Another Year And The Ones Who Were Involved In 911

"wtc 7 collapse please point out exactly where the "free fall" begin and ends"

See NIST NC STAR 1A page 46 ..... the graph lays it all out.

"no truther bogus analysis videos please."

Can you express exactly what is your objection to David Chandler's analysis ?
that's not what i ASK YOU SPAMMY ...you are a coward.
david chandler is not an engineer he's a high school science teacher.

This is all too common, complain about people's credentials,
Please note that anybody who did not sleep through middle school science can get this, its not rocket science!

Do you have any evidence to bring to this discussion that counters the argument for controlled demolition, and that is of all three, the towers & 7. All three steel framed skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolition.
no because that would be false there is no evidence for a CD. your augment for a CD is a specious fantasy.
besides it on you to prove your allegations .

The descent rate of acceleration + the fact of complete & total destruction of the towers is compelling evidence that the towers & 7 were demolished intentionally.
false! it's the effect not the cause you have no credible evidence of a non jetliners as missiles plot.
yes the wtc complex was destroyed intentionally just not by who and how you wish it was.
 
The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic ) You see there is a 47 story skyscraper that simply drops at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and people are willing to buy the lame excuse that office fires + asymmetrical damage from stuff thrown by WTC1, 2 while they were "collapsing" caused this nice neat symmetrical descent with the building keeping its shape as it descends...... not only laws of physics people but probability, the odds are positively astronomical against any such thing happening just by chance, thus WTC7 had to have been an engineered demolition.
another fine example proving you know jack shit about probabilities ..

Probability is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur.[1]

Probability is used to quantify an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain.[2] The proposition of interest is usually of the form "Will a specific event occur?" The attitude of mind is of the form "How certain are we that the event will occur?" The certainty we adopt can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1 (where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty), we call probability.[3] Thus the higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. A simple example would be the toss of a fair coin. Since the 2 outcomes are deemed equiprobable, the probability of "heads" equals the probability of "tails" and each probability is 1/2 or equivalently a 50% chance of either "heads" or "tails".

These concepts have been given an axiomatic mathematical formalization in probability theory (see probability axioms), which is used widely in such areas of study asmathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science (in particular physics), artificial intelligence/machine learning, computer science, and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the expected frequency of events. Probability theory is also used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.[4]
 
The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic )

What's funny is how desperate you are to avoid discussing the truck sized holes in your own claims. You've been reduced to ignoring your own sources, your own videos as fakes when they demonstrate your conspiracy is a physical impossibility.

No explosions, no explosives. As silent explosives don't exist. Your theory is already DOA.

Nor can you explain how any system of explosives could have operated while on fire. And the FDNY factually establishes massive, out of control fires in the WTC 7, spanning virtually every floor. And establishes the fires as the cause of the collapse....with the FDNY correctly predicting the collapse of WTC 7 by about an hour. You ignore them all.....but never could explain why.

You can't explain how the bombs wouldn't cut girders. You know the 'demolition' in controlled demolition? Your theory requires thousands and thousands of such cuts. Um, where are they?

You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza.

Or why the Port authority bomb squad found no bombs only a week before 911. Or how their bomb sniffing dogs missed them.

Or why not a single charge was ever found, not before, during or after the collapse.

Or why no apparatus of explosives was ever found. Not an inch of blasting wire. Not a single receiver, transmitter, control board, anything.

Any one of which absolutely destroys your conspiracy. All together, they make it look as silly as it actually is. Face it....your conspiracy doesn't work.

In the bit about finding detonator bits, the rubble was given a fine-toothed-comb treatment and in that, if something turned up that was a small piece of PC board and the workers could not classify it as a piece of something, it would just be relegated to the unknown pile, it may have been a bit of somebodies transistor radio, or a piece of a computer, and with bits that are so small, its impossible to define exactly what it was, so ya, bits could have been in the wreckage and simply not identified as pieces of detonators.

Please note YOUR theory requires many thousands of cuts, I am keeping an open mind as to exactly how it was done, however we all can see the result of the operation in the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7.

