Can I convince PF's resident truthers that American 77 hit the Pentagon?

Discussion in '9/11' started by cjnewson88, Jan 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Killtown. Now I know you're not serious.

    Yes, everything he says is made up. Even hardcore truthers have distanced themselves from Killtown.
     
  2. plague311

    plague311 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,256
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Killtown is the largest collection of human bile on the internet, MAYBE second to Viscisms. It would be extremely close as to who is more disgusting.

    Are you going to answer my question as to why it takes 0 evidence for you to call me a Jew, but takes a mound of evidence for us to call you an Nazi?

    If not, it's cool, Nazi.
     
  3. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I scan it for content. I don't hang on every word because it's basically the same thing over and over.....deny, deny, deny.

    They try to take each anomaly in isolation and create a plausible explanation to force it to indicate something other what it first appears to.

    The object is to create sufficient doubt to make you dismiss each one in turn. If you follow along this line, eventually you toss them all out. Even so, they have to do some painful contortions to get rid of some of them.


    If for example they cause someone to allow a 5% chance that the explanation would point to something other than prior knowledge, conspiracy, or controlled demolitions, then the hope is that they can get each doubter to dismiss them on the grounds of "insufficient evidence" or "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".

    But can you take an overall look at the case and reasonably do this?

    We are conditioned in the US by our trail by jury system to avoid convicting innocent people at all costs. If there is the least doubt in our minds then heaven forbid that we should send an innocent person to prison or the electric chair.
    That's even when all things are considered, they look guilty as hell. "If the glove don't fit, then you must acquit." And as in the OJ case, if they can drag the racial element into the equation, then their job is made much easier.

    The idea is to cause enough second guessing as to get the person to accept the verdict that he would really prefer to believe in the first place. This way they incorporate the cognitive dissonance factor to their advantage.


    The fallacy of all this is, that a truly objective person would not allow the obstacle of racial, religious, or political bias from interfering with his judgement of right and wrong, true and false.

    If we suggest that ANY Jew or ANY Israeli operative was involved, that is taken as a sure indication of our "anti-semitism". Regardless of whether one is "anti-semitic" or not, that does nothing to alter the fact of guilt or innocence, involvement or no involvement.


    It is not unreasonable to assess the entire set of circumstances in their entirety. That is what a circumstantial case is built on. Police are authorized to make arrests based on such evidence and probable cause. The type of rigor that is demanded in mathematical proofs cannot be applied to everyday situations. Few people know anything about that anyway. If we depended on that degree of certainty to do anything, the world would come to a standstill.

    What we have with the 9/11 case is a very long string of circumstances, probabilities, anomalies, and coincidences, which all suggest that foreknowledge of the attacks was used to the advantage of some of those who had it. One is compelled to admit this if they are honest about it. If they do, there is no other conclusion but to accept the fact that there was, at the very least, a conspiracy to allow the attacks to occur and a subsequent effort to cover up this fact.


    It is not reasonable to say for example, look at the samples of sulfidated steel taken from building 7 which was burned to the "appearance of Swiss Cheese" and honed at the edges to razor sharpness, and dismiss the examination of it without considering at the same time, the reports of workers steel toed boots being melted, and the unnatural speed at which all the forensic evidence was illegally and against protocol carted off.

    Then there are the statements by world renowned demolitions experts saying that it definitely appeared to be a controlled demolition, the fact that it bore all the signs and etc.

    These kinds of testimonies, and this kind of evidence is piled so deep that a person would find it impossible to do them all justice without writing a thick book.

    The people who are attacking us here could not possibly be here for the reasons they say unless they are bigger losers than they have accused you or me of being, not to mention all of the military officers, firemen, engineers, architects, pilots, intelligence officers, former members of CIA, FBI, etc etc whom they also call "incompetent" and accuse of "not knowing what they are talking about."

    Instead they offer their own credentials for us to place our trust in....."I'm a fireman".. "I was in the Air Force".


    How ridiculous can you get?


    If people are gullible enough to fall for this, then there is no hope for the US anyway, saving an intervention by God, with or without justice for 9/11.

    If the masses are anywhere as near as moronic as this, or as moronic as they accuse us of being, then we have more to fear from our neighbors than the government anyway. If that's the case, then maybe we should just let Yomamma and Nancy Pelosi have our guns.

    Retarded people and mad dogs shouldn't be allowed to play with them. What worries me is that maybe the populace are not the only ones who have mad dogs among them who are short on intelligence. I know that sometimes these sorts of people get into the military. You can find greedy and homicidal specimens among Doctors and Lawyers even. Why not the government?

