Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, May 27, 2016.
It's not for you, don't worry about Chandler and his opinions.
"controlled demolition is an idiotic hypothesis." Thank U 4 your opinion!
I won't, as I know Chandler is demonstrable wrong.
- - - Updated - - -
No problem. Do you care to address the problems in logic with the CD hypothesis? No other supporter of 9/11 truth can discuss these problems and they just ignore them.
There are HUGE holes in the truther story, and they are always avoided by the faithful.
Well that settles that for you, so why do you ask questions you know the answer to?
To make people think. I have demonstrated repeatedly why Chandler gets it so wrong. If you don't like it, well....you may find someone who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*), but I doubt it.
Here's a very simple question? How do you conspiracy theorists dispute video of planes crashing into towers?
I mean was every newscast and people with home videos in on this? If one looks at the simplistic evidence how is it disputed?
Seriously why are you people so sure that an UNBELIEVABLE conspiracy took place? It really seems kind of wacko to think the way you think?
They don't? Only you do?
I'm quite aware of your demonstrations.
No I do like them, they speak for themselves, just like Chandler's. There's one problem though, there's those pesky little things called anonymity and credibility. I'm sure you're bright enough to figure out the problem.
Yes, of course you are. Veiled ad hom noted.
I've noticed your attraction to specious and unsupported material.
Argument from authority fallacy. Three points, and only three fallacies. You're improving.
- - - Updated - - -
9/11 truth won't answer questions directly, so be prepared to dance around this subject endlessly if you want something remotely resembling an answer.
Probably so. I'm just truly astonished that there are people living amongst us who can think this crazy. It's actually kind of scary if you want to know the truth.
Oh well. I'm done with this thread. I'll let the crazies talk amongst themselves.
I know, and because one is capable of reason among all this craziness, one is continually defending the rational against the insanity of 9/11 truth.
9/11 truth has no ability to interpret the evidence.
9/11 truth has no desire for accurate interpretation of the evidence as that will expose the scam, therefore it is easier to cherry pick.
9/11 truth has no desire to produce scientific evidence for peer review as that would expose the scam.
9/11 truth refuses to offer an alternative hypothesis for investigation as they know it would not stand up to scrutiny.
9/11 truth refuses to reinterview the fire fighters whose testimony they liberally misrepresent.
9/11 truth refuse to engage the subject using logic and the devices and techniques of said discipline.
9/11 truth has highly disingenuous standards of evidence. They are unrealistically high for the rational, but incredible low for the truther.
9/11 truth repeatedly engage in mendacious tactics to promote their lies.
9/11 truth has no credibility or integrity.
The 9/11 truth tactics:
1). Reverse the burden of proof: A good truther must do this continually in order to keep the rant going.
2). Cherry pick that which is convenient to the truther argument and dismiss all that which conflicts as 1). a plant, or 2). a government source
3). Libel everyone that opposes the insanity of 9/11 truth.
4). Libel all the organisations that contributed to the reports and not produce credible evidence to the contrary. Use innuendo and rants.
5). Ignore all failures in logic and explore the limits of logical fallacies.
6). No matter how it is done, a truther must defend the dogma at all costs despite the weight of evidence and the use of reason.
The truth certainly can be scary but I don't care about scary, the problem I have is always want the truth. Isn't that just so crazy?
Trust me, they are all over the internet. Most do not confine themselves to one form of insanity and tend to embrace most like JFK, Chemtrails, MK Ultra, Holocaust Denial, Sandy Hook etc..
That is not the agenda of 9/11 truth. The agenda is promote the scam, so those raking it in continue to do so. There is no shortage of internet cult acolytes lining up to promote their dogma, for let's face it, 9/11 truth is more of a religion than science.
I can understand your frustration and there is nothing to be gained by arguing with truthers. Let's hope we can sway the gullible lurkers away from the disease of 9/11 truth by using simple reason.
Okay last try...just answer my original question. Do you believe planes crashed into the towers? Yes or no?
Are ya now?
So then keeping that in mind why should anyone believe you instead of academics world wide who have no proven that you bought a boat load of wooden nickels? No one on this board has proven the 'official conspiracy theory', so why dont you try proving yours since you want to litigate on behalf of the gubmint.
It's what the videos show so it would be difficult to prove otherwise and I haven't seen definitive and conclusive proof that the videos are illusions or a trick that I'm satisfied with. It doesn't mean that it's not there, it just means I'm not satisfied but I'm certainly open. I have seen a lot of things that do raise red flags I must say though, there's no question about that. But if planes did indeed crash into towers, I still want definitive physical proof that the planes were what we're told and so far, there is none. That would be the purpose of a forensic airplane crash investigation, identifying each recovered part and matching the serial numbers for each part to the logs. Without that we're left to accept on faith that those were the planes claimed. Accepting anything on faith is not anything I do, much less from the US government.
So I answered as honestly as I could, does that make me "crazy" to you?
Bob0627 - - - have you seen my posts called "basic logic" and "physical science question" ?
you forgot to post this one showing how they blew the hell out of it.
hush a boom?
You have no one but yourself to blame if you do not stay on top of whats technologically available.
Your dishonesty is noted. Your gif shows the collapse and not explosives. Where the following actually shows the moment of initiation with no explosives.
And there's your old conjecture again. There is no evidence to support your claim, and you know it. Come on Nukeboy, you can do better than that, surely?
yeh well you see the way evidence works is the video is evidence. thats how evidence works, not my problem if you dont know what you are looking at.
So tell me a bed time story how the alleged impact explosions managed to get both completely below and on one clip and completely above on the other.
yeh how does a real plane do that again?
Go back to your nukes kid, as videos with extremely poor resolution don't mean a thing. No planes is just retarded.
so as usual you have no explanation what caused the same explosion to be both above and below the wing at the same time.
well I knew you wouldnt because all you can do is post crack pot snarks, since we both know there is only one way that is possible.
I read all the posts in this section of the forum. It's possible I could miss one or two but unlikely.
The #1 post in each thread speaks to the physical reality that would have to be, at such time as an airliner were to have struck a skyscraper.
"No planes is just retarded." Right, in an interpretation that trusts the MSM perfectly ..... that stands to reason
HOWEVER, even if there were NO video at all of the alleged "FLT175"
people should still be asking WHY the wing shaped gash and WHY wasn't there many tons of wreckage
in the street on the south side of the tower? and the famous Murray st. jet engine, REALLY PEOPLE?
applied physics should be the standard for understanding what happened
NOT - "oh but the airliner was going SOOOOO fast"
Give me a break!
I understand your point, however I remain skeptical of the no plane hitting the towers theory. It doesn't mean I'm 100% sure planes did indeed hit the towers, it just means I going by that based on the videos, unless and until I feel comfortable with any definitive proof that didn't happen, perhaps because of an illusion or a trick. Shanksville and the Pentagon are a different story. I take the opposite position for planes in both instances. There does not exist any video of planes for both events so the burden of proof for planes resides with the official storytellers. And so far, that's non-existent. It does not mean that I believe 100% that no planes were involved, it just means I remain skeptical. Unfortunately, the level of my skepticism is much greater for anything that comes from the US government. It is a known pathological liar after all, 9/11 is not an exception.
To be sure and I brought this out many times, there is no known definitive PHYSICAL forensically identified and verified evidence linking any of the 4 alleged planes to the actual officially designated planes that crashed. That is one massive problem and has all the smells of a clear coverup.
Separate names with a comma.