We are ALL experts on this bus.....

[mbig]

Please people, there are lots of requests for documentation that supports
one argument or another. That is either the Controlled Demolition of WTC 1, 2, & 7
or the "no-planes" bit or whatever it is, and people seem to want some sort of pontification
by a PHD type to somehow bless their position on this subject. HOWEVER
PLEASE GET THIS, there are PHD types who will support the "no-planes" explanation
and Controlled Demolition & whatever you want really after all Dr. Wood has a PHD.
so what it really boils down to, is what do YOU think? and really ( maybe just IMHO )
but it seems to me that no more than high school level science is needed to get this.
9/11/2001 was either a false flag, or not, and even if "experts" put out all sorts of
possible explanations for what happened, the bottom line here is WHAT DO YOU THINK?

I personally do not believe for a second the "19 suicidal fanatics" explanation .....

However, experts aside, WHY do you think as you do?

OK I'll humor this nonsense for a few posts/minutes.

What DO you believe?
The planes did not hit the WTC/Pentagon?
The planes did hit the WTC/Pent but they were not guided by Arabs?
Because 19 Arabs WERE on those planes, 2 in each of the jets' first class seats, at least one of whom (each) had gone to flight school.

So 19 Arabs of non-US origin played along with a US-based False Flag plot for a year or more and all agreed, none got any significant money for their families.
No one turned it down and ratted out.
Along of course, with scores, at least, of Inteligence agents and Thousands of: US military demolition experts, airline employees, Live media fake films, Witnesses, victim's families (who 'lied' about cell phone calls), etc. All were happy to be in a plot to kill thousands, possibly Tens of thousands of Americans. Not One came clean or screwed up and let on.

 

[Menard_K]

OK I'll humor this nonsense for a few posts/minutes.

What DO you believe?
The planes did not hit the WTC/Pentagon?
The planes did hit the WTC/Pent but they were not guided by Arabs?
Because 19 Arabs WERE on those planes, 2 in each of the jets' first class seats, at least one of whom (each) had gone to flight school.

So 19 Arabs of non-US origin played along with a US-based False Flag plot for a year or more and all agreed, none got any significant money for their families.
No one turned it down and ratted out.
Along of course, with scores, at least, of Inteligence agents and Thousands of: US military demolition experts, airline employees, Live media fake films, Witnesses, victim's families (who 'lied' about cell phone calls), etc. All were happy to be in a plot to kill thousands, possibly Tens of thousands of Americans. Not One came clean or screwed up and let on.

This is, I believe .. what is known as an argument from incredulity, that is the BIG LIE is just too big for you to get your head around so you tell yourself that it can't possibly be true, even if evidence sez to the contrary.

May I point out, the alleged story tells of TWO airliner strikes to the twin towers and each is characterized by the aircraft making such a neat entry into the building that it leaves behind a cartoon like cut-out including the wings. and in both cases the aircraft disappears inside the building completely. ... that alone is a good trick, now the buildings "collapse" and at 64% of the acceleration of GRAVITY. Can U dig that? You see, a "pile driver" ONLY delivers the energy that it has, when it stops against the pile that its driving, just like a hammer against a nail, its NOT delivering energy while it is accelerating downward. total violation of the laws of physics.

A! lets bust the emperor for indecent exposure!

 

[mbig]

This is, I believe .. what is known as an argument from incredulity, that is the BIG LIE is just too big for you to get your head around so you tell yourself that it can't possibly be true, even if evidence sez to the contrary.

I asked YOU to tell me what "you DO believe" so I could "get my head around it".
You conspicuously did NOT answer.
Apparently even you can't dream up a scenario with 'credulity'.

Though by calling the two strikes "alleged" you are saying they did Not hit the WTC.
OK, what happened to them? ? ?
Did the daily flights not exist? YO! !
OR they (and their 19 Arabs/2 in each First Class you did NOT answer either) took off and were grounded by the CIA and their passengers murdered in cold blood somewhere en route... The Air traffic controllers Lying all the way.
AND lotsa Airline employees too... and of course Thousand of witnesses and their pictures.. and all the Media as well. (and victim cell phone calls to In-on-it family members!)
Everyone, this cast of Tens of Thousands, (including Military demolition experts and countless intelligence personel) all in on it.
Oh Yeah!

So yes, ANY FF plot would be as I described, necessarily involve a Cast of thousands.
You did NOT answer how it could be much smaller, and it would HAVE to be Much, Much, smaller to be possible and/or credible.
You can call that 'incredulity', but it's simple logic until and unless You can Show me otherwise/even a wet dream.
You don't have to tell me exactly what did happen but you DO have to show something else Was possible.
You Failed, Of Course, because this is insane BS.

