Do you think the Official Conspiracy Theorists like tinfoil?

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Jesus Christ.

Did LovelyNice bring her semi-mentally handicapped brother to lit?

Wise up, nobody here is buying your theory. Maybe you should try another spot, I'm sure there's a spot where other mental deficients like yourselves hang out and speculate about how much thermite and C-4 it took to drop the towers.

This government isn't competent enough to hide a fucking domestic wiretapping program yet they somehow pulled off the biggest scam in the history of the United States without a single whistle-blower, a single leak of the 'real story', or a mass of bodies of the conspirators.

You're completely fucking deluded.

 

[NothingHitMe]

The point is that your demand is, like you, idiotic.

I'm not wearing any tinfoil, not like your friends do. I have them quoted saying so, and their pics of them and their friends. You don't much credibility with friends like that.

I've posted link upon link to scholarly and professional assessments of the collapse...not one shares or even hints at this. I've also offered a prize: $10 million to anyone that can prove the WTC wasn't taken down by gravity rays from space monkeys in the moon. No one's claimed that one, either, so I must be right.

You've posted link after link that was immediately debunked. I noticed. I did a search, and it appears very seriously that you have not been able to cite a proper simulation of the collapses which has worked. Your delusions about space monkeys don't begin to interest me. I don't wear tinfoil like you and your friends do.

Because the "witnesses" at the WTC buildings were witnesses to loud noises...not explosive charges. OTOH, the Pentagon witnesses actually saw an airliner fly low and plow into the Pentagon.

You see, this is your major problem. The 100 or so witnesses who support your conspiracy thesis are claimed by you as being credible, but 500+ witnesses which go against your conspiracy thesis are dismissed. Your logic, as always, is faulty (seen any converted Jews change their genetics lately?)

 

[NothingHitMe]

Jesus Christ.

You really shouldn't start talking to dead people like that. They can't answer you.

 

[Gringao]

I'm not wearing any tinfoil, not like your friends do. I have them quoted saying so, and their pics of them and their friends. You don't much credibility with friends like that.

Please address the issue: your specific demand for certain evidence is nonsensical because it does not support your alternative hypothesis, which was my point.

You've posted link after link that was immediately debunked. I noticed. I did a search, and it appears very seriously that you have not been able to cite a proper simulation of the collapses which has worked. Your delusions about space monkeys don't begin to interest me. I don't wear tinfoil like you and your friends do.

I posted many, many of them and only LovelyNice even tried to respond with the mantra "Physics!!" which, of course, proved nothing. You are free to peruse those proffered by the structrural engineers and others and make your refutation. I won't be holding my breath.

You see, this is your major problem. The 100 or so witnesses who support your conspiracy thesis are claimed by you as being credible, but 500+ witnesses which go against your conspiracy thesis are dismissed. Your logic, as always, is faulty (seen any converted Jews change their genetics lately?)

No, I specifically pointed out why those at the Pentagon can be believed as to the direct, specific cause of the damage there (i.e. they saw a jet liner hit it) whereas those at WTC7 may have heard loud pops and noises, but that does not necessarily mean the noises were explosives. see the diff?

 

[NothingHitMe]

Please address the issue: your specific demand for certain evidence is nonsensical because it does not support your alternative hypothesis, which was my point.

"Show me the security video of these Saudis entering each plane. - with time and date stamps this time.

What is nonsensical about requiring evidence from you to support your claims?

I posted many, many of them and only LovelyNice even tried to respond with the mantra "Physics!!" which, of course, proved nothing. You are free to peruse those proffered by the structrural engineers and others and make your refutation. I won't be holding my breath.

Why did it prove nothing? Because you have no understanding of physics just as you have no understanding of biology? Have any of those engineers been able to provide a simulation of the collapses which won that prize money yet? One million dollars is a lot to ignore. Explain why they are ignoring it. Surely some would take the challenge; if the NIST engineers could do it, they would've won the prize by now and defeated all arguments to the contrary.

