Steven Dutch, worlds leading Physicist debunks twoofer

[Toro]

World's leading physicist debunks twoofers?

Heck, world's worst physicist could do that.

 

[daws101]

so demand for proof is arguing from ignorance in your fucked up world, noted

I AM demanding evidence, from you. You have made claims provide verifiable evidence your claims are true.

demand to your hearts content when I produce an official report I will give it to you. You want to support the official story then fucking support it, you have posted NO EVIDENCE.

I CLAIM YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AND YOU WANT ME TO GET YOUR EVIDENCE FOR YOU?

ARE YOU INSANE?

Enjoy your ride on the titanic

BTW THE WAY THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT :and stick to the topic of planes and buildings thei has nothing to do with alleged witnesses or alleged people on planes. We are talking about planes not how much cheese has to be on the moon) Any response outside of planes and buildings will be disregarded as nonresponsive and a dodge. You wanna play this game you better stick to the rules.
IT'S ABOUT YOUR NO PLANES FAIRY TALE AND ANYTHING PRESENTED TO REFUTE IT.
If you don't like the way the thread is going then leave.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I AM demanding evidence, from you. You have made claims provide verifiable evidence your claims are true.

demand to your hearts content when I produce an official report I will give it to you. You want to support the official story then fucking support it, you have posted NO EVIDENCE.

I CLAIM YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AND YOU WANT ME TO GET YOUR EVIDENCE FOR YOU?

ARE YOU INSANE?

Enjoy your ride on the titanic

BTW THE WAY THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT :and stick to the topic of planes and buildings thei has nothing to do with alleged witnesses or alleged people on planes. We are talking about planes not how much cheese has to be on the moon) Any response outside of planes and buildings will be disregarded as nonresponsive and a dodge. You wanna play this game you better stick to the rules.
IT'S ABOUT YOUR NO PLANES FAIRY TALE AND ANYTHING PRESENTED TO REFUTE IT.
If you don't like the way the thread is going then leave.

I have to keep reminding you of that glad you are getting a clue, so post your plane evidence any time.

 

[daws101]

demand to your hearts content when I produce an official report I will give it to you. You want to support the official story then fucking support it, you have posted NO EVIDENCE.

I CLAIM YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AND YOU WANT ME TO GET YOUR EVIDENCE FOR YOU?

ARE YOU INSANE?

Enjoy your ride on the titanic

BTW THE WAY THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT :and stick to the topic of planes and buildings thei has nothing to do with alleged witnesses or alleged people on planes. We are talking about planes not how much cheese has to be on the moon) Any response outside of planes and buildings will be disregarded as nonresponsive and a dodge. You wanna play this game you better stick to the rules.
IT'S ABOUT YOUR NO PLANES FAIRY TALE AND ANYTHING PRESENTED TO REFUTE IT.
If you don't like the way the thread is going then leave.

I have to keep reminding you of that glad you are getting a clue, so post your plane evidence any time.

do you now how to write a coherent sentence?
the one above is no proof that you do.

 

[KokomoJojo]

BTW THE WAY THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT :and stick to the topic of planes and buildings thei has nothing to do with alleged witnesses or alleged people on planes. We are talking about planes not how much cheese has to be on the moon) Any response outside of planes and buildings will be disregarded as nonresponsive and a dodge. You wanna play this game you better stick to the rules.
IT'S ABOUT YOUR NO PLANES FAIRY TALE AND ANYTHING PRESENTED TO REFUTE IT.
If you don't like the way the thread is going then leave.

I have to keep reminding you of that glad you are getting a clue, so post your plane evidence any time.

do you now how to write a coherent sentence?
the one above is no proof that you do.

 

[SFC Ollie]

My oh my oh my........ A real super duper twoofer nut case we have here....

Just what kind of Proof of the four planes does it require?

Or do those pics need to be certified and signed by 50 witnesses?

Tell us Tojo, what will you accept as proof...

By the way if you see planes going in one side of the buildings and coming out the other side intact, you are one in 600 Billion..... You are special.....

 

[SteadyMercury]

Come on dude if videos of planes and people on the ground seeing planes doesn't count as evidence of planes to the tin-hatter, pictures of pieces of planes won't either.