    Pvt LEFTY and the league of neo Bolsheviks believe that anyone who belongs to the communist party can do no wrong. Zionists believe the same things about Jews and vice versa.

    At least I have the sense to acknowledge what some white gentile people are capable of. The difference is, that I don't believe the buck stops there. So who are the real racial supremacists here? Don't expect to get the truth from them on this. And if they won't tell the truth on this point, what makes you think they'd tell the truth about 9/11?
     
  4. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38

    No no. You don't look at the person. You look at the list of items.

    If you are saying that the points brought out are false that's one thing. To imply that they are false because "Killtown" is what ever it is, that's another.

    If I relate a news item that I've seen on TV or read in a paper, the truth or falsity of the item in question has nothing to do with my personality. Dingaling.
     
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You just love to call names, don't you?

    If your source was the National Inquirer, your 'list of items' would be questionable before ever looking at them. Similarly, linking to Killtown is suspect because of his credibility and history.
     
  6. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I love the self referencing which you do, Scott, it makes me laugh every time you link back to your debunked nonsense and call on it to support you. So you cannot show me the shadow of a drone? Ok.

    Hang on, since when has that picture shown the 'nose' of an aircraft? It shows the entire aircraft. Why do you persist in using the same old LOW QUALITY image? Is it dishonestly or laziness?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I've source these images Scott. I've told you they are from the 2009 release of the original quality video. Where is your image sourced from?

    You do you persist with your rediculous drone theory when it could never have the size, mass or energy to knock down 5 poles, smash a generator and punched a massive gash in the outer wall of the Pentagon.

    [​IMG]

    Would a drone be spotted by so many as a 757?

    [video=youtube;5F8zwWkBeMA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5F8zwWkBeMA[/video]

    [video=youtube;lhRyPPWNO3M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lhRyPPWNO3M[/video]

    [video=youtube;1cT8WWt61eg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1cT8WWt61eg[/video]

    You are out of your depth, Scott. Your theory has failed. You have no witnesses, no debris, no radar, nothing. There is literally not one shred of evidence to support your claim, except referencing the same debunked stuff you posted before, and using a low quality blurry image to try and call a smudge something it's not.

    But do you think you need to provide evidence? No, that's the worst of it. You sit there claiming 'plausible, plausible, plausible' in the hope it'll save you from actually performing research and posting evidence of your claim. Well no, Scott, it is Not plausible. When the evidence is taken into account, a drone/missile theory is Not Plausible in any way.

    While we're on the topic of 'plausibility', after all your fantasy of drones and missiles, why is a hijacked airliner not a plausible explanation? When 100% of the evidence backs an airliner hitting the Pentagon, what to you makes that not plausible, but yet your retarded drone theory has all the plausibility in the world??
     
  7. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Killtown uses the same techniques you are using here of throwing five tons of crap at the wall to find the five ounces that will stick and make people start thinking there is sometrhing wrong. It would take most of the day to dissect 1% of his BS. It's called a gish gallop and is not something a rational person does in a serious debate.

    The drooling moron Killtown and his slimeball buddy "Rmpl4skn" actually tried to tell us they could measure a cloud in an empty sky and then showed us a pile of crap and called in the site at which some sort of ordnance had been set off to fake the crash. The boy is pond scum and could probably not even buy a clue with limited resources because he wouldn't know what one looked like.

    Look, here's how you deal with crap like Killtown offers you. You pick one of his lies at a time and ask people who know something about the subject what they think of it. I'll show you an example. Old tofu-for-brains offers Karen Deshore's comments about what she saw when the north tower collapsed as proof that the were explosive charges involved. But she was not seeing very clearly at the time by her own statements in the oral histories. She generally thinks that CT nuts are worthless to society, like that idiot theologian MacQueen who used her comments about burning cars cooking off to support some idiot story aboutr bombs in the street. I doubt that Killklown ever wants to be within arm's reach of any of the fire fighters he cites.

    I am going to ignore most of the gish gallop below this point except to point out one of the big weaknesses in your case.

    Most military officers laugh at senile old Stubblebine. He was probably involved in some of the Army LSD experiments in the 1960s and nobody noticed right away that he was out of the room. Not everybody who claims to have been in the CIA actually were in positions that would have allowed them access to the "facts" they claim. Odd that they would still be alive if they were disclosing such sensitive intel. As for cops and fire fighters supporting your BS, most of them do not. None of the fire fighters who were there are taking an active role in the twoof movement because they think that the activists are imbeciles and worse. You have about .0001% of cops and fire fighters on your side. None of them show up at events where they will be trying to BS FDNY veterans becasuse they know it would be hazardous to their health.