May I point out, the alleged story tells of TWO airliner strikes to the twin towers and each is characterized by the aircraft making such a neat entry into the building that it leaves behind a cartoon like cut-out including the wings. and in both cases the aircraft disappears inside the building completely. ... that alone is a good trick, now the buildings "collapse" and at 64% of the acceleration of GRAVITY. Can U dig that? You see, a "pile driver" ONLY delivers the energy that it has, when it stops against the pile that its driving, just like a hammer against a nail, its NOT delivering energy while it is accelerating downward. total violation of the laws of physics.

Actually, if you believe two airline strikes were bogus you Have to believe all 4 were Bogus. (or another 2 were a coincidental second FF operation!)
The Physics is only wrong according to a few Wack Jobs, not Tens of Thousands of others who have either contradicted them or (the vast majority) not even bothered with this Clownery.

 

[HonestJoe]

This is, I believe .. what is known as an argument from incredulity, that is the BIG LIE is just too big for you to get your head around so you tell yourself that it can't possibly be true, even if evidence sez to the contrary.

How is that in any way different to your opinion of the official conclusion?

May I point out, the alleged story tells of TWO airliner strikes to the twin towers and each is characterized by the aircraft making such a neat entry into the building that it leaves behind a cartoon like cut-out including the wings. and in both cases the aircraft disappears inside the building completely.

They weren't that neat as I recall and hardly beyond the realms of possibility given the circumstances - a solid, fast moving object striking a relatively weak surface is going to leave some kind of impression. It's certainly no less believable that the damage being created in some other manner if there weren't any planes at all.

... that alone is a good trick, now the buildings "collapse" and at 64% of the acceleration of GRAVITY... total violation of the laws of physics.

Again, that's only speculation on your part and highly disputed. Anyway, however the towers were actually caused to collapse, they were seen to collapse in the way they did. Even if you're proposing something other than planes causing the collapse, your theory (whatever it is) has the "impossible" collapse to account for too.

 

[Menard_K]

I asked YOU to tell me what "you DO believe" so I could "get my head around it".
You conspicuously did NOT answer.
Apparently even you can't dream up a scenario with 'credulity'.

Though by calling the two strikes "alleged" you are saying they did Not hit the WTC.
OK, what happened to them? ? ?
Did the daily flights not exist? YO! !
OR they (and their 19 Arabs/2 in each First Class you did NOT answer either) took off and were grounded by the CIA and their passengers murdered in cold blood somewhere en route... The Air traffic controllers Lying all the way.
AND lotsa Airline employees too... and of course Thousand of witnesses and their pictures.. and all the Media as well. (and victim cell phone calls to In-on-it family members!)
Everyone, this cast of Tens of Thousands, (including Military demolition experts and countless intelligence personel) all in on it.
Oh Yeah!

So yes, ANY FF plot would be as I described, necessarily involve a Cast of thousands.
You did NOT answer how it could be much smaller, and it would HAVE to be Much, Much, smaller to be possible and/or credible.
You can call that 'incredulity', but it's simple logic until and unless You can Show me otherwise/even a wet dream.
You don't have to tell me exactly what did happen but you DO have to show something else Was possible.
You Failed, Of Course, because this is insane BS.

Actually, if you believe two airline strikes were bogus you Have to believe all 4 were Bogus. (or another 2 were a coincidental second FF operation!)
The Physics is only wrong according to a few Wack Jobs, not Tens of Thousands of others who have either contradicted them or (the vast majority) not even bothered with this Clownery.