 

[KokomoJojo]

My oh my oh my........ A real super duper twoofer nut case we have here....

Just what kind of Proof of the four planes does it require?

Or do those pics need to be certified and signed by 50 witnesses?

Tell us Tojo, what will you accept as proof...

By the way if you see planes going in one side of the buildings and coming out the other side intact, you are one in 600 Billion..... You are special.....

"Or do those pics need to be certified and signed"

yes

after all we know you never lie

incidentally that engine is hilarious. thanks for the laugh

 

[KokomoJojo]

Come on dude if videos of planes and people on the ground seeing planes doesn't count as evidence of planes to the tin-hatter, pictures of pieces of planes won't either.

Oh?
did someone post bonafide videos of planes? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide witness accounts? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide plane parts? I dont see any.

invisible evidence! nice concept!
have you considered working for the government?

 

[Montrovant]

Come on dude if videos of planes and people on the ground seeing planes doesn't count as evidence of planes to the tin-hatter, pictures of pieces of planes won't either.

Oh?
did someone post bonafide videos of planes? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide witness accounts? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide plane parts? I dont see any.

invisible evidence! nice concept!
have you considered working for the government?

How's this. Why don't you define what you mean when you say bonafide? At this point you are pretty much hiding what you think constitutes real evidence from everyone you are talking to here. So what, exactly, would be bonafide videos, witness accounts or plane parts? What would separate the bonafide evidence from that you've so far been shown?

Every time someone gives you an example of video or picture evidence (at least if it doesn't conform to your belief about events) you say it isn't real, but don't explain what differentiates it from real evidence.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Come on dude if videos of planes and people on the ground seeing planes doesn't count as evidence of planes to the tin-hatter, pictures of pieces of planes won't either.

Oh?
did someone post bonafide videos of planes? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide witness accounts? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide plane parts? I dont see any.

invisible evidence! nice concept!
have you considered working for the government?

Yes, yes they did, in fact some were even used as evidence in court....You're to stupid for me to bother with...go back to mommies basement......

 

[SFC Ollie]

Come on dude if videos of planes and people on the ground seeing planes doesn't count as evidence of planes to the tin-hatter, pictures of pieces of planes won't either.

Oh?
did someone post bonafide videos of planes? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide witness accounts? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide plane parts? I dont see any.

invisible evidence! nice concept!
have you considered working for the government?

How's this. Why don't you define what you mean when you say bonafide? At this point you are pretty much hiding what you think constitutes real evidence from everyone you are talking to here. So what, exactly, would be bonafide videos, witness accounts or plane parts? What would separate the bonafide evidence from that you've so far been shown?

Every time someone gives you an example of video or picture evidence (at least if it doesn't conform to your belief about events) you say it isn't real, but don't explain what differentiates it from real evidence.

I think I'll just stop feeding the troll and it will fade away.........

 

[KokomoJojo]

Come on dude if videos of planes and people on the ground seeing planes doesn't count as evidence of planes to the tin-hatter, pictures of pieces of planes won't either.

Oh?
did someone post bonafide videos of planes? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide witness accounts? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide plane parts? I dont see any.

invisible evidence! nice concept!
have you considered working for the government?

How's this. Why don't you define what you mean when you say bonafide? At this point you are pretty much hiding what you think constitutes real evidence from everyone you are talking to here. So what, exactly, would be bonafide videos, witness accounts or plane parts? What would separate the bonafide evidence from that you've so far been shown?

Every time someone gives you an example of video or picture evidence (at least if it doesn't conform to your belief about events) you say it isn't real, but don't explain what differentiates it from real evidence.

Only evidence properly submitted that can pass challenge. Depending on the case a court can accept government provided data without full review. Unless challenged. In which case requires strict conformamce as ollie said, certified, sealed, sworn, and duly recorded by the curt as such. I challenge ALL 911 so called evidence.

anything less is just your average everyday belches beer farts.

 

[SteadyMercury]

have you considered working for the government?

Have you considered checking yourself into a facility that can help with your mental illness? There are probably some programs that could help offset the costs.

