Definition of "debate": So when I (or anyone else) presents evidence or arguments against a claim/point you are making and you fire back a rebuttal, that's not debating per the definition above? We're not "arguing" about a subject?
That's a lie. Your only here to "discuss" with like minded people. When it comes to people who have differing points of view, you cease to discuss. So be honest Bobby. You're only here to genuinely "discuss" with people that have the same beliefs as you (that the "OCT" is all lies) and belittle, use, put down, make fun of, people who differ from your views. Isn't that closer to the truth?
I had asked you about the inertia of the plane prior to impact ... it was pushing hard right at impact ... unlike the WTC 1 strike, this was not a direct 90% hit ... where do expect the kinetic flash to appear? ... citation please ...
It's in the video Scott posted. If the flash was due to impact, they think the flash should appear here because that's where they "see" the nose of the plane ending which is supposed to indicate the nose is hidden because it entered the building: Since they "see" this below, coupled that with the belief that the nose end has disappeared into the building due to the end of the nose "missing", they think the flash is a missile or something. My explanation is that the digitized flash has obscured/block the end of the nose making it look like it has disappeared due to entering the building. Just like the foot of the athlete in the example in my above post partially blocks the solid white yardline.
You can define "debate" and "discuss" whichever way you want, it's not my concern nor does this have anything to do 9/11 or my specific agenda that I already made quite clear. You don't like my approach? I don't give a ****, I'm still going to use what you post and what others post as I see fit. It's exactly what you and every poster here does. You need to be looking in the mirror when you post that Mr. FOS.
what lies has Gamolon posted that would make you label him Mr. FOS? ... seeing that you still not have addressed your comment that the flash occurred 1/2 second prior to impact, which Gam has shown conclusively is false, where do you get the cojones to call someone else a liar? ... again, where has Gamolon earned your "nickname"? ...
Is that even a serious question? Just like you he spends 24/7 defending the biggest lie of this century, the OCT and just like you, he questions nothing of any significance about it and just like you, he ridicules and critizes everyone and everything that contradicts or questions it, including the massive evidence that proves it’s a lie, a scam and a criminal fraud that has lethal consequences for hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. For me your types are complicit sheep with blood on your hands for your failure to hold the US government accountable for war crimes perpetrated under pretext of 9/11. ****ing disgusting! Stick to childish cartoons, it’s the extent of your bankrupt mentality.
Scott, Are you going to address my evidence I have presented regarding the anomaly example, the math of where you think the nose enters the building, or the REAL point of entrance shown by the straight line disappearance of the wing in the frame AFTER the flash? Or are you going to continue to whine about my attitude, my success rate, or whatever else you can think of to NOT discuss the evidence at hand?
again ... what lies has he presented? ... just answer the question Bob ... Gamolon has already blown your flash nonsense out of the park ... why do you not address this? ... why do you keep changing the subject? ... please address what is being presented here ... your OCT nonsense is getting old ...
I already answered, perhaps you need this: https://www.dictionary.com/ Oh wait you hate those things, my bad. I don't have any "flash nonsense" in any park. I used to read comic books when I was a kid, maybe that's the "flash nonsense" you're referring to. The only thing Gamo blows comes out of his posterior, better duck. You're right, the subject here is "what truthers believe". I already answered that too, long ago, they believe in the truth and liars believe in lies. That should have ended this thread since that's the truth and there's nothing more to add. I don't have any "OCT nonsense" either but I am getting real old, that's for sure. The good news for you is that unless this site is taken down in the future when I'm no longer on this planet, my posts will always be here for everyone's reference, including you. What, you didn't post any useful emojis to help you with? Oh wait, Gamo does that and you love it. Personally I used to be into cartoons too when I was a kid but I grew up, a very long time ago. You'll see when you and your cartoon loving buddy grow up, cartoons are just not very entertaining as you get older.
If troofers believed in troof, they wouldn't keep posting stuff that was proven wrong. It seems that troof is the last thing they believe in.
We all know this was a first time deal, and we didn't process all the info as it happened. We all know there are probably lots of spaces where national security takes precedence over a bunch of complainers. But these holes in the story, give the smarter a chance to sell books, and the dumber a chance to buy them. But it's all worn out now. I'm sure there is a new conspiracy you can all focus on.
Freeze this at the 2:28 time mark. Flashes Before the Planes Hit the World Trade Center. The flash on the side of the building is reflected on the side of the plane. It's very obvious that the nose of the plane is inside of the building and there's nothing colliding with the building that is causing the flash. This is a very lame attempt at obfuscation and it has destroyed Gamolon's credibility. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-truthers-believe.532027/page-25#post-1069826700 (as of now this is post #494. It may change if previous posts are deleted.) He tried to make it look like the nose of the plane is in front of the flash. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a reflection on the side of the plane. This anomaly is simply too clear to obfuscate. Viewers, be sure to watch the above video and this one too. Was the 9/11 Attack the 2001 Version of "Operation Northwoods"?
Because he wishes that were true, anything to defend the OCT, in this case trying to dismiss every 9/11 anomaly and question as a "natural" event.
He's not just mistaken. He's deliberately lying. Only a paid sophist* would do that. An American in denial wouldn't tell deliberate lies. They usually just slink away. I'd bet my life that all three of these posters are paid sophists who know the official story is one big lie as well as the truthers do. * http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html https://karmayogadaily.com/2012/09/...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
Funny thing, you accused me of spreading lies when I listed numerous facts about the 9/11 Commission and NIST and when I challenged you to show how any of these are lies you were never able to show how even one is a lie. Once again, he and you and several other posters here are lying and spreading lies when they defend the OCT, the biggest lie of this century.
you have no clue what you are talking about and zero understanding of physics not to mention that you have repeatedly failed to answer my question (plane inertia) ... do you have any education in physics, considering you are now a lighting expert??? ... do you really want to continue down this path of pods and missiles launches? ... utter stupidity from paid truthers ... puke out another vid Scott ... I'll click it just to help to help you with your Hot Pocket expenditures ...
It doesn't take an expert to recognize a reflection. Your post is all empty rhetoric with no substance which is a classic tactic that sophists use. This thread is turning out to be a good study of sophistry.
In "fact #1" you claimed Bush as the ultimate authority for the destruction of 9/11 "evidence" ... show me the paper trail or at least the chain of events and time taken to "destroy evidence" ... do you have a video (maybe Scott does) of Bush telling aides to ship the steel (evidence) to China? ...
