Debunkers: why don't you prove the 9-11 official story?[W:208571]

[Fledermaus]

Re: Debunkers: why don't you prove the 9-11 official story?[W:208]

Might you provide a reference to one of them saying they "found the real truth?" I had never heard that before, until your claim.

Sure, after you explain ground effect.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Debunkers: why don't you prove the 9-11 official story?[W:208]

Sure, after you explain ground effect.

Pardon the pun, but an explanation of ground effect would go right over your head. It's invisible, but it really happens, a dynamic thing.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Debunkers: why don't you prove the 9-11 official story?[W:208]

Pardon the pun, but an explanation of ground effect would go right over your head. It's invisible, but it really happens, a dynamic thing.

So, once again, the HD shuffle.....

Dont worry. Post YOUR version of ground effect. I know enough pilots to get it appraised for accuracy.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Debunkers: why don't you prove the 9-11 official story?[W:208]

You would just call me a liar dude. That's how you roll, old news.

Whether you understand ground effect or not concerns me not at all. I fear you are incapable of understanding it.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Debunkers: why don't you prove the 9-11 official story?[W:208]

Pardon the pun, but an explanation of ground effect would go right over your head. It's invisible, but it really happens, a dynamic thing.

Please post your explanation and try us out. I bet we'll understand.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Debunkers: why don't you prove the 9-11 official story?[W:208]

You would just call me a liar dude. That's how you roll, old news.

Whether you understand ground effect or not concerns me not at all. I fear you are incapable of understanding it.

You'd be wrong. Please post your explanation, without insults.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Simple... Convince me that the 9-11 official story (NIST report, commission report, FAA report, etc ) are accurate.

Some points that are worth proving to make the point more convincing:
- proof that it was the planes we were told that hit those buildings?
- how much of the steel had to be heated to what temperature in order to fail?
- what stopped the toppling of wtc 2 while the momentum should have seen it continue in the direction of the momentum?
- what caused the exceedingly hot temperatures (molten metal; steel, aluminum, lead, concrete)?
- what led to the period of freefall collapse of 8 floors (2.5 seconds) of wtc 7? How did fires lead to that freefall?
- etc... You all know the main points of contention.

I could go on, let this be the place where you guys iterate the infallibility of the official story with minimal distraction from truthers.

You are making the accusation that the official story is false. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[zyzygy]

You are making the accusation that the official story is false. The burden of proof is on you.

We may see some proof someday.

 

[Rearden]

Of course it is false. You would have to believe that lower temps then what are used to clean a self cleaning oven brought down a steal building. You would have to believe that jet fuel can jump from one elevator shaft to another since their explanation for the explosions below ground were due to jet fuel going down all the elevator shafts. Those elevators were not one continuous shaft but broken into 3 sections and people had to exit 1/3 of the way up and take an escalator to the next floor to continue up.


You would have to believe that the flight attendant who left the message on her husbands cell phone that "its a frame" was calling 30,000 ft in the air when the first sucessful cell phone call from a plane above 25,000 ft didnt happen for another 3 years.

You would have to believe that the thermite found there some how came in from out of nowhere and that it was actually jet fuel that burned and caused the molten steal that was seen for over a month after the demolition.

You would have to believe that all the support in building 7 spontaneously and simultaneously collapsed at the same second and that the free fall of the entire building was caused by a small fire in one section of the building.

You would have to believe that BBC are fortune tellers and knew bldg. 7 was going to fall and reported it fallen even as it still stood behind the reporter.
I could go on and on but I think you get my drift.

You are making the accusation that the official story is false. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[zyzygy]

Of course it is false. You would have to believe that lower temps then what are used to clean a self cleaning oven brought down a steal building. You would have to believe that jet fuel can jump from one elevator shaft to another since their explanation for the explosions below ground were due to jet fuel going down all the elevator shafts. Those elevators were not one continuous shaft but broken into 3 sections and people had to exit 1/3 of the way up and take an escalator to the next floor to continue up.
View attachment 67181596

You would have to believe that the flight attendant who left the message on her husbands cell phone that "its a frame" was calling 30,000 ft in the air when the first sucessful cell phone call from a plane above 25,000 ft didnt happen for another 3 years.