    But we should believe a theologian with no military or fire fighting experience? How ridiculous can you get? BTW, what training gives you any chops here?

    Oh, nobody doubts that Nazi scum are infiltrating the government. They even brag about it on Stormfront. AQ lot of them are core cadre for Da Twoof.

    Aside from violating TOS, you just proved yourself weak because I never suggested any such thing. I have merely stated that Nazis have no clue about much of anything.
     
  8. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Look who's talking.

    Read the statements. The statements. Are they true or not true. What's his name compiled them. That's not the same as making them up. Anyone else could do the same if they took the time and trouble. I've considered doing something similar myself. But why should I when so many others have already.

    Your personal attacks are meaningless as far as 9/11 goes. And that's the issue.
     
  9. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That seems to be what most of your "debunking" consists of.





    He's not the only one with that opinion.

    http://mo911truth.org/



    The force of the argument is what counts.
    Credentials lend credibility but are no guarantee of integrity and they certainly don't prove one to be right.

    I have a degree in Chemistry for one thing and have dabbled in other things. That's not the issue.

    Now that's a laugh.
    It's you Jews that say Obama is a Muslim too but lookee.

    Are these some of the Nazis you are talking about?

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/obamajews.html

    This diversion gets old after about the three hundreth time.

    What do Nazis have to do with anything?
     
  10. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Those statements which are factual (which would be about half) do not support what you or idiot boy Killtown claim they support. The rest are pulled out of the lower torsos of assorted dimbulbs and domestic terrorists and con men.
     
  11. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Funny...when the shills couldn't come up with anything to combat the fact that the ORIGINAL photo released by our beloved g'men, they hollered it didn't because it was "low resolution" .Now (somehow) resolution that WASN'T in the original is somehow there in the "improved" photo. Pixels are pixels. They're either there or they ain't. What a bunch of horse sheet.


    I haven't heard much from the forum "regulars" on this "newer' photo. Do you fellas back up what the poster says? Don't dodge now!
     
  12. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Meh. Some of those turds are whackier than Bert. Some of them are dishonest. Some of the are Dominionist creeps. Some of them are out of their MOS. At least one is a Nazi and a worthless excuse for an officer. I am not going to let this turn into an opportunity for you to do another gish gallop. I will probably have to start a thread on each of those fools. One may already exist on some of them.





    Actually, it is, to some extent, an issue. If you are such a hot-shot chemist, perhaps you can explain why Jones and Harrit claim that their paint chips are thermite when they contain no detectible metalic aluminum but do contain kaolin. Explain how thermite works if the elemental aluminum is not in contact with the iron oxide, separated by a hydrocarbon resin.



    First off, I am not jewish, nor have I any particular interest in the survival of the modern state of Israel.

    What Nazis have to do with this is that they are inserting BS into the argument in the hopes of stirring up the useful idiots to help them fight in the RaHoWa.

    I read idiot boy Pierce's piece of crap book.
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Good point! This pretty much shows that these people don't even believe their own arguments.

    No matter how clear the proof of an inside job is, these guys will always just sit back and look at it and say, "Let's see. How can I obfuscate this?". What I do is post the clearest proof so that they have to say some really lame things to maintain their positions. They'll never admit anything but, if what they're saying is lame enough, they won't fool any of the viewers. This attempt to obfuscate the proof that the craft that hit the Pentagon wasn't a 757 is pretty lame. When they painted a too small 757 in front of the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon, they forgot to paint its shadow under it. It would be behind it but it wouldn't be out of the picture.

    Also, the fact that the smoke in this picture looks like smoke...
    http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

    ...and what you say is smoke in this picture...
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    ...looks like the metalic nose of an aircraft that's too pointed to be a 757 is simply too clear to obfuscate. Here's where one of them tried to obfuscate it anyway and made a royal slip-up.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/290910-do-you-trust-us-government-11.html#post1062370641

    He tried to change his story but it was too late; he'd already said it.

    If something lame is said in an authoritative patronizing manner, it's still lame.
     