Your argument leans heavily on consensus and really, I do not give much weight to consensus.
& you are right, there were NO airliners hijacked on that day. The FLT11 hit was either a missile,
or possibly fake video & explosives used for the Hollywood special effects explode on impact airliner crash.
Not my job to speculate about HOW it was done, what is very clear by looking at what was done,
is the fact that it is NOT as described by the mainstream media. There are several things that could
be cleared up right now if we had the co-operation of the mainstream media, but this has gotten to be
a scene that is quite like that in the "Emperor's New Clothes" where people stand around with a naked
emperor in front of them, and a little kid sez "look there, the emperor has no clothes" and people say
" get lost brat! " the whole crowd can see that the emperor is naked, but nobody wants to do anything
about it, THE BIG LIE, Hitler was right! You see, the mainstream media has the original video from that day,
and it would yield INFORMATION, there is a debate going on about how it is either possible or not to fly
a Boeing airliner at 550 mph that near sea-level ... simple, the Evan Fairbanks video has the perfect solution
to this debate, the "aircraft" enters the frame on the left and proceeds left to right across the frame, the
camera is in a fixed location and is not panning or zooming, so the "aircraft" is seen to travel its own length
in 6 to 11 frames depending on what copy of the DVD you are examining and of course that is inconclusive.
If its 11 frames, the "aircraft" is only traveling 300 mph ... HOWEVER, my point is WHY should the MSM refuse
to help out here & release a copy of the original video? ( that is a known true & accurate copy )
The other problem with this whole fiasco is that airplane wings do not slice through steel, if as a maybe
it could happen like that, the FLT11 hit produced a gash in the building where the wing cut it, maybe, that
one time could be the "it could happen like that" moment, but to have two airliner crashes produce the same
sort of wing cutting of the skyscraper steel, NO, I'm not buying it at all! Both airliner crashes "FLT11" & "FLT175"
had the "aircraft" penetrate completely inside the building, when the TV cameras focused on the gashes on
the towers, there was no sign of a tail or any bit of the aircraft to be seen, very neat, very complete.
and as to the debate about the 64% of the acceleration of gravity descent of the towers, are people picking
nits that maybe it was actually 60% or? what debate? the science is in, the fact is that the towers fell at
a rate that is for certain > 60% of the acceleration of gravity and that is a given, with that said, it completely
debunks any "pile driver" theory in that the pile driver can not deliver its energy unless it slows down or stops.

Lets face it people, the emperor is NAKED!

 

[Menard_K]

Conspiracies cannot change physics.

psik

I agree! ..... Apply the laws of physics and the whole scene becomes very clear.

now what?

 

[psikeyhackr]

I agree! ..... Apply the laws of physics and the whole scene becomes very clear.

now what?

So why hasn't most of the physics profession made it clear, and what happens if they do?

psik

 

[_Markum_]

So why hasn't most of the physics profession made it clear, and what happens if they do?

It'll be "the end of the world as we know it".:skull2:

Truth by concensus is a fallacy. When the lie "plays" better than the truth, you're gonna get the lie--that's politics. There are no great apolitical monoliths. Anywhere you have people, you have politics, by definition. Most of what anti-conspiracists call conspiracy is the illusion generated by the confluence of personal self-interest. Whether in politics, media, or science, they "go along to get along"; pure self-interest yielding the appearance of cooperation.

Maybe what Menard is trying to do in this thread is get people to think for themselves, reasoning from first principles, instead of picking sides and regurgitating the opinions of the experts who are informing the side they've chosen. Even if not, I appreciate his passion for common sense.

 

[mike2810]

Maybe what Menard is trying to do in this thread is get people to think for themselves, reasoning from first principles, instead of picking sides and regurgitating the opinions of the experts who are informing the side they've chosen. Even if not, I appreciate his passion for common sense.

read post 412 on the 9/11 conspiracy thread by MK.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It'll be "the end of the world as we know it".

Truth by concensus is a fallacy.

That is why physical models matter. Computers do not really do physics. They run equations, and lies can be programmed in. A really "accurate" computer simulation can be better than a physical model but people who understood enough about this to recognize a crap computer simulation would have solved it already anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1_teNwvqVY

That is now the problem with 9/11. Who cares who did it? It is the social-psychology of our physics and academic culture that is on the line in the 9/11 Affair. Scientists stabbing science in the back is a curious phenomenon.

psik

 

[_Markum_]

read post 412 on the 9/11 conspiracy thread by MK.

Give me a link.

 

[mike2810]

Give me a link.

Not worth it if you don't have the interest to go to the thread in this forum.

No big deal, MK just talks about magic and things happening in 3's .

 

[_Markum_]

Not worth it if you don't have the interest to go to the thread in this forum.

No big deal, MK just talks about magic and things happening in 3's .

Relevance? "Poisoning the well" yet again? Your particular brand of "argumentation" is so utterly fallacious that to characterize it as "clumsy rhetoric" would be excessively complimentary. But, I will do YOU the courtesy of a link, in explanation:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/107348-911-conspiracies-29.html

...try post #290, or #300, if you're "interested".

:skull2:

 

[mike2810]

Relevance? "Poisoning the well" yet again? Your particular brand of "argumentation" is so utterly fallacious that to characterize it as "clumsy rhetoric" would be excessively complimentary. But, I will do YOU the courtesy of a link, in explanation:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/107348-911-conspiracies-29.html

...try post #290, or #300, if you're "interested".

:skull2:

blah, blah, blah.
So you were familiar with the link to the to other poster. What a reaction.