You would have to believe that the thermite found there some how came in from out of nowhere and that it was actually jet fuel that burned and caused the molten steal that was seen for over a month after the demolition.

You would have to believe that all the support in building 7 spontaneously and simultaneously collapsed at the same second and that the free fall of the entire building was caused by a small fire in one section of the building.

You would have to believe that BBC are fortune tellers and knew bldg. 7 was going to fall and reported it fallen even as it still stood behind the reporter.
I could go on and on but I think you get my drift.

Please tell us what you believe, in detail. What is your full 911 theory? Bear in mind that everything you mention has long been debunked.

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Debunkers: why don't you prove the 9-11 official story?[W:208]

You would just call me a liar dude. That's how you roll, old news.

Whether you understand ground effect or not concerns me not at all. I fear you are incapable of understanding it.

Doing the HD shuffle

 

[Rearden]

We may see some proof someday.

All the proof that they are lying is well documented in these videos. Go to the end of vid 1. It will make the hair stand on the back of your neck.
Luogocomune - Sezioni

 

[zyzygy]

All the proof that they are lying is well documented in these videos. Go to the end of vid 1. It will make the hair stand on the back of your neck.
Luogocomune - Sezioni

It won't. Is it 2006 again? This is all done and dusted. Deja vu. I did ask for a 911 theory in your own words. What are the salient points in your theory and how do they differ from the official story? Are you a mini-nuke or thermite man? Or explosives that leave no residue? Do you believe that the government murdered the passengers or are you no-planer? If that is the case then were the passengers part of the plot and did they volunteer to disappear?

 

[MAGAnificent]

No...it's just a nutty conspiracy theory.

 

[Rearden]

Just saying something has been debunked doesnt make it so in the real world. I dont claim to know what happened but know that the Commissions NIST report is not correct. I have actually read all 140 some pages its a shameful piece of propaganda that they American people paid over 1 million dollars to have produced.
How do you explain that 9 cals were successfully placed from flight 93 to loved ones but the first cell call from a plane was not tested for several years.
" American Airlines and Qualcomm, proudly announced the development of a new wireless technology --which will at some future date allow airline passengers using their cell phones to contact family and friends from a commercial aircraft (no doubt at a special rate aerial roaming charge) (see http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2004/040715_aa_testflight.html )

"Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month [July 2004], American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls." (WP, July 27, 2004)

Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:

"Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to-ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground.

For the test flight from Dallas-Fort Worth, the aircraft was equipped with an antenna in the front and rear of the cabin to transmit cell phone calls to a small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station. This "pico cell" transmitted cell phone calls from the aircraft via a Globalstar satellite to the worldwide terrestrial phone network"

Needless to say, neither the service, nor the "third generation" hardware, nor the "Picco cell" CDMA base station inside the cabin (which so to speak mimics a cell phone communication tower inside the plane) were available on the morning of September 11, 2001."

It won't. Is it 2006 again? This is all done and dusted. Deja vu. I did ask for a 911 theory in your own words. What are the salient points in your theory and how do they differ from the official story? Are you a mini-nuke or thermite man? Or explosives that leave no residue? Do you believe that the government murdered the passengers or are you no-planer? If that is the case then were the passengers part of the plot and did they volunteer to disappear?

 

[MAGAnificent]

Of course it is false. You would have to believe that lower temps then what are used to clean a self cleaning oven brought down a steal building. You would have to believe that jet fuel can jump from one elevator shaft to another since their explanation for the explosions below ground were due to jet fuel going down all the elevator shafts. Those elevators were not one continuous shaft but broken into 3 sections and people had to exit 1/3 of the way up and take an escalator to the next floor to continue up.
View attachment 67181596

You would have to believe that the flight attendant who left the message on her husbands cell phone that "its a frame" was calling 30,000 ft in the air when the first sucessful cell phone call from a plane above 25,000 ft didnt happen for another 3 years.

