Thoughtless WTC Conclusions

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Mar 2, 2019.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The reality is that YOU have squat other than rabid denial of anything and everything that contradicts the OCT. The reality is that you weren't there but eyewitnesses were and they have made many claims supported by other evidence that contradicts the OCT. Their testimonies are critical and they are EVIDENCE, your denying posts are worthless.
     
    Kokomojojo likes this.
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,752
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bob0627 likes this.
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No sir, if we were playing a certain card game, I have enough to run the deck.

    I'm already up to +60, because that's how many times the commission stated "we found no proof". I'm confident that the members of that commission almost to a man stated in public that they were set up to fail, and variations on that theme.

    And your post here validates all that, rejecting any scientific approach in which seconds could be extremely important. You reject science and rational analysis, and embrace the statements of known liars. Rest easy, you're typical.

    The seismic record showed that the event in Manhattan preceded in time the instant the airplane struck the building, in each case as I recall.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  4. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol:

    You obviously never bothered to read your own fatuous link!

    There are 5 seismic readings of different levels. The plane impact readings are actually HIGHER than the building 7 collapse.

    Those are the readings that you are PRETENDING are supposed to be of "explosions" that you have ZERO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE to support. No traces of explosives were ever found at the site.

    Furthermore there is no seismic reading for an "explosion" to bring down building 7.

    In essence you are just CHERRY PICKING a minor timing discrepancy and PRETENDING that it constitutes "evidence" of imaginary "explosions" that NEVER HAPPENED.

    You have no valid explanations and no evidence.

    It doesn't take a scientist to understand that you cannot have an explosion and leave no traces whatsoever.
     
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,752
    Likes Received:
    1,811
    Trophy Points:
    113
    YOU CANT read a plane impact 20 miles away on a seismograph LOL
    YOU CAN read MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS 20 miles away on a seismograph.
    YOU ARE IN DENIAL of the corroborating evidence
    It was a SMALLER BUILDING and a SMALLER EXPLOSION so it DID NOT REGISTER on the seismograph.
    NO DISCREPANCY, you are PRETENDING a DISCREPANCY exists NO discrepancy EXISTS.
    ACTUALLY it takes a highly educated SCIENTIST to comprehend and wrap their mind around the FACTS AT HAND.
    please feel free to REFRAIN FROM BAITING ME, I proved the point in the OP.
    NO EXPLOSIONS is GARBAGE MANTRA that has been proven to be nothing more than a PACK OF LIES countless times over the years, why are the OCTers still bringing it up?
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2019
  6. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113

    :roflol:

    Explain why there was no seismic recording of the 1993 explosion under the World Trade Center?

    You can't!

    According to YOU it should have been picked up but it wasn't!

    Why not?
     
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Explain yourself Koko.

    Why would a massive explosion show on a seismograph, but a 767 at high speed impacting the side of the WTC wouldn't. What characteristic/s is a plane impact missing that an massive explosion consists of?

    This ought to be good.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You do realize that the WTC7 collapse showed readings on a seismograph right?

    So let's see. Koko has hard data and reason pertaining to what should show up on a seismograph and what should not. What are those parameters Koko and how did you arrive at them? So far you've claimed the following AND we have some data.

    1. Massive explosion at the WTC: would show up on the seismograph
    2. 767 plane impact into the side of a building: would not show up on seismograph
    3. Smaller explosion at WTC7: would not show up on seismograph
    4. WTC7 collapse: would show up on a seismograph

    Let's see what you come up with.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2019
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  9. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Completely irrelevant. You have been provided examples of the "no evidence" statements and asked how they pertain to the "OCT" and why "no evidence" of said statments supposedly undermines the "OCT". You have failed to answer. I wonder why.

    I mean finding "no evidence" for the claim that a gun may have been used by the terrorists sure does undermine the "OCT" doesn't it?

    Major fail on your part. You probably haven't even read the commission report and are just parroting what you've read.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And they use Williams exaggerated testimony as part of their proof?
    William.PNG

    What he said this right after the event:
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html
    His original description was "rumbling". No mention of a "massive explosion that lifted him off the floor and cracked the walls and ceiling".
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  11. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I thought it was thermite? Now it's explosive devices?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Get your claims correct Bobby. I for one am not contradicting there being explosions. What I am contradicting is the claim that the explosion was caused by some type of "thermitic product" or demolition charge.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2019
    l4zarus likes this.
  13. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Koko says jet fuel is not explosive and Bobby says the fuel went up in the fireball. I think you two need to get your stories straight.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  14. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Troffer people contradict each other all the time, some say holograms and missles.
    They just let that ride, but will argue if a non-troofer says it.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did and they're 100% correct.

    That may be your mindset and I never said all OCT defenders make the same claims about explosions. Many deny it.

    You are free to contradict anything you like and often do if it doesn't support the OCT. However you have no basis with which to contradict any hypothesis about the cause of explosions, just sheer denial (see second part of prior sentence). There is very strong evidence that the 3 WTC towers were controlled demolished and that a thermitic agent may have been used as one possible accelerant/incendiary based on a host of evidence. It doesn't mean it's fact but it does mean it requires thorough investigation, not knee jerk denial. But you can choose to ignore or deny it, that's certainly your prerogative.