No, I specifically pointed out why those at the Pentagon can be believed as to the direct, specific cause of the damage there (i.e. they saw a jet liner hit it) whereas those at WTC7 may have heard loud pops and noises, but that does not necessarily mean the noises were explosives. see the diff?

What about those witnesses at the WTC who SAW explosions? What about the video captures and slow-mo which clearly show lines of explosive charges taking down the buildings floor by floor ahead of the falling debris?

It appears that yet again, your excuses fall flat. Explain the flying debris being ejected not only outwards at terrific velocities, but also upward.

All of these together support the conclusion that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions. You have not been able to show otherwise.

Again, it appears that you are simply making excuses to dismiss witnesses who don't support your conspiracy thesis.

It those 500+ witnesses are not credible, then neither are the ones at the pentagon. Unlike the WTC controlled demolitions, there is no video evidence to support the claims of those witnesses who allege that they saw a plane hit the pentagon. The WTC witnesses have supporting video, that makes them more credible.

 

[Gringao]

"Show me the security video of these Saudis entering each plane. - with time and date stamps this time.

What is nonsensical about requiring evidence from you to support your claims?

Because they were on the passenger manifests and there is indeed security camera footage that shows a number of them passing through passenger check (Mohammed Atta in particular). Add to that the statements of some of the passengers on Airphone and cell calls that the hijackers were Middle Eastern, and it confirms their presence.

Why did it prove nothing? Because you have no understanding of physics just as you have no understanding of biology? Have any of those engineers been able to provide a simulation of the collapses which won that prize money yet? One million dollars is a lot to ignore. Explain why they are ignoring it. Surely some would take the challenge; if the NIST engineers could do it, they would've won the prize by now and defeated all arguments to the contrary.

The prize money is unwinnable. You know that. It's unwinnable because of how the proof requirement is made. There have been FEA simulations of the collapses made, and all agreed very, very closely with the actual events.

While I'm not a physicist, I am an engineer. I've forgotten more physics than you will ever know, lunkhead.

What about those witnesses at the WTC who SAW explosions? What about the video captures and slow-mo which clearly show lines of explosive charges taking down the buildings floor by floor ahead of the falling debris?

It appears that yet again, your excuses fall flat. Explain the flying debris being ejected not only outwards at terrific velocities, but also upward.

All of these together support the conclusion that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions. You have not been able to show otherwise.

Again, it appears that you are simply making excuses to dismiss witnesses who don't support your conspiracy thesis.

It those 500+ witnesses are not credible, then neither are the ones at the pentagon. Unlike the WTC controlled demolitions, there is no video evidence to support the claims of those witnesses who allege that they saw a plane hit the pentagon. The WTC witnesses have supporting video, that makes them more credible.

What the witnesses saw at the WTC were secondary and tertiary events related to the collapse, nothing more. What the Pentagon witnesses saw was primary.

 

[NothingHitMe]

Because they were on the passenger manifests

Then show the passenger manifests with the Arab names on them.

and there is indeed security camera footage that shows a number of them passing through passenger check (Mohammed Atta in particular).

Not time or date stamp = not real security video of the event. Dismissed.

Mohammed Atta was still alive on the 12th September. He spoke to his father. His entire family vouches for this. You don't have real security video of him entering the plane either.

Add to that the statements of some of the passengers on Airphone and cell calls that the hijackers were Middle Eastern, and it confirms their presence.

Cellphones can't make calls from passenger aircraft from the 5-6 miles up, while the plane is flying at 500mph. Expert opinion and scientific studies agrees with this, as has been cited repeatedly. That brings into the question the airfone calls, which could be dismissed since there are no records of them, and it is already widely known that the cellphone calls were faked.

The prize money is unwinnable. You know that. It's unwinnable because of how the proof requirement is made. There have been FEA simulations of the collapses made, and all agreed very, very closely with the actual events.