"You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza."
stalemate, you can't produce the document that proves any such tests were ever done.

have you seen this:
yes! everybody has and it self debunking...
it has some major flaws ..
like getting caught. hauling up the several hundred pounds of thermite. working in confined spaces having to cut holes in every conceivable point of attachment. thousands of feet of det cord or receivers that would very likely be activated by a stray signal. etc..
you want to talk probabilities?
the odds against pulling that off successfully are nearly incalculable.
the "domino effect" from using planes as missiles thousands of time better than chance which is 50/50 ...
 
The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic )

What's funny is how desperate you are to avoid discussing the truck sized holes in your own claims. You've been reduced to ignoring your own sources, your own videos as fakes when they demonstrate your conspiracy is a physical impossibility.

No explosions, no explosives. As silent explosives don't exist. Your theory is already DOA.

Nor can you explain how any system of explosives could have operated while on fire. And the FDNY factually establishes massive, out of control fires in the WTC 7, spanning virtually every floor. And establishes the fires as the cause of the collapse....with the FDNY correctly predicting the collapse of WTC 7 by about an hour. You ignore them all.....but never could explain why.

You can't explain how the bombs wouldn't cut girders. You know the 'demolition' in controlled demolition? Your theory requires thousands and thousands of such cuts. Um, where are they?

You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza.

Or why the Port authority bomb squad found no bombs only a week before 911. Or how their bomb sniffing dogs missed them.

Or why not a single charge was ever found, not before, during or after the collapse.

Or why no apparatus of explosives was ever found. Not an inch of blasting wire. Not a single receiver, transmitter, control board, anything.

Any one of which absolutely destroys your conspiracy. All together, they make it look as silly as it actually is. Face it....your conspiracy doesn't work.

In the bit about finding detonator bits, the rubble was given a fine-toothed-comb treatment and in that, if something turned up that was a small piece of PC board and the workers could not classify it as a piece of something, it would just be relegated to the unknown pile, it may have been a bit of somebodies transistor radio, or a piece of a computer, and with bits that are so small, its impossible to define exactly what it was, so ya, bits could have been in the wreckage and simply not identified as pieces of detonators.

Please note YOUR theory requires many thousands of cuts, I am keeping an open mind as to exactly how it was done, however we all can see the result of the operation in the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7.

"You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza."
stalemate, you can't produce the document that proves any such tests were ever done.

have you seen this:
yes! everybody has and it self debunking...
it has some major flaws ..
like getting caught. hauling up the several hundred pounds of thermite. working in confined spaces having to cut holes in every conceivable point of attachment. thousands of feet of det cord or receivers that would very likely be activated by a stray signal. etc..
you want to talk probabilities?
the odds against pulling that off successfully are nearly incalculable.
the "domino effect" from using planes as missiles thousands of time better than chance which is 50/50 ...


Not to mention the fact that the whole demo system would have to have survived hours of - drum roll, please - "CHAOTIC FIRES."
The entire controlled demo scenario is absurd.
 
The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic )

What's funny is how desperate you are to avoid discussing the truck sized holes in your own claims. You've been reduced to ignoring your own sources, your own videos as fakes when they demonstrate your conspiracy is a physical impossibility.

No explosions, no explosives. As silent explosives don't exist. Your theory is already DOA.

Nor can you explain how any system of explosives could have operated while on fire. And the FDNY factually establishes massive, out of control fires in the WTC 7, spanning virtually every floor. And establishes the fires as the cause of the collapse....with the FDNY correctly predicting the collapse of WTC 7 by about an hour. You ignore them all.....but never could explain why.

You can't explain how the bombs wouldn't cut girders. You know the 'demolition' in controlled demolition? Your theory requires thousands and thousands of such cuts. Um, where are they?

You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza.

Or why the Port authority bomb squad found no bombs only a week before 911. Or how their bomb sniffing dogs missed them.

Or why not a single charge was ever found, not before, during or after the collapse.

Or why no apparatus of explosives was ever found. Not an inch of blasting wire. Not a single receiver, transmitter, control board, anything.

Any one of which absolutely destroys your conspiracy. All together, they make it look as silly as it actually is. Face it....your conspiracy doesn't work.

In the bit about finding detonator bits, the rubble was given a fine-toothed-comb treatment and in that, if something turned up that was a small piece of PC board and the workers could not classify it as a piece of something, it would just be relegated to the unknown pile, it may have been a bit of somebodies transistor radio, or a piece of a computer, and with bits that are so small, its impossible to define exactly what it was, so ya, bits could have been in the wreckage and simply not identified as pieces of detonators.