It would suck for the forum because it sure makes one appreciate what they have after seeing a pathetic babbling lunatic on message board, but I think we'd be willing to make the sacrifice.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Case closed.......

 

[KokomoJojo]

Come on dude if videos of planes and people on the ground seeing planes doesn't count as evidence of planes to the tin-hatter, pictures of pieces of planes won't either.

Oh?
did someone post bonafide videos of planes? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide witness accounts? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide plane parts? I dont see any.

invisible evidence! nice concept!
have you considered working for the government?

Yes, yes they did, in fact some were even used as evidence in court....You're to stupid for me to bother with...go back to mommies basement......

Why are you responding to the what I posted to the fucking IDIOT troll?

At least you dont appear (so far) to be a tard fucking ass helmet troll like she is.

However you should immediately see a HUGE list of things wrong with your so called evidence.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Case closed.......

nope looks like it came from the one that went down on the mountainside in spain. cite certifications and chain of custody id validation numbers, times, dates, warehousing etc. you know minor details like that.

If that was from the mousoui joker trial where the retard defended himself even though he was is and always will be totally clueless about law and rules of evidence and how to get this kind of shit thrown out you have to be kidding me.

I challenge it, all of it, produce all the fucking records. as in ALL. No different than if you wanted to bring it into court against me. It better have a legitimate thorough and formal paper trail or you can wipe you ass with it.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh?
did someone post bonafide videos of planes? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide witness accounts? I dont see any.
did someone post bonafide plane parts? I dont see any.

invisible evidence! nice concept!
have you considered working for the government?

How's this. Why don't you define what you mean when you say bonafide? At this point you are pretty much hiding what you think constitutes real evidence from everyone you are talking to here. So what, exactly, would be bonafide videos, witness accounts or plane parts? What would separate the bonafide evidence from that you've so far been shown?

Every time someone gives you an example of video or picture evidence (at least if it doesn't conform to your belief about events) you say it isn't real, but don't explain what differentiates it from real evidence.

Only evidence properly submitted that can pass challenge. Depending on the case a court can accept government provided data without full review. Unless challenged. In which case requires strict conformamce as ollie said, certified, sealed, sworn, and duly recorded by the curt as such. I challenge ALL 911 so called evidence.

anything less is just your average everyday belches beer farts.

So you consider courts the only arbiter of truth?

If someone tells you they see an event, do you ask them if they have certified, sealed, sworn evidence from a court?

What makes a court able to determine the truth of, say, video evidence? Wouldn't it be better to take it before someone who works in that field?

Also, again, you are setting a bar that cannot be reached. Convenient for you. Since the vast majority of people find the evidence overwhelming that planes did, in fact, hit the towers, there is little-to-no possibility that a court will ever hear a case about the possibility it was all a hoax. Because of that, you can continue to chirp about needing 'bonafide' evidence because such evidence, by the arbitrary standards you desire, will never exist to be presented to you.

I am pretty certain that any court hearing a case about the 9/11 attacks would accept the video and witness evidence that it did, in fact, happen.

At least most of the truthers accept the reality that planes hit the towers; they just don't think the planes caused the collapses.

 

[KokomoJojo]

So you consider courts the only arbiter of truth?

If someone tells you they see an event, do you ask them if they have certified, sealed, sworn evidence from a court?

What makes a court able to determine the truth of, say, video evidence? Wouldn't it be better to take it before someone who works in that field?

Also, again, you are setting a bar that cannot be reached. Convenient for you. Since the vast majority of people find the evidence overwhelming that planes did, in fact, hit the towers, there is little-to-no possibility that a court will ever hear a case about the possibility it was all a hoax. Because of that, you can continue to chirp about needing 'bonafide' evidence because such evidence, by the arbitrary standards you desire, will never exist to be presented to you.

I am pretty certain that any court hearing a case about the 9/11 attacks would accept the video and witness evidence that it did, in fact, happen.

At least most of the truthers accept the reality that planes hit the towers; they just don't think the planes caused the collapses.

So you consider courts the only arbiter of truth?

Nope they are crooked and corrupt as hell, I consider the procedure however telling.

If someone tells you they see an event, do you ask them if they have certified, sealed, sworn evidence from a court?