  14. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're proof of that scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c
     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Instead of spouting rhetoric, why don't you tell us why there's no shadow under the too-small plane that they drew in this picture?
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cCKCN8TmauY/UPsE7TSmUII/AAAAAAAAARs/vgBcxcXIjr0/s1600/Pent3Full.jpg

    Tell us whether you agree with leftysergeant's analysis of why what you say is smoke in one picture looks different from the real smoke in the other picture.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/290910-do-you-trust-us-government-11.html#post1062370641
     
  16. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c YOU'RE the only one spouting lies,half truths ,overblown opinions and rhetoric here

    The plane was NOT 'too small'

    The 'shadows' were different due to the angle of the sun

    And yes,I agree with his analysis...moreso than anything you have
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Look at the 757 that they painted in this picture.
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cCKCN8TmauY/UPsE7TSmUII/AAAAAAAAARs/vgBcxcXIjr0/s1600/Pent3Full.jpg

    In order for the shadow of the nose of the alleged 757 to be out of the picture, the sun would have to be lower than it is when it causes the shadow of the Pentagon.

    Here's his analysis.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/290910-do-you-trust-us-government-11.html#post1062370641

    I can only find videos that prove him wrong such as this one.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTIZIaR8i-M

    When asked to, he didn't post a video which proved him right, but still maintained his position.

    Tell us why you agree with his analysis.
     
  18. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with his analysis,because he knows what he's talking about,and all you do is lie and post spurious links that show nothing of what you claim.

    /clear enough?
     
  19. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is not pinted. That video was realease the day after the attack. They dd not have time to produce such an elaborate hoax. That is the way things look when they are out of focus. Why can you not grasp this concept? Do you expect a camera set to do surveilance of a single sally point is going to be focused to infinity? You seem to know less about photography than you do about aircraft. And you are still stuck with the video from the Double Tree that shows the tail of an airliner protruding just above the level of the elevated highway between the Double Tree and the Pentagon.

    The shadow probably fell on the embankment along one of the streets around the building. The area was not perfectly level. It would not drain properly if it were. This would put it below the line of sight from the camera position.

    That you faill to understand the effects of relief, you have utterly disproven your ability to analyse these things.



    How many times do you need to be told that it has been known for years that the right engine was damaged hitting the light polls? That was not normal jet exhaust, nor have I ever said that it was. This is why I mentioned, in the same sentence in which I mentioned that it was not anomolous, that some of the aircraft I watched land had fires on board or damaged engines. Once the smoke was emitted from the engine, it behaved as does the smoke emitted from an aircraft participating in an air show.

    Do pay attention. Your stubborn insistance that I have said anything to discredit myself is just flaming and you know it.
     
  20. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38

    Your name calling is worthless. You're also paranoid about Nazis. You might ought to see a psychiatrist about this obsession.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_Scott

    Scott coined the term "gish gallup".

    "Separation of church and state" is Zionist code for "removing all traces of Christianity from government"

    "Religious Liberty" is the code for removing Christianity from the rest of society.

    An award from Hugh Hefner is appropriate. She should get one from Bob Guccione and Larry Flint as well.


    I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and you guys are very good at conjuring up political handles that facilitate your political agendas, which are secular humanist, atheist, Marxist, and above all Zionist.

    Attacking creationists as a means to undermine the doctrines of Christ is a straw man if ever there was one.

    It's little more than an attempt to lump believers in the same category and then assign some diminutive derogatory labels to all of them so that you can then censor them as politically incorrect.

    Apparently you know less about the Intelligent Design argument than I do about Judaism.

    If you want to call people wackos and so forth you can include James Randi and Ms Scott among them.






    In how many words?


    I don't care whether you are "Jewish" or not. Most of the people calling themselves Jews in the US aren't Jews either. What concerns me about them is atheistic/communistic agendas they promote.

    You seem to be on the same page as they are. That's why I said earlier that for all practical purposes you may as well be "Jewish" since you are adamant in defending ZOG.

    Well look at the BS which you just inserted. What does creationism, Dominionism, or atheism have to do with the facts of 9/11?

    As far as Racial Holy War, that is exactly what the so called Jews have been waging against white gentiles since time immemorial.

    A lot of us resent having Jews and their minions dictating to us. That includes the forced multiculturalism, the creeping Socialism, and the relentless attacks against Christianity.

    The use of the word DICTATE here is not too strong or inappropriate. It is not an exaggeration to say that this just what the Jews of the New World Order have in mind.

