A question for believers or 'OSers'....

reply to post by Yankee451


I'm not surprised that it doesn't "figger" with you. You continue to ignore things.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Yankee451

 

I'm not surprised that it doesn't "figger" with you. You continue to ignore things.

Interesting story.

I tend to ignore people who are obviously more interested in disruption than discussion. If that includes you, nothing personal.

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by Yankee451

 

So you are saying it was a hologram??

Please tell me you dont really believe that......

I keep asking him what he precisely believes myself but he is quite insistant on not answering. Apparently, he either believes Manhattan is some sort of ghost town where noone ever actually goes to, or, everyone in Manhattan is a secret gov't agent who's providing disinformation to cover up the conspiracy.

With the absurd amount of resources and preparations these supposed "secret conspirators" would have needed to emply to fake a plane crash and get people to believe a plane hit the towers, it would have been a heck of a lot easier to simply fling a real plane into the towers.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Oh hey, I didn't think you were still talking to me, I mean, after all the questions you scamper away from.

I've said befoire, and I'll say it again...the number of conspirators takes as many as it takes for people to keep believing impossible things. It is more possible for hundreds of thousands of scientists, government shills, professors and media personalities to lie, than it is for a plane to disappear inside a building. One is impossible, the other is improbable.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I think you and your buddy ignored a post earlier on this thread, and scattered around the forums where I discuss how I feel about holograms and the people who keep bringing them up.

What I see are people who are not interested in a real discussion, and are instead intentionally throwing sand into the eyes of the readers.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Yankee451


I asked you a specific question. Do you think it was a hologram... You stated there would be a visual deceleration... You imply that a deceleration (to your liking) was not present..

That only leaves hologram.. I want to finally see someone type the words "I think it was a hologram"

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
reply to post by Yankee451

 

I asked you a specific question. Do you think it was a hologram... You stated there would be a visual deceleration... You imply that a deceleration (to your liking) was not present..

That only leaves hologram.. I want to finally see someone type the words "I think it was a hologram"

Did they use holograms for Hollywood blockbusters like "Independence Day"?

"That only leaves hologram"?

You can't think of any other technology?

Are you being purposefully misleading?

reply to post by Yankee451


Its about denying ignorance a chance to grow. You make your posts about video fakery, no planes etc...and ignore the facts which prove you wrong. Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who will believe what you post and never check things out for themselves (in other words, they are ignorant of reality). So as, the website states, we will reply...point out reality etc...when you make your factually absent posts. To deny ignorance.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Its about denying ignorance a chance to grow. You make your posts about video fakery, no planes etc...and ignore the facts which prove you wrong. Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who will believe what you post and never check things out for themselves (in other words, they are ignorant of reality). So as, the website states, we will reply...point out reality etc...when you make your factually absent posts. To deny ignorance.

edit on 15-8-2011 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)

How do you know what I post? You don't read my stuff. I rarely see you on any of the threads where I show the evidence which leads me to my convictions.

Why should I take you seriously? You perpetuate ignorance.

reply to post by Yankee451


No, I actually read a lot of your stuff. But it is increasingly rare for me to be able to stop laughing enough to type a reply.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Oh hey, I didn't think you were still talking to me, I mean, after all the questions you scamper away from.

Oh, no, I don't scamper away from any questions. I'm simply tired of answering the exact same question over and over and over, only to have someone ask me the same question all over again. If you don't accept any of the previous 20 answers then you're certainly not going to accept my answers if I answer them a 21st time.

I've said befoire, and I'll say it again...the number of conspirators takes as many as it takes for people to keep believing impossible things. It is more possible for hundreds of thousands of scientists, government shills, professors and media personalities to lie, than it is for a plane to disappear inside a building. One is impossible, the other is improbable.

No, actually, I think it's more possible that you yourself are seeing the delusions that you yourself want to see, than it is that every other person in the entire world, from NYPD to all the governments of Europe to even some immigrant from El Salvador watering the Pentagon lawns, are all in on some secret global plot to trick you personally. It's becoming quite apparent that not even your fellow conspiracy theorists are taking you seriously.

reply to post by Yankee451


Look, stop being a flirting woman.. SAY WHAT YOU MEAN.. I asked you a question.. Is the answer that hard? Do you think that your answer is that important?

Now you have implied that there might be something other than hologram.. Could you grace us with your theory sir?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Hehe...

You guys are a parody of yourselves.

Originally posted by jhn7537

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by jhn7537

 

No, you claimed that jet fuel cannot melt steel. Pure and simple. And you are WRONG. I am not suggesting that the steel at the WTC melted. It did not have to, it only had to soften to the point where it lost its integrity.