Please note YOUR theory requires many thousands of cuts, I am keeping an open mind as to exactly how it was done, however we all can see the result of the operation in the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7.

"You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza."
stalemate, you can't produce the document that proves any such tests were ever done.

have you seen this:
yes! everybody has and it self debunking...
it has some major flaws ..
like getting caught. hauling up the several hundred pounds of thermite. working in confined spaces having to cut holes in every conceivable point of attachment. thousands of feet of det cord or receivers that would very likely be activated by a stray signal. etc..
you want to talk probabilities?
the odds against pulling that off successfully are nearly incalculable.
the "domino effect" from using planes as missiles thousands of time better than chance which is 50/50 ...


Not to mention the fact that the whole demo system would have to have survived hours of - drum roll, please - "CHAOTIC FIRES."
The entire controlled demo scenario is absurd.
as compared to controlled fires?
 
The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic )

What's funny is how desperate you are to avoid discussing the truck sized holes in your own claims. You've been reduced to ignoring your own sources, your own videos as fakes when they demonstrate your conspiracy is a physical impossibility.

No explosions, no explosives. As silent explosives don't exist. Your theory is already DOA.

Nor can you explain how any system of explosives could have operated while on fire. And the FDNY factually establishes massive, out of control fires in the WTC 7, spanning virtually every floor. And establishes the fires as the cause of the collapse....with the FDNY correctly predicting the collapse of WTC 7 by about an hour. You ignore them all.....but never could explain why.

You can't explain how the bombs wouldn't cut girders. You know the 'demolition' in controlled demolition? Your theory requires thousands and thousands of such cuts. Um, where are they?

You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza.

Or why the Port authority bomb squad found no bombs only a week before 911. Or how their bomb sniffing dogs missed them.

Or why not a single charge was ever found, not before, during or after the collapse.

Or why no apparatus of explosives was ever found. Not an inch of blasting wire. Not a single receiver, transmitter, control board, anything.

Any one of which absolutely destroys your conspiracy. All together, they make it look as silly as it actually is. Face it....your conspiracy doesn't work.

In the bit about finding detonator bits, the rubble was given a fine-toothed-comb treatment and in that, if something turned up that was a small piece of PC board and the workers could not classify it as a piece of something, it would just be relegated to the unknown pile, it may have been a bit of somebodies transistor radio, or a piece of a computer, and with bits that are so small, its impossible to define exactly what it was, so ya, bits could have been in the wreckage and simply not identified as pieces of detonators.

Please note YOUR theory requires many thousands of cuts, I am keeping an open mind as to exactly how it was done, however we all can see the result of the operation in the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7.

"You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza."
stalemate, you can't produce the document that proves any such tests were ever done.

have you seen this:
yes! everybody has and it self debunking...
it has some major flaws ..
like getting caught. hauling up the several hundred pounds of thermite. working in confined spaces having to cut holes in every conceivable point of attachment. thousands of feet of det cord or receivers that would very likely be activated by a stray signal. etc..
you want to talk probabilities?
the odds against pulling that off successfully are nearly incalculable.
the "domino effect" from using planes as missiles thousands of time better than chance which is 50/50 ...


Not to mention the fact that the whole demo system would have to have survived hours of - drum roll, please - "CHAOTIC FIRES."
The entire controlled demo scenario is absurd.
as compared to controlled fires?


One of our CTs described the 9/11 fires as "chaotic," thus the quotation marks.
 
What's funny is how desperate you are to avoid discussing the truck sized holes in your own claims. You've been reduced to ignoring your own sources, your own videos as fakes when they demonstrate your conspiracy is a physical impossibility.

No explosions, no explosives. As silent explosives don't exist. Your theory is already DOA.

Nor can you explain how any system of explosives could have operated while on fire. And the FDNY factually establishes massive, out of control fires in the WTC 7, spanning virtually every floor. And establishes the fires as the cause of the collapse....with the FDNY correctly predicting the collapse of WTC 7 by about an hour. You ignore them all.....but never could explain why.

You can't explain how the bombs wouldn't cut girders. You know the 'demolition' in controlled demolition? Your theory requires thousands and thousands of such cuts. Um, where are they?

You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza.

