No-planers: I challenge you to explain how all the videos and photos....

There is no evidence to suggest it was caused by anything but the impacts and resulting fire.

All throuhg your posts you have failed to produce any evidence of any kind to consider

 

And I submit to this forum, that you have refused to consider evidence
that has been presented, but you simply stonewall and call it not evidence thereby avoiding any responsibility on your part for actually thinking about the evidence.

"There is no evidence to suggest" This reflects a huge bias, there is evidence and it has been presented, but you believe so strongly in that story about Arabs hijacking airliners ..... that you refuse to consider the possibility of there being any other explanation for the events of 9/11/2001.

The evidence has been presented, and rather than participate in a dialog on the evidence, you simply dismiss it by not considering it evidence.

sorry about that ...... your loss .....

 

What part of 'you've presented NO evidence' confuses you?

Appeals to incredulity don't count

 

appeals to logic & reason + common sense do count
and you have conveniently labeled everything as
"appeals to incredulity" when in fact there is good logic
and reason to be had in the evidence, its just that you are
so biased as to not get it.

 

You've displayed NONE of these

Your whole premise boils down to 'who are you going to believe,Me,or your lying eyes?'

 

So you have paid no attention at all to any of my arguments
about the reasons for knowing that the destruction of WTC1,2 & 7
were indeed CD events and there is logic and reason for understanding this.

 

No you are being dishonest.

I have not stonewalled or refused to consider evidence.

This is absolute fact you have never presented any period.

Nor has any other twoofer.

You have never presented evidence or a dialog about the evidence you have presented only vague feelings and opinions. You have never produced a speck of evidenc to dismiss.

Get that fact straight your little feelings are not evidence

- - - Updated - - -

Your arguments are only a few feelings which does not constitute evidence at all.

You have never stated any such reason. None of your arguments are logical or reasonable

 

Thank U very much
I leave it to the readers of this forum to read previous
posts and make up their own minds.

have a nice day

: )

 

It is still a simple fact you have presented no evidence.

 

and I know that I'll never present an argument that you will accept,
however for the random reader of this forum, there is hope that they will read and understand what logic & reason dictates about the fraud that is the official story of 9/11/2001.

 

Arguments lacking any evidence at all are pretty unacceptable yes. I could care less what others decide or believe and there are a few other loppy twoofers who will always believe in conspiracy theories and defend your posts.

The fact is still this however you have failed miserably to provde even a speck of evidence.

The so called official story is supported by evidence which you have utterly failed to challenge. Your opinion that it is fraud is not a valid challenge you need to produce evidence.

 

Like my challenge that cites the demolition of WTC 1,2 & 7
or my challenge of the 590 mph speed of the alleged FLT175,
or the challenge that includes the as yet unaccounted for 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration of WTC 7.

These are not vague gut level feelings, they are real questions that require real answers.

What do YOU have that proves an airliner can fly at 590 mph
@ <1000 ft altitude? or for that matter any of the serious questions
that have been asked by the "truther" community?

Who is operating on gut level feelings here and who is applying
real science to the problem?

 

I've seen your fantasies of what you THINK happened,and there is NO valid argument in them.

 

Like my challenge that cites the demolition of WTC 1,2 & 7
or my challenge of the 590 mph speed of the alleged FLT175,
or the challenge that includes the as yet unaccounted for 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration of WTC 7.

These are not vague gut level feelings, they are real questions that require real answers.

What do YOU have that proves an airliner can fly at 590 mph
@ <1000 ft altitude? or for that matter any of the serious questions
that have been asked by the "truther" community?

Who is operating on gut level feelings here and who is applying
real science to the problem?

 

You are.

 

I was reading that the buildings designers commissioned a study of what would happen if a jet hit one of the towers at 600MPH


They found papers telling of the study,but Ironically,the documents themselves were destroyed in the collapse

 

How convenient, the original papers were destroyed in the "collapse"
and the original authors of this document were not available for comment?

Where did you get this INFORMATION about a study of what if an airliner hit at 600 mph? ( also this calls into question the "FLT11" hit because it was allegedly flying at a lower speed )

No documentation, no interviews with the original document writers,
no hard data, and you accuse me of presenting fairy tales?

I know that the regulars on this forum are not going to
get it, or even if they did, they would never admit to it.
but for the random lurker, please do read and digest
what you can from this bit and make up your own mind,
facts are facts even if you find them difficult to embrace.

 

You never cited any source showing demolition of those buildings so yes you offered no challenge. You have only stated you think it was likely.

You never challenged the speed of FLT 175.

There never was any free fall acceleration of WTC& which is proven fact.

Google the specification for a Boeing 767 it is easily capable of such speeds or for that matter go to Boeing . com

ALl questions asked by the TWOOFER community have been answered the TWOOFERS never present evidence they only wait for some time to go by and ask the same idiotic questions which have been answered assuming that other will forget the previous question and answer.

This is what you are doing now ignoring facts given to you proven you wrong.

YOu also ignore that you have never produced any evidence of any kind it is you and strictly you operating on GUT feelings.

You are applying no science at all in any way.

Science relies on real verifiable evidence which all of your posts lack.

 

Clearly somebody has attitude about this whole issue.

 

No not really the issue is with those pretending to be informed

 

You probably mean WTC 7 and yes, its DOCUMENTED in
the NIST report on the destruction of WTC7 + it is documented
in multiple "truther" web-pages. and you want to simply wave it
away like it doesn't exist.

Also please note that the specifications for a Boeing airliner
states a max speed for the aircraft and then lists @ 35,000 ft
why pray-tell would they list an altitude specification for this speed,
if it was able to fly at that speed at any altitude?

I ask the readers of this forum to diligently seek truth.

Good Luck .......

 

While we are on the subject, see post 296 in this thread.

Who is it that is pretending to be informed?

 

No it is not documented and in fact the NIST report does not say any such thing.

It did not collapse at free fall speed the claim that it collapsed at free fall speed is a myth in the conspiracy theory community which has long sinc ebeen debunked and proven false.

 

NIST found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft-impact analysis, involving impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study, which was part of the building's 1,200-page structural analysis, was lost when the Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the 1 WTC; the copy was lost in 7 WTC.[10] In 1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."[11] In its report, NIST stated that the technical ability to perform a rigorous simulation of aircraft impact and ensuing fires is a recent development, and that the technical capability for such analysis would have been quite limited in the 1960s.[12][note 1]

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

 

You are.

WTC7 did not collapse at free fall speed no matter how many little twoofers have screamed otherwise