Do you realize how hilarious what you just said is? It shows you know absolutely nothing about the process.

However since I understand what you are driving at, its a requirement to get at the truth and punish those who lie, like dawes sock did the other day.

The paper trail is reasonable evidence of legitimate process, HOWEVER, not above scrutiny as I have said regarding the kennedy assassination, they asked all the wrong questions. Ask the wrong questions you get the worthless answers that take you no where.

What makes a court able to determine the truth of, say, video evidence?

process validation

Wouldn't it be better to take it before someone who works in that field?

Yeh but you dont believe them now do you. Even when NIST admitted freefall troughers still would not accept it and they are the agency responsible for the reports.

Its you who is the problem not the information.

You need a certain baseline level of knowledge to understand who or what is right or wrong and how to come to the correct and meaningful conclusions.

Also, again, you are setting a bar that cannot be reached.

Well thats the way it goes, if you cant prove your case in court you lose, sorry.

Convenient for you. Since the vast majority of people find the evidence overwhelming that planes did, in fact, hit the towers, there is little-to-no possibility that a court will ever hear a case about the possibility it was all a hoax. Because of that, you can continue to chirp about needing 'bonafide' evidence because such evidence, by the arbitrary standards you desire, will never exist to be presented to you.

Again thats the way it goes, if you cant prove your case in court you lose, sorry. They had in fact they have a duty and obligation to preserve evidence if they did not then you should write your congressman and file a complaint because you now look like a fool.

I am pretty certain that any court hearing a case about the 9/11 attacks would accept the video and witness evidence that it did, in fact, happen.

No they would not, it would all get thrown out.

At least most of the truthers accept the reality that planes hit the towers; they just don't think the planes caused the collapses.

I do not make assumptions like you do, if that is the way you want to fly and accept any bulshit that comes down the horn well then you can run around with shit on your face because the government never tells you the truth as many are finding out the hard when they are asked to "prove it" and discover all the government gave them is empty words. Look at the fraud in the other thread when NIST claimed wtc7 fell 40% slower than freefall and deceptively they were referring to their model which could not be made to freefall instead of the real building. That is blatant fraud and a crime.

No proof exists because it was all a fraud.

But good luck arguing the governments position anyway because I will be hapy to slp you down every time you think you have some traction. There is simply that much fraud involved here.

The only thing that is true is that a lot of people died in those buildings. Everything else is bullshit.

 

[SFC Ollie]

How's this. Why don't you define what you mean when you say bonafide? At this point you are pretty much hiding what you think constitutes real evidence from everyone you are talking to here. So what, exactly, would be bonafide videos, witness accounts or plane parts? What would separate the bonafide evidence from that you've so far been shown?

Every time someone gives you an example of video or picture evidence (at least if it doesn't conform to your belief about events) you say it isn't real, but don't explain what differentiates it from real evidence.

Only evidence properly submitted that can pass challenge. Depending on the case a court can accept government provided data without full review. Unless challenged. In which case requires strict conformamce as ollie said, certified, sealed, sworn, and duly recorded by the curt as such. I challenge ALL 911 so called evidence.

anything less is just your average everyday belches beer farts.

So you consider courts the only arbiter of truth?

If someone tells you they see an event, do you ask them if they have certified, sealed, sworn evidence from a court?

What makes a court able to determine the truth of, say, video evidence? Wouldn't it be better to take it before someone who works in that field?

Also, again, you are setting a bar that cannot be reached. Convenient for you. Since the vast majority of people find the evidence overwhelming that planes did, in fact, hit the towers, there is little-to-no possibility that a court will ever hear a case about the possibility it was all a hoax. Because of that, you can continue to chirp about needing 'bonafide' evidence because such evidence, by the arbitrary standards you desire, will never exist to be presented to you.

I am pretty certain that any court hearing a case about the 9/11 attacks would accept the video and witness evidence that it did, in fact, happen.

At least most of the truthers accept the reality that planes hit the towers; they just don't think the planes caused the collapses.

Really, he said he wanted court evidence, it was provided and he questioned the court. Fuck this troll.......Where's 911shitforbrains at least he is entertaining at times......