You would have to believe that the thermite found there some how came in from out of nowhere and that it was actually jet fuel that burned and caused the molten steal that was seen for over a month after the demolition.

You would have to believe that all the support in building 7 spontaneously and simultaneously collapsed at the same second and that the free fall of the entire building was caused by a small fire in one section of the building.

You would have to believe that BBC are fortune tellers and knew bldg. 7 was going to fall and reported it fallen even as it still stood behind the reporter.
I could go on and on but I think you get my drift.

:funny:aliens3:oke Break out the tin foil hats!

 

[zyzygy]

You would have to believe that all the support in building 7 spontaneously and simultaneously collapsed at the same second and that the free fall of the entire building was caused by a small fire in one section of the building.

Where did you study engineering and fire damage?

 

[Rearden]

It won't. Is it 2006 again? This is all done and dusted. Deja vu. I did ask for a 911 theory in your own words. What are the salient points in your theory and how do they differ from the official story? Are you a mini-nuke or thermite man? Or explosives that leave no residue? Do you believe that the government murdered the passengers or are you no-planer? If that is the case then were the passengers part of the plot and did they volunteer to disappear?

Knowing something isnt true doesnt necessarily mean that the truth is known. I am not gullible enough to believe that jet fuel burned for over a month and got hot enough to molten concrete.

Im not trying to convince you of anything but to believe the story they are telling is.... not me. Could I interest you in some genuine big foot hair also?

 

[zyzygy]

A tiny little fire.

 

[Rearden]

Where did you study engineering and fire damage?

I gave you that link and you disregarded it. How about that big foot hair? Should I give you my paypal acct?
You still havent explained how 9 cell phone calls came from an airplane 30,000 ft in the air when the technology wasnt available for 3 more years. Pleas... do tell.:lol:

 

[zyzygy]

Knowing something isnt true doesnt necessarily mean that the truth is known. I am not gullible enough to believe that jet fuel burned for over a month and got hot enough to molten concrete.
View attachment 67181597
Im not trying to convince you of anything but to believe the story they are telling is.... not me. Could I interest you in some genuine big foot hair also?

If you take the trouble to peruses the other 911 threads then you will find the explanation regarding the meteorite. This all may be new to you but you are rehashing old and debunked stuff.

 

[Rearden]

A tiny little fire.

View attachment 67181598

Bawaawahhahaha that isnt smoke that is debris roll out from the collapse of the Tower.

 

[zyzygy]

I gave you that link and you disregarded it. How about that big foot hair? Should I give you my paypal acct?
You still havent explained how 9 cell phone calls came from an airplane 30,000 ft in the air when the technology wasnt available for 3 more years. Pleas... do tell.:lol:

I'm not here to do research for you. The answers can be found, but not on truther sites. I dare say if you look through the threads here you will find an explanation of the phone calls. Are you really saying that if this was a government plot that they overlooked the fact that part of the plot depended on technology that had not been invented? Somebody would have spotted that. What did bring that building down, in your opinion? You haven't told us that yet.

 

[Rearden]

If you take the trouble to peruses the other 911 threads then you will find the explanation regarding the meteorite. This all may be new to you but you are rehashing old and debunked stuff.

I have studied the topic presented by the top experts in America in the field of Engineering and chemistry. I highly doubt that a member of a political forum can convince me that all 2,300 of them are all wrong.
Believe what you want. They need people like you.

 

[Rearden]

Your confusion continues. I have repeatedly told you that I am not saying the gov was behind it and have no idea who did it. I do know that the top people in their fields have convinced me the the 9/11 Commission report is best use to wipe ones ass with.

I'm not here to do research for you. The answers can be found, but not on truther sites. I dare say if you look through the threads here you will find an explanation of the phone calls. Are you really saying that if this was a government plot that they overlooked the fact that part of the plot depended on technology that had not been invented? Somebody would have spotted that. What did bring that building down, in your opinion? You haven't told us that yet.