It's unwinnable because the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions. It's also impossible to simulate the collapses otherwise. FEA also could not simulate those collapses without them being controlled demolitions. NIST could not simulate those collapses without them being controlled demolitions.

Can you prove that they were not controlled demolitions when nobody else can?

While I'm not a physicist, I am an engineer. I've forgotten more physics than you will ever know, lunkhead.

Your storytelling is a typical shill tactic and I win this point by your lying -

Storytelling about how highly qualified they are, without being able to provide any evidence to support their claim to qualifications is another popular shill tactic. This is always an excuse to avoid citing any expert opinions, links, or sources, to support their side of the debate.

What the witnesses saw at the WTC were secondary and tertiary events related to the collapse, nothing more. What the Pentagon witnesses saw was primary.

Explain the difference exactly and in detail, as you see it.

 

[breakwall]

Your storytelling is a typical shill tactic and I win this point by your lying -

Gringao, let it go.

These kind don't care about logic or proof. They're like Jehovah's Witnesses or Amway salesmen.

 

[Fagin]

Gringao, let it go.

These kind don't care about logic or proof. They're like Jehovah's Witnesses or Amway salesmen.

At least Amway salesmen have something to offer.

 

[breakwall]

At least Amway salesmen have something to offer.

you know who's the real hero in all these threads? Ancathus. I mean, in one of them, he handed LN her ass over and over again.

And all she ever replied was "You're an idiot. You're a liar."

It was beautiful and frustrating at the same time.

But if nothing else, Ancathus was able to effectively collect a shitload of evidence supporting the facts of 9/11 in one handy spot.

 

[Problem Child]

Have any of the conspiracy theorists explained away the smoke trail that is visible in the Pentagon security camera video?

As far I know, there isn't a missile that is powerful enough to do that kind of damage that flies level (i.e. a guide missile like a tomahawk) and leaves a smoke trail.

 

[NothingHitMe]

While I'm not a physicist, I am an engineer. I've forgotten more physics than you will ever know, lunkhead.

Your storytelling is a typical shill tactic and I win this point by your lying -

Storytelling about how highly qualified they are, without being able to provide any evidence to support their claim to qualifications is another popular shill tactic. This is always an excuse to avoid citing any expert opinions, links, or sources, to support their side of the debate.

Gringao, let it go.
These kind don't care about logic or proof.

Gringao, didn't he provide any proof, he played the shill tactic of storytelling.

 

[NothingHitMe]

you know who's the real hero in all these threads? Ancathus. I mean, in one of them, he handed LN her ass over and over again.

Another shill tactic; claim victories that they can not prove, and which only exist in their fantasies.

More storytelling.

 

[NothingHitMe]

Have any of the conspiracy theorists explained away the smoke trail that is visible in the Pentagon security camera video?

You're a conspiracy theorist. Otherwise show me how ONE MAN did all the WTC attacks all by himself.

Can you show it as a plane?

As far I know, there isn't a missile that is powerful enough to do that kind of damage that flies level (i.e. a guide missile like a tomahawk) and leaves a smoke trail.

Missiles leave smoke trails. Show me a passenger jet leaving a smoke trail while it flies a few feet above the ground.

Also show the view of the plane from the 85 CCTVs.

 

[Problem Child]

you know who's the real hero in all these threads? Ancathus. I mean, in one of them, he handed LN her ass over and over again.

And all she ever replied was "You're an idiot. You're a liar."

It was beautiful and frustrating at the same time.

But if nothing else, Ancathus was able to effectively collect a shitload of evidence supporting the facts of 9/11 in one handy spot.

The problem is, most responsible, sane people don't have all day and night to chase down and refute all this bullshit. We tend to rely on experts, and if there was any credible evidence to a conspiracy, plenty of actual, bona fide experts - engineers, fire experts, aviation experts, explosive experts would be all over this.

I don't see them on the news every night, but then again the media is probably in on the cover-up.

