Discussion in '9/11' started by l4zarus, Jul 2, 2014.
Argument from incredulity.
Why didn't this vinyl record shatter while being driven into the wood?
Argument from incredulity.AGAIN
a record isn't an airliner, and the fact is that in all of these instances of stuff being driven into trees, logs, or other wood, the storm driven object exploits a crack in the wood so as to enter as it did.
Major feature of the "FLT175" alleged crash is that the aircraft is not seen to slow down as it penetrates into the WTC tower. whats up with that?
Nonresponsive,and vmoving the goalposts...
It doesn't matter that the record entered a crack,but the fact that the brittle vinyl is intact after hitting a much harder objectthe perinimter walls of the towers were mostly open spaces where windows were.So there is NO reason why it should perceptibly 'slow down' entering the tower wall.
Only if the tower wall was made of cardboard......
You see, the record stopped without penetrating completely
The airliner ( the alleged airliner ) penetrated completely and
without slowing down .... wings & all and no deceleration?
Laws of physics guyz! laws of physics .......
the tower wall didn't need to be made of 'cardboard,and again,it wasn't a solid steel facade...there were window openings that aided in the complete penetration of the airliner without any perceptible deceleration laws indeed.
Who says there was no deceleration? You?
Well, then ... you are wrong about that.
where do you get your data that there was deceleration?
Same place,most likely where you get yours saying there was none...
So basically you don't have a source, but just want to obfuscate.....
You see, I can cite a source
and this is but one of a number of sources for the information.
The debunker faction doesn't have proof that there were ever hijacked airliners in the first place.
You cite a truther website as your 'source'...tsk.
must be why you are so prone to pulling wild theories out of your nether regions...
so, any web-page that questions the official story is automatically a "truther" page and therefore totally bogus..... is that it?
Yes..the headline 'the WCT2 media fakery' says all I need to know about their objectivity.
The author calls it like he sees it. You are free to form your own opinion.
This is at least as objective as anything Popular Mechanics has offered up on the subject.
PM relied on evidence, not conjecture.
Threaded quotes not working. Your question was:
"what makes it relevant to any discussion of 9/11/2001
that is the question of who first asserted that an energy beam weapon
was used to destroy the towers & 7? "
It's relevant because it indicates a deliberate intention to deceive people into accepting the "truth movement" as a real grassroots political force, whether you buy the premise or not. It's obvious from the Fetzer radio show Wood was meant to be seen as the inventor of DEW/ Space beams.
But knowing DEW was invented 4 years earlier by Fetzer's associates shows Fetzer at least knew he was lying. I'd assume Wood knew she was lying too, but who knows.
Why would Fetzer want the public to think Wood invented something pushed at a pro Nazi seminar years earlier?
The obvious answer is to obscure the fringe racist politics/truther connection.
DEW would never have become a meme if it was obvious from the start it was a theory Bollyn pushed in 2002. And Fetzer & co would have made less money without a controversy giving Jones and Gage a credibility by comparison they don't deserve.
In other words, it's a scam and a scam involving virtually every major "truth" leader doing "research" at that time. By extension it shows 911 "truth" to be a scam. It's strange you can't see this, G-bob.
Then we have Steven Jones, supposedly a scientist, going on record saying DEW should be considered. That's a whole different batch of crazy...
Plus PM had no truther axe to grind...
No they had a Liar axe to grind.....
I am not one of the follower "truthers" who buy every book & DVD & T shirt on the market, I have not purchased any of the stuff. and I've KNOWN from the very beginning that 9/11/2001 was a FRAUD.
the "collapse" of the towers & 7, the totally mad bit about how the PENTAGON was allegedly struck by a commercial airliner.
and that Shanksville fiasco! GIVE ME A BREAK!
From the moment that the South Tower "collapsed" I KNEW
something was VERY WRONG HERE!
The perpetrators understood that you can fool some of the people some of the time but never all the people all the time, therefore the psychological warfare began the very day of the event. TV is a very powerful propaganda tool.
What part of the PM article can you prove was a lie,Bob?
And you're way off with your OPINION...,you can claim you know all you want,but evidence proves it's what you only think.
The entire PM bit is a propaganda piece, however, just to take an example:
"Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies."
Note that in a documentary of the day, fire crews assembled in the lobby of the north tower and in the lobby there is NO smoke damage, NO evidence of burning at all as would have had to be from a jet fuel fire.
+ the fact that there was not enough fuel in the aircraft to distribute inside the building and cause substantial damage.
Popular Mechanics has published FRAUD!
Source this claim, please.
Most of the emotional appeal "documentaries"
include the scene where the firefighters assemble in the North Tower Lobby and it can be clearly seen that the lobby has NO smoke or fire damage but is very clearly damaged by something, a bomb perhaps?
So no source,then.
You & everybody else has access to the "documentary" videos, hey even most public libraries have at least a few DVDs of the type that support the official fiasco and even these videos were lame 'nuff to include the scene by the Naudet brothers that shows clearly that the lobby of the north tower had NONE of the expected results of a jet fuel fire or explosion.
So ... no source, then?
Separate names with a comma.