Why I hate 9-11 Truthers

[Soupnazi630]

some of the witnesses said they saw a commuter jet, or small aircraft, some reported seeing a military aircraft, plane spotting skills anyone?
& truly, where are these "thousands" of witness reports who say they saw an airliner?

No one reported seeing a military aircraft.

Tens of thousands saw airliners or a non specific aircraft in general.

You know this and are being willfully dumb asking to view what has been wide spread public KNOW she for years.

This is a lame ct move asking for reports which you have already seen and know about.

 

[Capstone]

Ahem...



...just a quick break in my previous line of thought, and posted in response to nobody in particular.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Ahem...



...just a quick break in my previous line of thought, and posted in response to nobody in particular.

And long since debunked bs

 

[Capstone]

Make up your mind, S-nazi. Is it that "No one reported seeing a military aircraft.", or is it that all of those reports have been "long since debunked "?

A little thing called 'logic' dictates that you can't have it both ways.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Make up your mind, S-nazi. Is it that "No one reported seeing a military aircraft.", or is it that all of those reports have been "long since debunked "?

A little thing called 'logic' dictates that you can't have it both ways.

No you are now lying.

They were debunked because the voice overs were proven to have been added years later.

No one in the original film stated such things.

Much like all of your other claims debunked long ago and you know this to be true.

This is why like all consp theorists you wait a while and repost garbage which has been proven false in hopes people forgot it was proven so

 

[Capstone]

Make up your mind, S-nazi. Is it that "No one reported seeing a military aircraft.", or is it that all of those reports have been "long since debunked "?

A little thing called 'logic' dictates that you can't have it both ways.

No you are now lying.

They were debunked because the voice overs were proven to have been added years later.

No one in the original film stated such things.

Much like all of your other claims debunked long ago and you know this to be true.

This is why like all consp theorists you wait a while and repost garbage which has been proven false in hopes people forgot it was proven so

Let's see that debunking effort then.

Just claiming that all of those reports have been exposed as voice-over hoaxes without providing so much as a link to the exposition in question...holds about as much water as your usual empty proclamations.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Make up your mind, S-nazi. Is it that "No one reported seeing a military aircraft.", or is it that all of those reports have been "long since debunked "?

A little thing called 'logic' dictates that you can't have it both ways.

No you are now lying.

They were debunked because the voice overs were proven to have been added years later.

No one in the original film stated such things.

Much like all of your other claims debunked long ago and you know this to be true.

This is why like all consp theorists you wait a while and repost garbage which has been proven false in hopes people forgot it was proven so

Let's see that debunking effort then.

Just claiming that all of those reports have been exposed as voice-over hoaxes without providing so much as a link to the exposition in question...holds about as much water as your usual empty proclamations.

On no no no little boy.

As I said you HAVE seen it already and are going in circles hoping it was forgotten.

Now deal with fact it was proven to you already and you know it and are lying to deny that fact.

 

[Capstone]

...As I said you HAVE seen it already and are going in circles hoping it was forgotten. ...

I've seen no such thing; and as usual, your consistent failure to support your claims only highlights the mendacity of your approach to these matters in general.

I don't doubt that some person or group has attempted to debunk the numerous eyewitness accounts of a "large, gray, unmarked, cargo/military plane" (some of which appeared in print in various newspapers, BTW), but I have even less doubt that all such efforts have themselves been "debunked" to varying degrees.

If you're not capable of specifying - much less defending - the work of your unnamed sources, then you're doing much more harm than good to the causes you share in common with those folks.

 

[daws101]

Ahem...



...just a quick break in my previous line of thought, and posted in response to nobody in particular.

not this false shit again!


Emphasis mine.

 

[Capstone]

^Another shining example of the most glaring difference between duh-bwunkers and legitimate truth-seekers.

 

[daws101]

^Another shining example of the most glaring difference between duh-bwunkers and legitimate truth-seekers.

whoever gave you the idea you and your cohorts were legitimate has got a cruel streak a mile wide .