Or why the Port authority bomb squad found no bombs only a week before 911. Or how their bomb sniffing dogs missed them.

Or why not a single charge was ever found, not before, during or after the collapse.

Or why no apparatus of explosives was ever found. Not an inch of blasting wire. Not a single receiver, transmitter, control board, anything.

Any one of which absolutely destroys your conspiracy. All together, they make it look as silly as it actually is. Face it....your conspiracy doesn't work.

In the bit about finding detonator bits, the rubble was given a fine-toothed-comb treatment and in that, if something turned up that was a small piece of PC board and the workers could not classify it as a piece of something, it would just be relegated to the unknown pile, it may have been a bit of somebodies transistor radio, or a piece of a computer, and with bits that are so small, its impossible to define exactly what it was, so ya, bits could have been in the wreckage and simply not identified as pieces of detonators.

Please note YOUR theory requires many thousands of cuts, I am keeping an open mind as to exactly how it was done, however we all can see the result of the operation in the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7.

"You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza."
stalemate, you can't produce the document that proves any such tests were ever done.

have you seen this:
yes! everybody has and it self debunking...
it has some major flaws ..
like getting caught. hauling up the several hundred pounds of thermite. working in confined spaces having to cut holes in every conceivable point of attachment. thousands of feet of det cord or receivers that would very likely be activated by a stray signal. etc..
you want to talk probabilities?
the odds against pulling that off successfully are nearly incalculable.
the "domino effect" from using planes as missiles thousands of time better than chance which is 50/50 ...


Not to mention the fact that the whole demo system would have to have survived hours of - drum roll, please - "CHAOTIC FIRES."
The entire controlled demo scenario is absurd.
as compared to controlled fires?


One of our CTs described the 9/11 fires as "chaotic," thus the quotation marks.


The fires would have been part of the theater, they were staged and under control, just as the damage from the alleged airliner crash was a controlled special effect. 9/11/2001 was a made for TV drama.
 
Not to mention the fact that the whole demo system would have to have survived hours of - drum roll, please - "CHAOTIC FIRES."
The entire controlled demo scenario is absurd.

as compared to controlled fires?

One of our CTs described the 9/11 fires as "chaotic," thus the quotation marks.

The fires would have been part of the theater, they were staged and under control, just as the damage from the alleged airliner crash was a controlled special effect. 9/11/2001 was a made for TV drama.

:lmao:
And like every CT scenario you post, I'm certain that one comes with a whole litany of credible substantiation that you conveniently "forgot" to post.
Inquiring minds want to know who set those "staged and under control" fires and how they kept them so once thousands of gallons of jet fuel were loosed in WTC 1 & 2 and how YOU determined they were "staged and under control?"
 
In the bit about finding detonator bits, the rubble was given a fine-toothed-comb treatment and in that, if something turned up that was a small piece of PC board and the workers could not classify it as a piece of something, it would just be relegated to the unknown pile, it may have been a bit of somebodies transistor radio, or a piece of a computer, and with bits that are so small, its impossible to define exactly what it was, so ya, bits could have been in the wreckage and simply not identified as pieces of detonators.

Please note YOUR theory requires many thousands of cuts, I am keeping an open mind as to exactly how it was done, however we all can see the result of the operation in the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7.

"You can't explain why there was no residue of explosives found in the dust samples taken from the WTC plaza."
stalemate, you can't produce the document that proves any such tests were ever done.

have you seen this:
yes! everybody has and it self debunking...
it has some major flaws ..
like getting caught. hauling up the several hundred pounds of thermite. working in confined spaces having to cut holes in every conceivable point of attachment. thousands of feet of det cord or receivers that would very likely be activated by a stray signal. etc..
you want to talk probabilities?
the odds against pulling that off successfully are nearly incalculable.
the "domino effect" from using planes as missiles thousands of time better than chance which is 50/50 ...


Not to mention the fact that the whole demo system would have to have survived hours of - drum roll, please - "CHAOTIC FIRES."
The entire controlled demo scenario is absurd.
as compared to controlled fires?


One of our CTs described the 9/11 fires as "chaotic," thus the quotation marks.


