It's here in this link I keep posting. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456423&p=1066183060#post1066183060 And there's the fact that whatever is behind he gate-lifting device in this picture (if there is indeed something there) is too short to be a 757. http://www.911-strike.com/ldsxox1.gif The pro-official version posters on this thread won't acknowledge that the issue is even there... http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456924&page=4&p=1066208609#post1066208609 ...let alone address it. I can't get Blues63 to address this issue. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=452072&page=15&p=1066163607#post1066163607 This evidence must be extraordinary if pro-official version posters tap dance around it or ignore it instead of adddressing it.
you're VERY good at posting links but you're HORRIBLE posting actual data. maybe you should show a little more respect for your pet hobby and actually learn some of the info you spew on a regular basis
What makes you think I haven't learned it? I listened to what the guy in the video said and it was very easy to understand. I've learned it very well. Serious viewers who want to understand the issue at hand have clicked on the link and watched that part of the video. Blues63's refusing to do that is not rendering that argument invalid and he's not making thinking people think the argument is invalid by insisting that I summarize the argument before he'll take the time to listen to its being put forth in the video. It's just he way of avoiding it because it's too clear for him to try to obfuscate without looking silly. Let's hear you address it.
again, you post no data. you just post the videos and statements of OTHER people. i look forward to YOU actually posting info.
Click on this link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M Go to the 4:27:48 time mark and listen to the argument about the sagging trusses. I could take the time to summarize it but the video is much clearer than anything I could come up with. It's not that long. Go ahead. Listen to the argument in the video and address it. If you don't, you'll just look silly. You won't make the viewers who've clicked on the link and listened to the argument think that the argument is invalid. You're tactics are pretty lame.
no, no, no. you don't get it. its time for you to man up and provide some of your own data and arguments. do you have ANY? or do you just have a collection of old 9-11 Truther videos.
Translation: The info in that video is such clear proof of an inside job that I'll just look silly if I try to obfuscate it so I'd better tap dance around it instead of addressing it. If you're an objective truth-seeker, quit stalling and click on this link... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M ...and go to the 4:27:48 time mark and listen to the argument about the sagging trusses and address the issue.
Hypocrite much? I have yet to see any legitimate data or any argument from you that's meaningful, attacking those who haven't bought the OCT which includes starting a silly thread called "9-11 Truth Movement is dead" is not anything meaningful. Note that I don't expect data on 9/11 from anyone other than the US government, the owner of all 9/11 data and whatever data that is available that the US government has not provided. What I do expect is all the data and what makes sense. A massive amount of 9/11 data is illegitimately classified and whatever they have provided is contradictory and/or makes no sense when combined with all the data that is available.
"or do you just have a collection of old 9-11 Truther videos." Really ..... anyone could say the same about the debunker videos, apply LOGIC to the events of 9/11/2001 then you will see.
logic dictates the towers collapsed due to impact structural damage, heat, weakened steel, dynamic forces, and gravity.
Please see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjvCNDF4RYw and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNJS0viOc-o
So, another argument from authority based on false claims. Do go away with this junk, there's a good chap. Truther tales are irrational, illogical and moronic and that won't change no matter who supports them. 9/11 truth promote whackjob theories and lunatic tales which they are unable to prove.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNJS0viOc-o is this more to your expectations as to a scientific approach?
You have to sit through the dumb video and then try to sort out the poster's point. For some reason they're unable to state their point. Weird. That is why I have Scott on 'ignore'-too much spam with no stated point.
The video I posted introduces the topic in the first 15 seconds and its relevant to the topic at hand. Bottom line here, the collapse of WTC1, 2 could not possibly have happened as was alleged, that is without help from an engineered demolition.
But controlled demolition didn't occur on 9/11 so your incredulity is unwarranted. Can you see charges going off? I can't
the fact that YOU do not see charges going off in a very selective bit of video ..... sez nothing. what is very relevant here is the fact that the result of CD is total destruction of the building and in the case of WTC1, 2 & 7 the destruction was total. Therefore, given the fact that it is known to be EXTREMELY RARE, for any fire & structural failure to produce total destruction of anything without there having been an intent to cause total destruction. the three examples of buildings totally destroyed, begs the question, why not CD as the cause of the destruction? BTW: just because it doesn't fit YOUR notion of what a CD should look like, doesn't rule out CD there are a multitude of different ways to skin the same cat.
Well, that was just a collection of logical fallacies, and a poor evaluation of the gif to boot, but predictably 'truther'. So much for your talents in logic. LOLOL You have the burden of proof here. Show me my ignorance, as your incredulity and specious logic isn't cutting it for me.
"Show me my ignorance," Oh My, it doesn't look like a controlled demolition ..... however it has the exact same result as a controlled demolition and given the fact that forensic investigators consider any structure fire where the building is completely destroyed, to be highly suspicious, how about 3 skyscrapers all on the same day completely destroyed ?
Not like any I've examined. Where are the rolling explosions for a start? Yeah, gravity has that effect. A big red fish. The investigators didn't find it suspicious. Argument from incredulity fallacy. So, in essence you've nothing but incredulity masquerading as science. And that is why the truth movement will disappear up its own fundament.
For a "dead" movement, the regulars on this forum sure expend a LOT of energy attempting to support the official story.
To address just one bit, the argument about 3 skyscrapers totally destroyed on the same day, isn't just an argument from incredulity in that it is documented in NFPA standards that total destruction of any structure triggers suspicious of arson or other intent to destroy the structure. This is a known and documented feature of any investigation. If somebody were to be gambling in Vegas for example and in three successive bets on the roulette wheel, turned up a winner, I think people would begin to wonder what is going on, wouldn't you? I note that having followed the discussions for years, that it has been brought up in the past, that is the Verinage demolition technique, however, this is not a good analogy in that the verinage technique requires an engineered set-up to completely demolish a building. the fact is that the forces acting on the towers and 7 were NOT organized in any stretch of the imagination and therefore are not likely to produce complete demolition. Total collapse was the LEAST likely out-come of these events.