 

[Soupnazi630]

...As I said you HAVE seen it already and are going in circles hoping it was forgotten. ...

I've seen no such thing; and as usual, your consistent failure to support your claims only highlights the mendacity of your approach to these matters in general.

I don't doubt that some person or group has attempted to debunk the numerous eyewitness accounts of a "large, gray, unmarked, cargo/military plane" (some of which appeared in print in various newspapers, BTW), but I have even less doubt that all such efforts have themselves been "debunked" to varying degrees.

If you're not capable of specifying - much less defending - the work of your unnamed sources, then you're doing much more harm than good to the causes you share in common with those folks.

Yes you have seen it period.

You just waited a while and pretended you never said it.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The reaction makes sense. Truthers are saying that all of the people who can believe that airliners weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy buildings weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than two hours without even demanding the obvious necessary data are idiots.

Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower? Where have experts discussed that in 14 years? Most ot the Truther Conspiracy Theorists don't even ask about that. But then they think they can find Justice. JeeZ!

psik

 

[Soupnazi630]

The reaction makes sense. Truthers are saying that all of the people who can believe that airliners weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy buildings weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than two hours without even demanding the obvious necessary data are idiots.

Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower? Where have experts discussed that in 14 years? Most ot the Truther Conspiracy Theorists don't even ask about that. But then they think they can find Justice. JeeZ!

psik

Twoofers are fools they say things like yoi just did.

Who ever said it was just a plane which brought the buildings down

 

[SAYIT]

The reaction makes sense. Truthers are saying that all of the people who can believe that airliners weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy buildings weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than two hours without even demanding the obvious necessary data are idiots.

Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower? Where have experts discussed that in 14 years? Most ot the Truther Conspiracy Theorists don't even ask about that. But then they think they can find Justice. JeeZ!

What is left of the "Truther" Movement - their rational comrades having already abandoned them - are interested neither in truth nor justice. They have their beliefs which are impervious to logic, reality and facts and they reserve their skepticism solely for the official reports while ignoring the gaping holes in their CTs.
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch, former "Truther"

 

[SAYIT]

The reaction makes sense. Truthers are saying that all of the people who can believe that airliners weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy buildings weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than two hours without even demanding the obvious necessary data are idiots.

Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower? Where have experts discussed that in 14 years? Most ot the Truther Conspiracy Theorists don't even ask about that. But then they think they can find Justice. JeeZ!

psik

Twoofers are fools they say things like yoi just did.

Who ever said it was just a plane which brought the buildings down

The way I read psik, he is ridiculing the 9/11 CTs for their half-assed methodology.

 

[daws101]

The reaction makes sense. Truthers are saying that all of the people who can believe that airliners weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy buildings weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than two hours without even demanding the obvious necessary data are idiots.

Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower? Where have experts discussed that in 14 years? Most ot the Truther Conspiracy Theorists don't even ask about that. But then they think they can find Justice. JeeZ!

psik

every time you post I can't help but thinking " if you can't dazzle um' with brilliance baffle um' with BullShit".

 

[psikeyhackr]

Twoofers are fools they say things like yoi just did.

Who ever said it was just a plane which brought the buildings down

The way I read psik, he is ridiculing the 9/11 CTs for their half-assed methodology.

Wow, someone who can actually understand what I am saying.

And I don't think I am saying anything complicated.

I went to one of Retard Gage's dog and pony shows in 2008. I think at least a third of the people there I would not even want to have had a conversation with. I got into his line for questions afterwards. I asked him about the mass distribution of the towers. First he looked at me like I had grown a 2nd head. Then he said the NIST was not releasing accurate blueprints.

But in 7 years his group has not tried to make a decent model, either physical or virtual, explaining why airliners and fire could not have brought the buildings down. Just more money collection and propaganda. It is like neither side wants a definitive and comprehensible solution.

psik

 

[SAYIT]

Twoofers are fools they say things like yoi just did.