The fires would have been part of the theater, they were staged and under control, just as the damage from the alleged airliner crash was a controlled special effect. 9/11/2001 was a made for TV drama.
thanks again for showcasing your ignorance.
I have spent my entire adult life in the theatre and movie biz,based on that experience I can state unequivocally you don't know dick about what would be involved in faking it !
heres an easy one: IT would take a crew of 1000 fx techs 500 riggers 300 painters and an unknown numbers of "stage techs " to fake it..
 
yes! everybody has and it self debunking...
it has some major flaws ..
like getting caught. hauling up the several hundred pounds of thermite. working in confined spaces having to cut holes in every conceivable point of attachment. thousands of feet of det cord or receivers that would very likely be activated by a stray signal. etc..
you want to talk probabilities?
the odds against pulling that off successfully are nearly incalculable.
the "domino effect" from using planes as missiles thousands of time better than chance which is 50/50 ...

Not to mention the fact that the whole demo system would have to have survived hours of - drum roll, please - "CHAOTIC FIRES."
The entire controlled demo scenario is absurd.
as compared to controlled fires?

One of our CTs described the 9/11 fires as "chaotic," thus the quotation marks.

The fires would have been part of the theater, they were staged and under control, just as the damage from the alleged airliner crash was a controlled special effect. 9/11/2001 was a made for TV drama.
thanks again for showcasing your ignorance.
I have spent my entire adult life in the theatre and movie biz,based on that experience I can state unequivocally you don't know dick about what would be involved in faking it !
heres an easy one: IT would take a crew of 1000 fx techs 500 riggers 300 painters and an unknown numbers of "stage techs " to fake it..

So the rebuttal boils down to an argument from incredulity about how many people it would take to stage the event.
and totally ignoring the facts of the event proving beyond any doubt that for the towers & 7 there would have had to be an additional source of energy to make the buildings do what was observed.
 
Not to mention the fact that the whole demo system would have to have survived hours of - drum roll, please - "CHAOTIC FIRES."
The entire controlled demo scenario is absurd.
as compared to controlled fires?

One of our CTs described the 9/11 fires as "chaotic," thus the quotation marks.

The fires would have been part of the theater, they were staged and under control, just as the damage from the alleged airliner crash was a controlled special effect. 9/11/2001 was a made for TV drama.
thanks again for showcasing your ignorance.
I have spent my entire adult life in the theatre and movie biz,based on that experience I can state unequivocally you don't know dick about what would be involved in faking it !
heres an easy one: IT would take a crew of 1000 fx techs 500 riggers 300 painters and an unknown numbers of "stage techs " to fake it..

So the rebuttal boils down to an argument from incredulity about how many people it would take to stage the event.
and totally ignoring the facts of the event proving beyond any doubt that for the towers & 7 there would have had to be an additional source of energy to make the buildings do what was observed.

But you haven't come close to proving that there was an additional source of energy and the harder you try the more ludicrous your CT scenarios become, growing like a Chia Pet out of control to include everyone except you yourself.
 
as compared to controlled fires?

One of our CTs described the 9/11 fires as "chaotic," thus the quotation marks.

The fires would have been part of the theater, they were staged and under control, just as the damage from the alleged airliner crash was a controlled special effect. 9/11/2001 was a made for TV drama.
thanks again for showcasing your ignorance.
I have spent my entire adult life in the theatre and movie biz,based on that experience I can state unequivocally you don't know dick about what would be involved in faking it !
heres an easy one: IT would take a crew of 1000 fx techs 500 riggers 300 painters and an unknown numbers of "stage techs " to fake it..

So the rebuttal boils down to an argument from incredulity about how many people it would take to stage the event.
and totally ignoring the facts of the event proving beyond any doubt that for the towers & 7 there would have had to be an additional source of energy to make the buildings do what was observed.

But you haven't come close to proving that there was an additional source of energy and the harder you try the more ludicrous your CT scenarios become, growing like a Chia Pet out of control to include everyone except you yourself.

in the case of the towers, continuous acceleration for 90% of the "collapse" event and for 7, the fact of 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration and no matter how you attempt to dilute the facts here, please note that a significant mass made up of the North & West walls + some amount of supporting structure behind said walls, descended for 2.25 sec at 9.8 m/s^2 and this is significant.
also how do you get an airliner to penetrate a wall without slowing down at all? what sort of black magic is that?

