Discussion in '9/11' started by Bob0627, Aug 1, 2018.
It's not that hard to prove you wrong.
No it is not.
I already linked the location of the thread where it was discussed in detail and which contains the links you're looking for.
I noted that many posts ago. Man you are really thick or pretend to be or just playing your usual games. I'll go with the latter.
Here we go again (see above).
Round and round we go .... Read my prior posts for comprehension phony one.
And I will defend your constitutionally protected right to make any idiotic claims your die hard apologist heart desires ... at all times.
Yeah you are a barrel of laughs ... if I were to take you seriously.
Except you did nothing of the kind and have yet to do so as much as you constantly try.
What's in your selected portion of the manual that you're trying hard to make your case has nothing to do with what I posted. The NTSB is bound by its own COMPLETE manual to perform its job in full accordance with all protocols (including but not limited to Appendix J) listed in the manual. That should be obvious to anyone, even you. The fact that the FBI took over the Pentagon investigation changes nothing about the protocols detailed in its manual. They are and always will be what they are unless and until the NTSB changes these protocols. All the FBI can do if they wish to corrupt the NTSB's mandated task is to prevent them from performing it. I know this is a really difficult and complex concept for you but I'm sorry that I can't simplify it any more than that for your comprehension. Try a dictionary if it's that confusing for you.
I love how Bob loves to source info that suits his delusion but makes up the sh!t that doesn't ...
go dig up some more Payne or Jefferson quotes Bob ... quoting historical figures always makes one look intelligent ...
What was the lie exactly? It was strictly an opinion based on elementary common sense. It's actually something YOU should be able to come up with if you're truly an engineer. I never claimed it was written in stone anywhere. Not everything everyone posts needs to be sourced, that's just ridiculous. This is a discussion forum and all posters discuss. That means they post opinions, sometimes based on sourced material, sometimes not.
Having explained all that to you, why in **** would the NTSB do anything different in their investigation than what is written in their investigation manual even if the FBI took over? Like I explained to Mr. Pretend Engineer and the other phony baloney all the FBI can do is allow the NTSB to do their job per standard protocol or prevent them from doing their job. The FBI can also demand that they deviate from their protocol but then that's like a non-expert asking a mechanic to use a hammer when a screw driver is required. You make absolutely no sense and that's why I find it incredulous that you're truly an engineer.
And I do because you prove you don't exhibit minimal common sense so how can you be an engineer?
The usual juvenile non sequitur. I assume you're referring to me but yet you keep asking me what I think and believe it's lunacy. So why do you ask me anything if you believe what I post is lunacy? It's so easy to label what you don't understand "lunatic truther", that's what children often do. If you're "semi-retired" as you claimed, when did you "semi-retire", after 3rd or 4th grade?
There is none that I'm aware of or if there is one it's not publicly available (as far as I know). The difference is that the NTSB has their protocol published in a manual which is publicly available. What I would like it to be is what it should be and what is most logical for 4 airplane crashes on 9/11 (as explained to you several times), nothing less and obviously it's nothing like that. If it was the FBI would make the parts match publicly available via FOIA request or strictly for transparency/disclosure purposes. That they denied it twice tells me either it was never done, which is a serious deviation of NTSB protocol or the parts did not match and they don't want that information released. Either way, it's a massive 9/11 investigation failure just like the other 2 frauds (NIST and the 9/11 Commission). What is publicly known is that the FBI hid 80,000 pages of documents from their PENTBOM investigation for over a decade. So what else did the FBI hide that no one knows about? Oh excuse me, you need the source because why take the word of a "lunatic truther":
No calling something you don't understand "lunatic truther" is the epitome of intelligence.
One genius posting in this thread believes an opinion based on incontrovertible logic is a lie because it can't be sourced. And another needs to consult a meteorologist to confirm that the sky is blue on a clear day anywhere on this planet.
You can't make this stuff up.
The part in question is if the sky is “clear” or not, hence me putting “CLEAR blue sky” in quotes.
Nothing to do with the sky being blue on a clear day.
Are you pretending to to that stupid? Maybe not.