Then how would you explain the pools of molten metal that were found under buildings 1, 2 and 7? Kinda strange right?

Care to answer this question viper?

reply to post by Yankee451


So you don't have an answer? Typical... A truther might as well be a web bot, designed to intake information from any site with the words 9/11 and truth in it.

You can't even answer a specific question, yet you act as though everyone should entertain your questions...

Don't bother answering my question... I don't know why it took me so long to figure out, I don't care what you think... You and I both know, the main problem is lack of thinking... Dream on little dreamer

reply to post by vipertech0596


i did say that he had called for a structural Engineer.....after seeing the damage on the 78 floor lift shaft......do you not ask yourself why.....cause i certainly do....to me it would mean the integrity of the central core was comprimized...one would need to ask why, as these floors are below the impact....as stated...in my honest opinion is the failure in the building was from bottom up concetrated on the lower floors.

As in Below ground therefore the building would collapse in the fashion it did......but like i say it is just theory now isn't......just as theorectical as the NIST report and the reports presented by Bzant Zhou.......but oh well...

you see viper i have had all these dicussions before even many withyourself....so we will have to agree to disagree...because from my perspective i see it as a different series of events as from yourself....

i have put forward my work and my thoughts on the matter in many many threads on the subject.....and not once have i see you put forward personal work....only things grabbed from others sources,....see my approach is simple.....put forward alternatives....because the OS does not add up......it has flaws......how everthing took place....not sure....but i do have the understanding of structures to know that three steel strunctures built around central cores...two of one design a third of another.....the OS states it was a combination of the planes and fires that brought them down.....well i have put forward so much evidence concerning the structures that not a single denbunker has been able to put forth CONCLUSIVE evidence that just the planes and in building seven..the fires brought down these building in a CD type fashion....i use the the term CD lightly here as it is used in reference to the symetrical style in which these buildings collapsed....an please dont start trying because you can just go through postings of mine to get that info.

reply to post by ShaunHatfield


Gotta hand it to you, you're twising yourself into a tight little knot to keep from reading my posts. If you were really interested in what I think, I'd think you would go to threads where I explain my reasoning. There you could point out what about my reasoning is so wrong.

But you don't do that.

It's Ironic you bring up "bots".

reply to post by Yankee451
Well said. 'They' are all as phony as a three dollar bill, and this latest thread illustates brilliantly just how pathetic they've become. When someone questions any aspect of the OS they immediately blurt out "where's your proof?". That's ironic isn't it, when that's precisely what we've been asking for, for ten years. If they worked for me, I'd fire the whole bunch for incompetence. After all that's been discovered relating to 9/11, and you take the position that Arabs with boxcutters were responsible for the events of that day, you are either on their payroll or you are retarded, and in some cases both.

reply to post by Charizard

The hole: The Pentagon's walls were strongly re-enforced. Especially compared to, say, the WTC

Actually not - the Pentagon exterior E Ring was made from cut blocks of limestone backed up by a brick wall

Reason was to save steel (which was in short supply and a vital material for WWII)

The limestone was from the same source as the exteriior wall of the Empire State Building - a B25 lost in
fog smashed through the ESB in 1945 leaving hole 18 x 30 ft. One of the motors punched all the way through
the building to emerge out the other side, landing block a way on roof of a building

So tell us again how a plane could not penetrate the Pentagon........

One more thing - the 2 lowest floors do not have any partitions between the exterior wall (E ring) and the C ring
brick wall to the interior roadway - plane would encounter at most the concrete support columns in its way.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by dilly1

 

Yes, him. The man who climbed up to the impact area in the North Tower of the WTC on Sept 11, 2001, observed the damage that had occured, and then notified his office that he believed the Tower was in danger of collapse...and subsequently died when he was proven right and the Tower collapsed.

You can post that January 2001 interview all you want....it just shows he was tragically wrong in his belief about the Towers.

I could care less what that guy said or anybody for that matter said. I don't need people 's verbal accounts before during or after 911 to tell me what happened. That's the difference about you and I . You sir are dependent instead of being independent. You need people to give you information. You sir choose to ignore your own brain capabilities... You are no different than a man of faith. You have no proof just faith in your government. Blind faith.


I am an expert in building and designing big buildings. I have been doing it my entire life. My family has been doing for there's. I know for a FACT 2 planes that weight 116 tons each carrying 22k gallons of fuel cannot pulverize,disintegrate,bring down,collapse or tear down(however you want to call it) 3 towers weighing 500,000 tons.


That is a dam fact. Which you and all debunkers gladly ignore.