 15, 2017, 04:30:58 AM »
PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.

My god is the NIST. Bow down and worship the NIST.

FTFY, you sick _ _ _ _.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #147 on: February 15, 2017, 04:36:02 AM »
PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.

My god is the NIST. Bow down and worship the NIST.

FTFY, you sick _ _ _ _.

Keep up the good work totallackey,  you are making a compelling case reinforcing my view of 911 conspiracy theories. 

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #148 on: February 15, 2017, 04:39:50 AM »
Actually he raised a very important and relevant point.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #149 on: February 15, 2017, 04:48:25 AM »
Actually he raised a very important and relevant point.

No he posted a selfie and mumbled something about NIST model inputs.

I think he was looking for this http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101013

But I doubt he would know what to do with it.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.