    Koko and I have no reason to get any "story" straight. He is Koko and I am Bob and we are not one and the same. That most of the fuel went up in a fireball outside the tower(s) on impact is clearly evident from the videos. And that would align with the property of jet fuel which would be highly flammable in spray form, something that is quite likely to happen when an airplane impacts a solid object at a high velocity. In that case it is extremely unlikely that it would remain in liquid form following impact and if it did, it would no longer be highly flammable as clearly demonstrated in the video.
     
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There were traces left. USGS took samples and found much higher traces of thorium and other radioactive substances. There were heavy amounts of the residue of thermite, though the thermite reaction is not explosive.

    How might YOU explain the seismic record, and why should the findings and conclusions of Ross & Furlong and others be disregarded? Why should the statements of Rodriguez and others be disregarded?

    How would you explain the rationale for taking Rodriguez' testimony behind closed doors, and then not including it in the report? Is that significant to you?
     
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    The trooffers believe that they used NUKES to blow up the basements in the WTC towers now?

    That is by far the most LUDICROUS of all of the WTC claims I have ever encountered!
    There were 5 seismic readings!

    Two readings related to the plane impacts.

    Three readings related to the buildings collapsing.

    No imaginary "explosions" were harmed in reaching these logical and rational conclusions because they never existed.
     
  18. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    There is nothing of the sort. If you're referring to Harrit's paper, one of his own showed it was paint. This is why Basile's paper that was supposed to come out in SUPPORT of Harrit never came out. They couldn't tell the difference between paint chips and supposed thermite chips. Basile took $5000 and ran off into the sunset.
     
    l4zarus likes this.
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are also free to contradict anything you like and often DON'T because it goes against the "OCT". Your search for the "truth" 99% of the time is AGAINST the "OCT". I hardly ever see you challenge other truther's claims that disagree with what you think happened.

    Why is that Bobby?

    I don't see you vehemently debating/arguing with Eleuthera and the nuke theory. Is that because you think it may be true? Or is it more of "the enemy of my enemy if my friend" thinking?
     
  20. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps you are missing the point, or maybe you just prefer not to discuss it.

    The point is that seismic events were recorded 14 seconds early for the North tower and 17 seconds early for the South tower. Rodriguez was in the North tower, and that time difference corroborates his testimony that the explosions below happened BEFORE the airplane struck the tower.

    Is that too complicated for you to discuss, or would you rather just avoid the conversation? Rocket science it is not.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  21. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    THIS

    I would only add IMHO they, eventually were able to tell the difference, and, at that point, decided discretion was the better part of cowardice.
     
  22. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    *facepalm*

    Let me share some info on these conspiracy grifters:
    Gordon Ross:
    https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept
    http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/06/1087-gordon-ross.html

    Furlong was a darling of Holocaust Denier "truther" James Fetzer:

    https://web.archive.org/web/2018022...06/911-seismic-proof-video-fakery-inside.html
    https://web.archive.org/web/2011011...rsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html

    So yeah, not actually the devastating or credible evidence you think it is.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  23. yasureoktoo

    yasureoktoo Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    2,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a conspiracy...…the Government did it...…... Yes, totally thoughtless.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not for you of course, that goes without saying. Fortunately you are not relevant, what is relevant are the exhibits filed with the grand jury petition. And the petitioners stand by their accusations that the 3 WTC towers were demolished via controlled demolition and used thermitic materials as one agent to help accomplish the destruction. And they've submitted OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that supports their petition. You OTOH have submitted nothing and contributed nothing positive and only contributed the negative.

    That's because as already explained on numerous occasions, my focus is not on every theory out there, it's strictly on the Official CONspiracy Theory. It's the only theory out there that matters. And unfortunately that theory carries death and other crimes against humanity with it. No other theory out there has that kind of deadly impact on humanity or even comes close. For you it's all about defending this heinous theory as something of a game or hobby or who knows what, for me it's all about exposing it for what it is, a massive criminal fraud that affects and had affected millions of innocent people in the most adverse way possible.
     
  25. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So now you are admitting that all you have is a timing discrepancy and a single "eye witness" to your NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS!

    :roflol:

    Wouldn't the lower half of Manhattan been VAPORIZED instead?

    Are you conceding that you have ZERO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of any explosion whatsoever?

    The times of the plane impacts are CALCULATED from FAA data as opposed to being PHYSICALLY RECORDED on any device because the TRANSPONDERS WERE TURNED OFF and none of the flight data recorders were recovered!

    That means that even the slightest error in speed could easily account for the time differentials.

    Are you so perfect that you have never made a miscalculation owing to insufficient information?

    There is no physical evidence and no seismic evidence to support your nuclear explosion bovine excrement.

    Or is it too difficult for your Confirmation Bias to accept that REALITY isn't perfect and that discrepancies are NOT conspiracies?
     

Share This Page