Yes and yes and obviously you have no clue what they said you cannot quote them. You have now admitted you were wrong.
Truther tactics involve avoiding facts and denying that they dreamed up something they never read which is precisely what you are doing. And of course making claims they cannot substantiate once again your MO. You have sunk to the level of 7forever as a conspiracy theorist. Make a claim and then go in circles avoiding facts.
Lol what? THAT's what we're doin' right now. But, I'm going to put an end to it ricky tick. Building #7: http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 WTC 1 & 2: http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017
And no proof of anything other than what everyone on the ground saw that day, plance crashing into the tower, debris falling onto WTC7...all three collapse due to the damage, explosions and fires caused by those plane impacts.
None of that contradicts what I stated of course then end came many posts ago when you admitted you have no idea what they said. - - - Updated - - - Thousands of witnses films and debris proven to have come from the plane and it's passengers.
That sentence needs a comma after "witnses". Also as I have asked before, where is the documentation of exactly how much of the alleged "FLT11" & "FLT715" was recovered? Without an accounting, how can anybody be sure that there was an airliner at this location. Just a small tangent here, our "leaders" ( actually employees of US ) have stated that the story about the hijacked airliners must be true, However, how much do you trust people who are drunk on power? We have abundant examples of corrupt behavior, in the form of Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin, NORTHWOODS, think about it there are many more examples obviously however to make the point, I'm citing just a few, the issue here is how much do you TRUST the system, what has unfortunately happened here is that the Congress has become a lap- dog to BIG MONEY that owns/controls the "news". We all should be demanding lots of documentation from our "leaders" where is the accounting for the aircraft, do we know if enough aircraft parts were recovered to fill a pickup truck, or? & how do we know? without real evidence, all we have is the word of the TV news-people. The claim has been made that the gash in both towers was full length of the wing- span of a Boeing 757/767 therefore the wings did penetrate completely and the whole wing was alleged to have penetrated the wall, however, upon logical examination of the facts, the least probable out-come, is that of the wing tip penetrating the wall. Yet we are presented with, four times over, the wing tips were alleged to have penetrated. obviously when the official story and the evidence do not agree, we must use logic and reason to sort it out.
Enough to was recovered to prove that those specific craft hit the buildings. In addition you ignore the general population of the cities who WATCHED IT. Logic and reason and even physics does not determine that the least probable outcome is for the hole to be smaller than the wing span.
How do you support that statement about "enough" wreckage was recovered to prove the crash of "FTL11" & "FLT175"? where is the documentation? Also, if Logic & Reason + Physics doesn't determine facts here, exactly what does?
It's documented in many of the reports such as the 911 commission which you have never bothered to pick up and read. I said logic and reason and physics does not determien what you claimed it does you ignored logic reason and facts to come up with your conclusions. Saying the words does not mean you are using the methods
Please cite specific deviation(s) from logic in my original post. Also, does the "911 commission report" cover the crash physics of the alleged airliners? Please cite references if you have them.
Did you read my original post in RE: no planes ? There is sufficient logic to support the idea that the least likely out-come of the crash would be for the wing tips to have penetrated the wall. what specific part of my post do you disagree with?
There is not a shred of logic or evidence that the least likely outcome of the crash would be for the wing tips to have penetrated the wall. You simply use the word without grasping what it means. Your original post was nonsense.
You diss my post without providing any evidence that you have an understanding of what I presented. Do you have a specific bit of my original post that you can cite as wrong?
I did provide more detail. Logic produces no such conclusion. You fail to employ logic which is why you are dodging any thing further such as citing some evidence or explaining your post.
Maybe to you, because you don't see the logic, however the explanation is rather clear, the wing tips would become separated from the body of the aircraft before the wing tips had a chance to penetrate, therefore, the smaller mass + the fact that the wing tips would be free to rotate, would produce a case were it is highly unlikely to achieve penetration of the tower wall under those circumstances. There is no "dodging" , like I have said, if you have specific questions, I will endeavor to answer.