Tell you what, I have been exposed to the theories about how the towers "collapsed" and it all boils down to a row of dominoes, if you picture the skyscraper as if it were a row of dominoes and all one need do is knock over the first one and there goes the whole row. and if you really think that modern steel high-rise buildings are even capable of that sort of thing, ... well is there any hope at all for humanity? .....
 
But you haven't come close to proving that there was an additional source of energy and the harder you try the more ludicrous your CT scenarios become, growing like a Chia Pet out of control to include everyone except you yourself.

in the case of the towers, continuous acceleration for 90% of the "collapse" event and for 7, the fact of 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration and no matter how you attempt to dilute the facts here, please note that a significant mass made up of the North & West walls + some amount of supporting structure behind said walls, descended for 2.25 sec at 9.8 m/s^2 and this is significant.
also how do you get an airliner to penetrate a wall without slowing down at all? what sort of black magic is that?

Tell you what, I have been exposed to the theories about how the towers "collapsed" and it all boils down to a row of dominoes, if you picture the skyscraper as if it were a row of dominoes and all one need do is knock over the first one and there goes the whole row. and if you really think that modern steel high-rise buildings are even capable of that sort of thing, ... well is there any hope at all for humanity? .....

Or, more specifically it boils down to your twin, baseless beliefs that "no planes were hijacked on 9/11" and the fires were "staged."
Sorry Spammy, but there's good reason why you can't seem to get a date.
 
"baseless beliefs" There is a major part of your problem,
you have failed to see the evidence that has been presented in abundance. The fact that WTC1, 2 & 7 were all three totally destroyed is a serious smoking gun, and the ridiculous "FLT175" videos, you complain that the mainstream media could not possibly have faked "all those videos" however take a moment to examine what is available in evidence, how many videos of "FLT175" are there with the actual south wall of the South Tower in view, the vast majority of the videos show the alleged impact with the south wall obscured by something, usually the North tower. Incredulity over how it was done doesn't negate what was done just because you fail to believe it.
 
n0spam4me What you fail to understand is that the only way for a controlled demolition would be this:



You don't think those trillions of dollars spent are used to develop crazy things we've never seen or heard about do you?? You're nuts!
Next you'll be telling me there such things as directed-energy weapons used for crowd control.



Plus don't forget about all those crazy chaotic fires!!
 
Not to mention the fact that the whole demo system would have to have survived hours of - drum roll, please - "CHAOTIC FIRES."
The entire controlled demo scenario is absurd.
as compared to controlled fires?

One of our CTs described the 9/11 fires as "chaotic," thus the quotation marks.

The fires would have been part of the theater, they were staged and under control, just as the damage from the alleged airliner crash was a controlled special effect. 9/11/2001 was a made for TV drama.
thanks again for showcasing your ignorance.
I have spent my entire adult life in the theatre and movie biz,based on that experience I can state unequivocally you don't know dick about what would be involved in faking it !
heres an easy one: IT would take a crew of 1000 fx techs 500 riggers 300 painters and an unknown numbers of "stage techs " to fake it..

So the rebuttal boils down to an argument from incredulity about how many people it would take to stage the event.
and totally ignoring the facts of the event proving beyond any doubt that for the towers & 7 there would have had to be an additional source of energy to make the buildings do what was observed.
false your allegation of proof is not proof.
 
The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic ) You see there is a 47 story skyscraper that simply drops at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and people are willing to buy the lame excuse that office fires + asymmetrical damage from stuff thrown by WTC1, 2 while they were "collapsing" caused this nice neat symmetrical descent with the building keeping its shape as it descends...... not only laws of physics people but probability, the odds are positively astronomical against any such thing happening just by chance, thus WTC7 had to have been an engineered demolition.
another fine example proving you know jack shit about probabilities ..

Probability is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur.[1]

Probability is used to quantify an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain.[2] The proposition of interest is usually of the form "Will a specific event occur?" The attitude of mind is of the form "How certain are we that the event will occur?" The certainty we adopt can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1 (where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty), we call probability.[3] Thus the higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. A simple example would be the toss of a fair coin. Since the 2 outcomes are deemed equiprobable, the probability of "heads" equals the probability of "tails" and each probability is 1/2 or equivalently a 50% chance of either "heads" or "tails".