    Anyone who does not believe it can spend as much time as I have studying the objectives of Judaism.

    http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm




    People need to get it through their heads that the "Jewish" objective of establishing Jerusalem as the global capital of the world from which all the world will be governed according to TALMUDIC Judaism is no less a RELIGIOUS BELIEF than any other.

    The media pundits often cite the religious beliefs of the Imams as being the rational for their terrorist attacks, ie that all Muslims intend to coerce by force everyone on earth to either convert to Islam or serve those who are Muslims.

    This is the same thing that Judaism is seeking to do, albeit by different methods and with Jews playing the role of masters.

    Your reference to "Dominionism" as a "Christian" idea shows how poorly you understand the actual doctrines of Christ himself. God does not prevent people from taking His name in vain. But he does promise that they shall not go unpunished.

    You are confusing religious matters with political matters.

    Atheists and Marxist type communists do not recognize their convictions as being a type of faith. Nor do they recognize the religious fervor with which they promote it . Therefore they consider that their agendas are purely humanitarian and political in nature. They don't veer from these convictions even when they are imprisoning or murdering "religious" people as political enemies of the state.

    The team you tout has expressed more than once the need to exterminate people of Christian persuasions as the only means to eradicate it. Christianity is anathema to communist dictatorships because it places the doctrines of Christ about those of the state.

    When the state performs theft or murder, a Christian is not likely to go along with it.






    I'm sorry to say I haven't. My opinions are original and they are formulated from the things I have observed and learned.

    When it becomes clear to me that I have been in error about one thing or another, I prefer to change my opinions and ideas to fit what I know if reality rather than try to force reality to conform to my notions of what it should be, or even what I want it to be.

    I am also sorry to admit that I was one of the people who was duped by Bush junior and all the lies about 9/11 and yellow cake, etc. "Fool me once..."



    I don't agree with Webster Tarpley's conclusion, but you can learn something about the drills of 9/11 from listening to this interview.

    What you do take what information is given and compare it to information from other sources.

    You accuse me of "gish gallup". This technique is used by a lot of debunkers especially when discussing the forensics of 9/11. Arguing from the scientific point provides a great deal of room for obfuscation and prevarication. You lose the part of the audience at the point at which they are not equipped to understand the argument.

    Many people will pay deference to those who are able to present a highly technical looking case which they are unable to critically examine. They may leave thinking, "I didn't understand a word of that, but he must know what he is talking about, therefore he must be right. With equally educated people on either side, the worst that can come of it is a stale mate in the minds of the uninitiated.



    The amount of hair splitting which can be done become prohibitively labor intensive for most people. Some of them may simply walk away from the task as being hopeless while others are just bored away from it.

    To them I say that they don't need an extensive background in science in order to render a verdict, just the evidence which is available. Indeed, until DNA profiling became available, this is about all police had to go on other than fingerprints, blood typing, and witnesses.

    With 9/11 we have witnesses. We have forensic evidence. We have circumstantial evidence. And we can identify the means, the motive, and the opportunity.

    None of these factors can be considered in isolation from one another except for the purpose of compartmentalizing a discussing or examination. For instance, when examining what few pieces of charred steel were left after the evidence was removed against law and protocol, one may confine his study only to those aspects which pertain to how the metal arrived at the state of corrosion observed.

    In the process of doing so, one can not simply dismiss all the rest of the evidence for which no technical science can be applied, for example the 250 times rise in put options on select airlines and industries which happened immediately prior to 9/11.

    You cannot apply the laws of physics or chemistry to the latter case. But an inability to prove with mathematical certainty that gypsum board could not have interacted to create the type of sulfidation that was found in the steel, or that burning fuel oil would have produced the kind of temperatures needed to create intergranular melting, does not preclude the possibility that some form of incendiary did.

    As strained as the debunking theories can get in an attempt to explain this phenomenon in terms of incidental natural causes, the debunkers remain equally unable to prove that their explanation for it is indeed the correct one. This same rule applies to other observations like the identity of the molten metal seen pouring from the corner of the building prior to collapse, and the "molten metal" seen "running down the channel rails afterward".

    One might ask why, given the numbers of experts in such matters who were present before the clean up and who may have observed this metal did not demand that testing be done right then and there.

    This becomes more understandable once you learn that many of them protested the way in which the evidence was handled. But their voices were drowned out in the haste to make war against Iraq and mostly ignored by the media. Since then, people like you, LEFTY have been calling them all names such as "turd" and crackpot" and claiming that YOU are more qualified to speak on such matters than they are.

    http://911conspiracy.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/molten-steel-extreme-temperatures-at-wtc/



    http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html


    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500249_162-520830.html

    This reminds me of how Dan Rather got canned. I never was a fan of his, but still......

