I'm Amazed !

Discussion in '9/11' started by Don Townsend, Aug 31, 2014.

  1. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Minutes from a hearing do not constitute scientific progress. Where are their tests? Their work? Double blind experimentation and presentation?

    None of these appear in the hearing minutes.
     
  2. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are rather good scientific analysis of the events of 9/11/2001 in the form of examination(s) of the collapse events of the towers & 7.
    and there are experiments documented by Jonathan Cole.
    You are demanding a rather high bar here, when in fact, you accept rather low-bar evidence when it comes to supporting the FRAUD that claims 19 fanatics hijacked airliners and crashed into the WTC + Pentagon.
     
  3. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    89,283
    Likes Received:
    12,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    got a better story of what happened?

    of course not.
     
  4. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    KNOWING that the official story is a crock,
    is not the same as knowing exactly what did happen.
    it is VERY easy to see that the official story is impossible.
    not just improbable, but impossible.

    Can U say FALSE FLAG ATTACK?
     
  5. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    89,283
    Likes Received:
    12,710
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so you have no evidence it was a false-flag, no idea how it was done, no idea who did it, no idea when it happened or who orchistrated it.

    but you KNOW it was a false-flag?

    sounds like a pretty ignorant and baseless assumption.
     
  6. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    in the case of the alleged "FLT175" you like your B movie special effects .... no?
    and in the case of the twin towers "collapse"
    the official report states "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation" HOWEVER, for anyone who has ever taken a math course that includes probability, WHY should anyone say "inevitable" when there are a multitude of out-comes possible and indeed rather probable, the ONLY conclusion that is possible here is that both towers had a LOT of help to "totally collapse" and that would be by way of an engineered demolition.
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Argument from incredulity. No evidence to back up your claim.
     
  8. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    do you totally dismiss as you have with all the other hard evidence bits, that is the fact that the towers descended at 64% of the acceleration of gravity and therefore could not possibly have pulverized themselves as was observed, there must have been an additional source of energy and indeed engineering behind the application of said energy.
     
  9. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You do realise that your OP is full of incorrect generalisations, and is merely an argument from incredulity because people don't share your belief system. Moreover, you resort to ad hominem attacks on those who don't agree with your hyperbolic claims.

    Hardly a good example of someone who suggests (via innuendo) that he has a higher IQ than those who would disagree with his assumptions.
     
  10. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lets boil it down to the essentials, do you get it, that it is not only highly improbable, but IMPOSSIBLE that there be three airliner crashes that produce the impressions of the wings, two of these crashes into skyscrapers and one into dirt and each one bearing the clear impressions of wings at the alleged crash site. not to mention the fact that the Pentagon fiasco is truly out there in that we are expected to believe that an airliner crashed into the PENTAGON at the angle alleged and still only a tiny amount of aircraft wreckage ends up on the Pentagon lawn? This is much more than "incredulity" this is about common sense.
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Argument from incredulity. No evidence to back up your claim.
     
  12. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To simply put this in perspective, there is ZERO evidence to prove the use of hijacked airliners as weapons. One thing going for the TRUTH movement is the fact that an Aluminum airliner vs a steel box column wall would NOT produce the result that was in the video of the alleged crash.

    So the side of the argument not supported by logic, is the alleged 19 radical hijackers bit.
     
  13. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And you can't show ONE valid reason why it couldn't have happened that way,other than your argument from incredulity
     
  14. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lets just take one of the 4 alleged airliner crashes and examine closely,
    the ground has a plane shaped impression complete with wings, now think about this PLEASE, the aircraft would have struck the dirt at what >500 mph and the nose of the plane would have to crush while also digging itself into the ground and all this takes energy, so the aircraft would be forced to slow down, this imposes stress upon the airframe and very seriously huge stress at that, so WHY the nice neat wing shaped impressions? In the case of "FLT11" "FLT175" and "FLT93" the force involved would have ripped the aircraft to shreds before it had a chance to make that nice neat aircraft shaped impression.
     
  15. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who ever claimed this?
     
  16. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Then for YOU, what is the explanation of the shape of the impression in the ground at Shanksville? An aircraft breaking up and then striking the ground would not have left the sort of impression that was observed.
     
  17. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, common sense clearly has nothing to do with this form of evidential assessment. It is just simply an argument from incredulity, as is yours.
     
  18. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It left a hole in the ground,child...a big hole
     
  19. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and what is the shape of said hole?
     
  20. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    round and irregularly shaped....this wasn't the thin facade of the WTC towers
     
  21. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Given the actual shape of the hole + the fact that the "news" that is the talking heads on TV mentioned it as alleged proof that an airliner had crashed there,
    its rather obvious that the hole does have the alleged wing impressions.

    and also, do you really believe "thin facade" properly describes the WTC tower wall?
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obvious only to YOU it seems


    And yes,it describes the wall just fine
     
  23. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So box columns that are welded to steel plate behind said box columns and then a concrete deck behind said steel plate that would resist any attempt to penetrate the wall, and you use the term "thin facade" to describe this wall?

    Thank U very much 4 the opinion......
     
  24. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's NOT an opinion,it was why the towers were so revolutionary in their design.....and why am I arguing with someone too lazy to spell TWO three letter words?
     
  25. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The above is simply an attempt to shoot the messenger.
    saying that the towers were "revolutionary in their design"
    doesn't dismiss the fact that there was a box column wall
    with a steel plate welded to said box columns and the steel
    plate was backed up by a 4" thick concrete deck. This structure
    would have resisted penetration by anything. Note that Airliners
    are NOT Missiles and therefore not designed to penetrate targets,
    Missiles are designed to penetrate targets.

    Also, given the fact that Airliners are a monocoque construction, at the time the nose of the aircraft contacted the wall, the entire aircraft would be stressed and I KNOW that the stress would be in excess of what the airframe is designed to withstand, therefore the aircraft would break up before having a chance to make the nice neat aircraft shaped hole in the wall.
     

Share This Page