These concepts have been given an axiomatic mathematical formalization in probability theory (see probability axioms), which is used widely in such areas of study asmathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science (in particular physics), artificial intelligence/machine learning, computer science, and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the expected frequency of events. Probability theory is also used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.[4]
You cite this stuff, yet you'd be the first to totally dismiss, if ever even consider the results of experiments done to "quantify an attitude of mind towards some proposition" such as: Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment, Asch Conformity Experiments, The Bystander Effect and Learned Helplessness etc.

Your a fraud.
 
The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic ) You see there is a 47 story skyscraper that simply drops at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and people are willing to buy the lame excuse that office fires + asymmetrical damage from stuff thrown by WTC1, 2 while they were "collapsing" caused this nice neat symmetrical descent with the building keeping its shape as it descends...... not only laws of physics people but probability, the odds are positively astronomical against any such thing happening just by chance, thus WTC7 had to have been an engineered demolition.
another fine example proving you know jack shit about probabilities ..

Probability is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur.[1]

Probability is used to quantify an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain.[2] The proposition of interest is usually of the form "Will a specific event occur?" The attitude of mind is of the form "How certain are we that the event will occur?" The certainty we adopt can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1 (where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty), we call probability.[3] Thus the higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. A simple example would be the toss of a fair coin. Since the 2 outcomes are deemed equiprobable, the probability of "heads" equals the probability of "tails" and each probability is 1/2 or equivalently a 50% chance of either "heads" or "tails".

These concepts have been given an axiomatic mathematical formalization in probability theory (see probability axioms), which is used widely in such areas of study asmathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science (in particular physics), artificial intelligence/machine learning, computer science, and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the expected frequency of events. Probability theory is also used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.[4]
You cite this stuff, yet you'd be the first to totally dismiss, if ever even consider the results of experiments done to "quantify an attitude of mind towards some proposition" such as: Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment, Asch Conformity Experiments, The Bystander Effect and Learned Helplessness etc.

Your a fraud.
you could have just said this stuff is far too complicated for my high school dropout mind to ponder.
instead you make erroneous accusations..
 
receivers that would very likely be activated by a stray signal.

You are again working entirely from incredulity, without any basis for the above argument. State of the art coded receivers will only accept the unique code that has been assigned to that receiver.
There already are commercial products on the market that do exactly this job, that is wireless CD.
 
The funny thing here ( it would be totally funny if not for the fact that it is so tragic ) You see there is a 47 story skyscraper that simply drops at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and people are willing to buy the lame excuse that office fires + asymmetrical damage from stuff thrown by WTC1, 2 while they were "collapsing" caused this nice neat symmetrical descent with the building keeping its shape as it descends...... not only laws of physics people but probability, the odds are positively astronomical against any such thing happening just by chance, thus WTC7 had to have been an engineered demolition.
another fine example proving you know jack shit about probabilities ..

Probability is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur.[1]

Probability is used to quantify an attitude of mind towards some proposition of whose truth we are not certain.[2] The proposition of interest is usually of the form "Will a specific event occur?" The attitude of mind is of the form "How certain are we that the event will occur?" The certainty we adopt can be described in terms of a numerical measure and this number, between 0 and 1 (where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty), we call probability.[3] Thus the higher the probability of an event, the more certain we are that the event will occur. A simple example would be the toss of a fair coin. Since the 2 outcomes are deemed equiprobable, the probability of "heads" equals the probability of "tails" and each probability is 1/2 or equivalently a 50% chance of either "heads" or "tails".

These concepts have been given an axiomatic mathematical formalization in probability theory (see probability axioms), which is used widely in such areas of study asmathematics, statistics, finance, gambling, science (in particular physics), artificial intelligence/machine learning, computer science, and philosophy to, for example, draw inferences about the expected frequency of events. Probability theory is also used to describe the underlying mechanics and regularities of complex systems.[4]
You cite this stuff, yet you'd be the first to totally dismiss, if ever even consider the results of experiments done to "quantify an attitude of mind towards some proposition" such as: Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment, Asch Conformity Experiments, The Bystander Effect and Learned Helplessness etc.

Your a fraud.
you could have just said this stuff is far too complicated for my high school dropout mind to ponder.
instead you make erroneous accusations..
You know what, perhaps you are right. I may be guilty of conflating you with other mythers.
 

Forum List

Back
Top