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/the-911-commission-a-victim-of-cheneys-torture-program/

    http://visibility911.com/blog/category/9-11-protest/

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9151.htm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLHky-b_IHY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odt-0Yf84V8



    http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
     
  21. signcutter

    signcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If one is going to propose that a Jet hit the pentagon and that there was no ulterior conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks .......The real question is HOW the hell did amateur pilots accomplish what ALL experts in aviation conclude to be impossible. The instructors who judged these student pilots inept and below average in piloting a cessna suddenly pulled off feats that impressed carrier based fighter pilots and 20 year veteran airline pilots. Pilots that state special platform specific training is required to operate the 757 Jet at a basic level let alone the expert long range flying and expert pin point flying that was displayed in the 9/11 attacks.

    Please discredit all the expert pilots in the article I posted.... dont attack the source , discredit the experts in the article.
     
  22. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,834
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Anyone who actually take the time to click on this link and look at what you said will see that you are simply not telling the truth.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/290910-do-you-trust-us-government-11.html#post1062370641

    You're only going to fool some of the viewers who don't take the time to click on the link and look at the info. I suppose that's all you can do so you might as well do it.
     
  23. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Scott, you and Fraud make good company, he cannot figure out the difference between low video quality and high video quality either.

    Let me state this, one final time for both of you. Your image, even though you won't admit it, is taken from a source that was posted, downloaded, put through a video editor, uploaded, downloaded, prehashed into videos, repeat, repeat, repeat, until what we are left with out of focus shots for you to sit and claim 'look it shows nothing!'. My image is straight from the original re-recording. You can download it yourself, I've given the link.

    If quality makes no difference, then why does YouTube bother to have the option to change video quality from 320p all the way up to 1080p? Obviously there's not a need, because quality makes no difference to how clear the film is, right Scott?

    You are repeating the same argument, you know the image will not show the shadow, just like I know it will not show a 'drone' shadow. The camera is too far away, too low quality, and too low to the ground, to make a shadow distinguishable. But you don't care, you sit there making ridiculous arguments and failing to understand video quality, you love your ignorance, it empowers you, but your 11 years of failure simply amuses me.

    http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/

    My blog proves you wrong in a single page. You sit on your ridiculous low quality image, and yet refuse to address any other aspect which proves your stupid theory is nothing but insane ramblings of a moron. What about RADAR? Witnesses? I have over 130 of those. Debris, damage, all which proves you wrong. But let me guess, none of it matters because you can create some fantasy which is 'plausible' and therefore can dismiss evidence without having to provide any of your own. How can you be so knowingly dishonest to yourself? You are working in reverse, you think the government did 9/11, you believe insane no planer theories, so you begin with your conclusion and work backwards, discarding all evidence which doesn't fit (which happens to be ALL evidence), and relying on a single low quality image, debunked rhetoric, misquotes, and fabrications.

    After several posts you have yet to disprove my blog.
    After several posts, you have yet to answer my questions.

    You are a coward, Scott.
     
  24. signcutter

    signcutter New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    0
    lets say you are correct and a plane did hit the building. How do you discount the fact that you will not get any pilot to state that a rank amateur could fly those planes at that level of proficiency..... not possible without years of training and above average skill.
     
  25. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I am a pilot. I state it was perfectly possible, to perform a descending turn, roll out 6 miles from the target, full power, and hit a 900 foot wide building.

    http://youtu.be/3vqDDlS9Hyw?t=1h18m6s

    I also know Hani Hanjour had a Commercial Pilot licence, Multi-Engine Command Instrument Rating, and a 737 type endorsement. I know was chosen for that target because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew it would be hard to hit, so he chose Hani, because he had been flight training since 1997, and was the most experience of the group.

    I also know Hani Hanjour's name shows on the Flight Manifest for AA77 along with the other hijackers.
    I also know that Hani Hanjour, with the other 4 hijackers, were all filmed on camera boarding AA77.

    Follow the blog.

    Edit; Furthermore your claim is total bunk. PPRUNE, the largest professional pilot's network in the world (somewhere 'Pilots 4 Truth' don't dare show their face). I have had my AA77 flight reconstruction posted there for a while now. Despite over 1,400 views, and several comments, not one of the professional pilots or aviation enthusiasts has commented stating anything of the sort which you claim they 'all' apparently believe.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page