 

[NothingHitMe]

The problem is, most responsible, sane people don't have all day and night to chase down and refute all this bullshit.

Why are you here doing this then, shill?

We tend to rely on experts, and if there was any credible evidence to a conspiracy, plenty of actual, bona fide experts - engineers, fire experts, aviation experts, explosive expert.

You'll have to cite them instead of just making broad declarations. You'll need quotes, sources, links, and you have not provided any.

 

[Problem Child]

Missiles leave smoke trails. Show me a passenger jet leaving a smoke trail while it flies a few feet above the ground.

Also show the view of the plane from the 85 CCTVs.

Name a guided missile with a big enough warhead to do the damage we saw in the Pentagon that leaves a smoke trail.

A passenger jet that injests light poles and generators through its engine will leave a smoke trail, yes.

I can't answer the question about the CCTV's. We they all trained (actually pointing at) the area? We they all actually on at that precise second? Would they actually be capable of capturing the incident? I suspect if you really investigate every one of them, instead of just throwing out "85 cameras", the answer would surprise you.

 

[NothingHitMe]

Name a guided missile with a big enough warhead to do the damage we saw in the Pentagon that leaves a smoke trail.

Name a passenger jet that leaves a smoke trail as if flies low over the ground, and show video from the 85 CCTVs which proof that the passenger jet hit the pentagon.

I can't answer the question about the CCTV's.

Because you can't back your assertions with them.

 

[Drinking Cap]

Name a passenger jet that leaves a smoke trail as if flies low over the ground, and show video from the 85 CCTVs which proof that the passenger jet hit the pentagon.

Why answer his question with a question? Can you name a missle that qualifies or can't you?

 

[Problem Child]

Why are you here doing this then, shill?




You'll have to cite them instead of just making broad declarations. You'll need quotes, sources, links, and you have not provided any.

Why are you calling me a shill, fuckwad? I choose to be here because it's entertaining to talk about this crap for an hour or two, sweaty swineball-licker. I am not interested in spending all my waking hours researching it, cockbag.

I can make a broad declaration that I choose to not to believe there was a cover-up, asswipe, based on the fact that credible experts aren't on the news every night saying we should be looking into this further. I don't need any links for that, douchebag, because it's my opinion.

 

[Drinking Cap]

Why are you calling me a shill, fuckwad?

Anyone who doesn't believe that 9/11 was the actions of a super competent government organization is a paid government shill trying to discredit people who speak the truth, like this particular multiple personality of LN's.

 

[breakwall]

You'll have to cite them instead of just making broad declarations. You'll need quotes, sources, links, and you have not provided any.

See, this is their tactic.

Remember when we have discussions about the existence of God, and the accuser has the onus of proof. That is, whoever is making the claim, must provide proof of the claim.

Well, here we have the accepted version of what happened on 9/11 carefully detailed in the widely distributed 9/11 Commission Report. And then we have the conspiracy theorists demanding that we show 'proof' that the Report is true.

In fact, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. So for their claims to have any merit, they must provide evidence.

And re-posting other forum posts does not count as verifiable evidence.

 

[Morcheeba]

. Are you saying that ONE MAN by himself did all of the 9/11 attacks BY HIMSELF?

Weren't there many people involved? Then that is a "conspiracy".

Oh suck my dick. I never said anything of the sort.

 

[breakwall]

You'll have to cite them instead of just making broad declarations. You'll need quotes, sources, links, and you have not provided any.

and here, let me, once again, help you out with the links.

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=18493856&postcount=80

 

[Problem Child]

Name a passenger jet that leaves a smoke trail as if flies low over the ground, and show video from the 85 CCTVs which proof that the passenger jet hit the pentagon.

On the videos we have of the incident "something" is leaving a smoke trail, correct?

And, hopefully, you will admit a jet engine can smoke.

Still, there's not a guided missile (that I know of) with a warhead big enough to punch through three rings of the Pentagon that leaves a smoke trail.