What sources do you use to come to your conclusion?

what you linked to was your comment on my posts without any supporting evidence that what I said was wrong.

Typical.

 

[_Markum_]

blah, blah, blah.
So you were familiar with the link to the to other poster. What a reaction.

What?! English, PLEASE.

What sources do you use to come to your conclusion?

What conclusion?

what you linked to was your comment on my posts without any supporting evidence that what I said was wrong.

Typical.

Do you pick these one-line responses randomly from a list...are you a poorly-supervised bot? You appear to be semantically clueless.

:skull2:

 

[mike2810]

What?! English, PLEASE.



What conclusion?



Do you pick these one-line responses randomly from a list...are you a poorly-supervised bot? You appear to be semantically clueless.

:skull2:

I mearly return responses to the detail that was posted. You post nonsense with no links to evidence. I mearly return the same.

Your failure to answer direct question is telling.
In you opinion what caused the collapse of the wtc on 9/11. Provide your source of information that you used to reach that opinion. Clear enough for you?

 

[_Markum_]

I mearly return responses to the detail that was posted. You post nonsense with no links to evidence. I mearly return the same.

Your failure to answer direct question is telling.
In you opinion what caused the collapse of the wtc on 9/11. Provide your source of information that you used to reach that opinion. Clear enough for you?

You are transparent.

:skull2:

 

[mike2810]

You are transparent.

:skull2:

so you are not going to answer the question I posted. Why?

fine, we can be done. I will respond to those who have something to add to the discussion.

 

[Menard_K]

Please people, there are lots of requests for documentation that supports
one argument or another. That is either the Controlled Demolition of WTC 1, 2, & 7
or the "no-planes" bit or whatever it is, and people seem to want some sort of pontification
by a PHD type to somehow bless their position on this subject. HOWEVER
PLEASE GET THIS, there are PHD types who will support the "no-planes" explanation
and Controlled Demolition & whatever you want really after all Dr. Wood has a PHD.
so what it really boils down to, is what do YOU think? and really ( maybe just IMHO )
but it seems to me that no more than high school level science is needed to get this.
9/11/2001 was either a false flag, or not, and even if "experts" put out all sorts of
possible explanations for what happened, the bottom line here is WHAT DO YOU THINK?

I personally do not believe for a second the "19 suicidal fanatics" explanation .....

However, experts aside, WHY do you think as you do?

Dare I attempt to get this tread back on track.... or izat asking 2 much?

 

[mike2810]

Dare I attempt to get this tread back on track.... or izat asking 2 much?

Yes you can.

The reason for supporting evidence (links) is to understand how one comes to the conclusion they are posting. It also allows for the reader to look into the source.

Do you think all information regarding 911 posted on the internet is true?

 

[Menard_K]

Yes you can.

The reason for supporting evidence (links) is to understand how one comes to the conclusion they are posting. It also allows for the reader to look into the source.

Do you think all information regarding 911 posted on the internet is true?

Do you think that ALL "information" spewed fourth by the mainstream media is true?

 

[mike2810]

Do you think that ALL "information" spewed fourth by the mainstream media is true?

NO. so why did you dodge my question. I have stated MK, I do not use msm for my information. There are many professional and scientific sites that cover 911. You are the one hung up on msm.

I will ask one more time.
What do you use for your source of information regarding 911? List your top 3.

 

[Menard_K]

NO. so why did you dodge my question. I have stated MK, I do not use msm for my information. There are many professional and scientific sites that cover 911. You are the one hung up on msm.

I will ask one more time.
What do you use for your source of information regarding 911? List your top 3.

The key piece of evidence in this case, is the MSM "coverage" of the event,
note that the video of WTC 1, 2 & 7 "collapsing" and the explanation given by the
MSM, proves beyond any doubt FRAUD on the part of the MSM.

 

[mike2810]

The key piece of evidence in this case, is the MSM "coverage" of the event,
note that the video of WTC 1, 2 & 7 "collapsing" and the explanation given by the
MSM, proves beyond any doubt FRAUD on the part of the MSM.

I can only conclude that you use a source you do not trust. Strange.

Well looks like you have solved the 911 WTC collapse by just looking at vids. We can all rest easy now.:mrgreen:

 

[Menard_K]

I can only conclude that you use a source you do not trust. Strange.

Well looks like you have solved the 911 WTC collapse by just looking at vids. We can all rest easy now.:mrgreen:

Let me be clear on this subject, the Video of WTC 1 & 2 "collapsing" is most probably reliable,
however the MSM official explanation as to WHY they collapsed, is quite another matter.
NOW do U get it?