I hope you're not referring to me Bobby because that would make it a lie.
But you said Hulsey proved NIST wrong? How is that possible when you haven't determined if there were mistakes or not? You're going on faith no Bobby. Something you have criticised in the past remember?
To his slideshow or his preliminary report?
Sorry but your spin doesn't change the fact that you need to consult a meteorologist to tell you the sky is blue on a clear day.
Are you pretending to believe everyone is fooled by your spin? Why even argue it if you knew or failed to grasp what I posted? It was really quite simple even for the simple minded.
Are you two posters? Based on the foregoing, I gave you way too much intellectual credit.
I said Hulsey confirmed what other experts and I knew well before I ever heard of Hulsey. But I understand your confusion, you read what I post then either deliberately invent a spin to what I posted or just plain don't get anything I post for lack of reading comprehension.
Maybe you should actually go through the posts in the thread I posted the link to so you can figure it out for yourself. But you already said you don't want to discuss it so why are you even asking? Then again so far it seems you can't figure anything out, I'm sorry for your disability.
The South tower was struck by a modified 767.
The North tower was struck by something smaller than an airliner, perhaps a corporate jet, according to the handful of people who called in to NYPD after seeing that strike.
Because we're discussing historical events from 17 years ago. We're discussing very old news.
The curious person who has informed himself already knows that. The incurious and strongly dissonant individual will not be persuaded by facts demonstrated by links.
Modified? In what way? Was this modified 767 a drone also? Links that support your claims.
Anyways, a handful of people versus all the other evidence out there. That's what you choose to go with. I can see how you can be convinced.
So the government decides to plan this out. They decide to use a modified 767 on one tower and a smaller, corporate jet on the other. Then they decide to go with the explanation that it was flights 11 and 175 and provide fake evidence to support that story and run the risk that someone would see that it was a corporate jet? Why did they not use modified 767s for both towers?!
What a lovely imagination you have!
So we can take your UNSOURCED views and claims with a grain of salt because you're too lazy to support them and use the excuse "it's old news".
What a complete joke. No wonder truthers have a had time convincing anyone.
I have. What I have seen goes back to his slideshow and latest update about the report. So I'll ask you again. Did you read his preliminary report or just see the slideshow? Or both?
I find it interested that you choose to provide paragraphs that consist of nothing but dancing around the question instead of providing a simple answer.
To reiterate. Did you read/view:
1. Hulsey's slideshow
2. Hulsey's full preliminary report
I made this easy for you.
This truther learned years ago that dissonant individuals cannot be convinced of anything that conflicts with their carefully protected world view. This truther learned long ago that it is far easier to fool an individual than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled. Human behavior is fascinating.
Those curious individuals will inform and educate themselves--it's part of being curious about what's happening in the world around you.
Individuals that are not curious will happily accept what the authorities tell them, and ask no questions.
What's fascinating is that you can't provide proof/evidence to support your claims because "it's so old". I'm not trusting your memory as proof of what you claim. Sorry, but that's just stupid.
please provide even a shred of evidence to support this ridiculous claim ...
you're not a psychologist obviously ... nor are you a nuclear scientist ... or a pilot ... definitely not an engineer ... so who and what are you so we may get to know you better? ...
More people missing from the planet.
what happened to the people who were on the planes.
Can't be done. The story is too old according to Eleuthera.
You never make anything easy because you constantly spin my posts to suit your agenda.
So I have some questions for you:
1. Why do you care about any of the above if you're not interested in discussing Hulsey's preliminary report as you claim?
2. If you read the posts in the thread I provided the link to as you now claim, why do you keep asking me for the link?
3. And if you actually read through those posts, why are you asking me questions for which the answer is obvious from those posts?
Let me know if you changed your mind and you now want to genuinely discuss Hulsey's preliminary report (I understand "genuine" in your case is always highly unlikely but nevertheless). If you still don't, there's no point in bothering with any of your questions, not that there is anyway.
Why would I discuss Hulsey's preliminary report when you've only seen Hulsey's presentation?
Separate names with a comma.