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

Discussion in '9/11' started by LogicallyYours, Jun 23, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,025
    Likes Received:
    3,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
  2. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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 .....
     
  3. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What part of 'you've presented NO evidence' confuses you?

    Appeals to incredulity don't count
     
  4. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  5. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You've displayed NONE of these

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

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,025
    Likes Received:
    3,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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
     
  8. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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

    : )
     
  9. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,025
    Likes Received:
    3,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is still a simple fact you have presented no evidence.
     
  10. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,025
    Likes Received:
    3,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  12. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  13. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've seen your fantasies of what you THINK happened,and there is NO valid argument in them.
     
  14. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are.
     
  16. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  17. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  18. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,025
    Likes Received:
    3,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  19. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Clearly somebody has attitude about this whole issue.
     
  20. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,025
    Likes Received:
    3,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No not really the issue is with those pretending to be informed
     
  21. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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 .......
     
  22. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While we are on the subject, see post 296 in this thread.

    Who is it that is pretending to be informed?
     
  23. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,025
    Likes Received:
    3,625
    Trophy Points:
    113

    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.
     
  24. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  25. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,025
    Likes Received:
    3,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are.

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

Share This Page