Who ever said it was just a plane which brought the buildings down

The way I read psik, he is ridiculing the 9/11 CTs for their half-assed methodology.

Wow, someone who can actually understand what I am saying.

And I don't think I am saying anything complicated.

I went to one of Retard Gage's dog and pony shows in 2008. I think at least a third of the people there I would not even want to have had a conversation with. I got into his line for questions afterwards. I asked him about the mass distribution of the towers. First he looked at me like I had grown a 2nd head. Then he said the NIST was not releasing accurate blueprints.

But in 7 years his group has not tried to make a decent model, either physical or virtual, explaining why airliners and fire could not have brought the buildings down. Just more money collection and propaganda. It is like neither side wants a definitive and comprehensible solution.

psik

I think given the time and cash constraints, NIST did a reasonable (though not perfect) job of explaining what happened on 9/11/01. In the 13+ years since, the "Truther" movement has done little more than produce some DVDs, YouTubes, t-shirts coffee mugs and ... Internet Noise.

BTW, it isn't that your content is complex but rather how you say it that can be read more than one way.

 

[Capstone]

The reaction makes sense. Truthers are saying that all of the people who can believe that airliners weighing less than 200 tons can totally destroy buildings weighing more than 400,000 TONS in less than two hours without even demanding the obvious necessary data are idiots.

Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower? Where have experts discussed that in 14 years? Most ot the Truther Conspiracy Theorists don't even ask about that. But then they think they can find Justice. JeeZ! ...

While it's not entirely clear what you're talking about (re: "the center of mass"), the 'south tower tilt' and its apparent violation of conservation-of-momentum laws (minus explosives) has been on the long list of obvious problems with the NEOCT, practically from the word go.

This essay, for instance, an earlier version of which served as the basis for a series of lectures back in 2005, briefly covers the point:

[. . .]South Tower Tipping and Disintegration:
If the north tower’s antenna drop was anomalous (from the perspective of the official theory), the south tower’s collapse contained an even stranger anomaly. The uppermost floors---above the level struck by the airplane---began tipping toward the corner most damaged by the impact. According to conservation-of-momentum laws, this block of approximately 34 floors should have fallen to the ground far outside the building’s footprint. “However,” observe Paul and Hoffman, “as the top then began to fall, the rotation decelerated. Then it reversed direction [even though the] law of conservation of angular momentum states that a solid object in rotation will continue to rotate at the same speed unless acted on by a torque” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 34).

And then, in the words of Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU, “this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!” This disintegration stopped the tipping and allowed the uppermost floors to fall straight down into, or at least close to, the building’s footprint. As Jones notes, this extremely strange behavior was one of many things that NIST was able to ignore by virtue of the fact that its analysis, in its own words, “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached” (NIST 2005, p. 80, n. 12). This is convenient because it means that NIST did not have to answer Jones’s question: “How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives?” (Jones, 2006).

This behavior is, however, not strange to experts in controlled demolition. Mark Loizeaux, the head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said:

By differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance . . . . We'll have structures start facing north and end up going to the north-west. (Else, 2004)

Once again, something that is inexplicable in terms of the official theory becomes a matter of course if the theory of controlled demolition is adopted. ...

Emphasis mine.[*]

Notice that, as always, being the prominent philosopher/theologian/academician/researcher/author he is, Prof. Griffin cites professionals and scholars with expertise in the relevant fields (in this case demolitions and physics) to support his analysis.

The tilt was also covered in Richard Gage's 2008 documentary, 9/11: Blueprint for Truth - The Architecture of Destruction.

True, it hasn't received as much attention as other apparent violations of physical law (such as the 105 ft. freefall admitted by NIST in its multi-stage analysis of Building 7's "collapse"), but I think that's partially because the NIST group downplayed the severity of the tilt to a degree which they felt it could be rationalized (around 2° if memory serves) - nevermind that charted estimates drawn directly from video/photographic analysis had the tilt at up to 23°.

[*] Yes, Dwas, despite your childish ridicule, I'll continue to point it out whenever I emphasize something.