hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 38 minutes ago, bcsapper said: Well, I certainly didn't, but I was in Kamloops. I bet you find a lot of people in New York who did, though. How is it possible for a wing tip, which can't even hold fuel, to cut thru THREE 14" steel box columnS? Edited July 31, 2017 by hot enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 5 hours ago, hot enough said: You are so nebulous. WTF is "it"? The USGOCT. I agree it's unsupportable but just not for the wild reasoning you believe make it unsupportable Maybe the reason everything seems so nebulous to you is that you simply can't keep up. For example... WHAT TANGENT! Spell it out! It is so hard to discuss anything with you because you have so many isolated pronouns, so many nebulous statements. Tangent...The weird direction your CD theory takes off towards - the course you've chosen to follow. The retaliation explanation - blowback that is - is just so simple and tidy in comparison...Occam would be weeping if he could see how his advice is being so humiliatingly eschewed here. It's that painful to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 9 hours ago, hot enough said: How is it possible for a wing tip, which can't even hold fuel, to cut thru THREE 14" steel box columnS? Well, I have to admit, my understanding of the possibility of wing tips cutting through steel box columns has been limited up to now, but based on the evidence you provided, it seems it is possible. If I were you, I'd be more curious about what made those right angles on the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, eyeball said: The USGOCT. I agree it's unsupportable but just not for the wild reasoning you believe make it unsupportable Maybe the reason everything seems so nebulous to you is that you simply can't keep up. For example... Again, nebulous as hell. Don't make unsupported statements, statements like "but just not for the wild reasoning you believe make it unsupportable". Not just unsupported, totally undescribed - that is nebulous as hell. Tangent...The weird direction your CD theory takes off towards - the course you've chosen to follow. How would you know when it seems apparent that you know nothing about the events or the science. You provide no detail, even large detail so it is impossible to know what your level of ignorance is. It seems high because you have tried to create scenarios that are impossible. The retaliation explanation - blowback that is - is just so simple and tidy in comparison...Occam would be weeping if he could see how his advice is being so humiliatingly eschewed here. It's that painful to watch. The huge problem with that is that there is no evidence to support the notion that anyone retaliated. How can you miss this, how can you keep on with your nebulous points without addressing the science, the facts that illustrate you don't understand Occam's razor at all? Edited July 31, 2017 by hot enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 1 hour ago, bcsapper said: Well, I have to admit, my understanding of the possibility of wing tips cutting through steel box columns has been limited up to now, but based on the evidence you provided, it seems it is possible. If I were you, I'd be more curious about what made those right angles on the other side. It is impossible for wing tips to cut thru three 14" steel box columns. Your admission, and your inability to discuss any of the issues/science/events in any adult like, intelligent fashion illustrates that you are not competent. All you are, all you have ever been, is someone bent on deception, a way less voluble Omni, a Michael Hardner, a OftenWrong, a Wilber, a, my deepest apologies, b_c2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 Just now, hot enough said: It is impossible for wing tips to cut thru three 14" steel box columns. Your admission, and your inability to discuss any of the issues/science/events in any adult like, intelligent fashion illustrates that you are not competent. All you are, all you have ever been, is someone bent on deception, a way less voluble Omni, a Michael Hardner, a OftenWrong, a Wilber, a, my deepest apologies, b_c2004. It's not deception. It's genuine disbelief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, bcsapper said: It's not deception. It's genuine disbelief. You can't be this thick, really, bc/absapper. The wrong engine, illustrating that it was not a 767-200. Edited July 31, 2017 by hot enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: You can't be this thick, really, bc/absapper. The wrong engine, illustrating that it was not a 767-200. You don't need the engine. There's video. Can't an aviation expert tell us what plane it was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 58 minutes ago, bcsapper said: You don't need the engine. There's video. Can't an aviation expert tell us what plane it was? The aviation experts, when asked about the speeds the purported planes supposedly reached at sea level, laugh and say that those speeds are not possible, not attainable for the planes the US official story says were involved. 1) How does the nose make it out in perfect shape, thru two walls of 14" steel box columns? You saw what a bird does to wings and noses. 2) How did the molten metals with much higher melting points than that of jet fuel/office furnishings come to be there? 3) How did Arab hijackers get a hold of US government proprietary nanothermite? 4) How does the wall of WTC2 self heal when the jet is supposedly half in and half out? Your genuine disbelief seems to be skewed to only be at disbelief level for certain things. Edited July 31, 2017 by hot enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 22 minutes ago, bcsapper said: You don't need the engine. There's video. Can't an aviation expert tell us what plane it was? Why are you discounting the FACT that the engine was found, there, on Murray Street, the trajectory and the distance fitting the flight path and speed of the object seen flying from out of the explosion of the north side of WTC2? Just this one issue, the wrong engine, therefore the wrong plane, NOT the plane described by the official US story illustrates a big big lie that is fatal to the USGOCT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 And the hundreds of witnesses on the ground and the video apparently mean nothing. My experience tells me that engineering a hoax on this scale is pure fantasy. But fantasy has its purposes: the hard-left proponents of masses of superintelligent bogeymen working against us enjoy the freedom to express their paranoid scaremongering just as the sane ones in our midst enjoy the freedom to discuss actual issues. Eventually, as with the fantastic JFK conspiracies, the interest and money feeding such cartoons trickles away and history provides us with the correct interpretation. ---- https://www.amazon.ca/Paranoid-Style-American-Politics/dp/0307388441 That's the fundamental essay on such noodlings, and gives a good survey of the now-forgotten "Free Silver" conspiracy. It had all the attributes of the truther theories, including anti-Semitic schemings being behind the whole thing. For those of you who continue to poke at the prophets of hysteria on this issue, please at least try to enjoy your pursuit knowing that such types will never be convinced. ( Anticipating the response, I have already stated that I'm open to looking at the academic response to the already-discredited open publication of the theory promoted here.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: And the hundreds of witnesses on the ground and the video apparently mean nothing. Provide evidence for your beliefs/propaganda. You totally discount the evidence from the hundreds of firefighters who describe explosions and bombs. Why is that? George Bush describes twin tower bombs and explosions. Why don't you address that? What of the human being being exploded out a twin tower window? What of the hundreds of witnesses who describe molten steel? What of the molten steel flowing out of WTC2 just before collapse? What kept the fires/molten steel going until February 2002 when there was millions of gallons of water poured on the fires and Pyrocool, which put out a burning oil tanker in hours? Why do you not engage in productive discussion? You only engage in discussions of psychology that you have zero expertise in. Edited July 31, 2017 by hot enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: ( Anticipating the response, I have already stated that I'm open to looking at the academic response to the already-discredited open publication of the theory promoted here.) A typical Michael Harder nebulous response to give you an out later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, hot enough said: 1) Provide evidence for your beliefs/propaganda. 2) You totally discount the evidence from the hundreds of firefighters who describe explosions and bombs. Why is that? George Bush describes twin tower bombs and explosions. Why don't you address that? 3) What of the hundreds of witnesses who describe molten steel? What of the molten steel flowing out of WTC2 just before collapse? 4) What kept the fires/molten steel going until February 2002 when there was millions of gallons of water poured on the fires and Pyrocool, which put out a burning oil tanker in hours? 5) Why do you not engage in productive discussion? You only engage in discussions of psychology that you have zero expertise in. 1) I have seen the video, including that of the French filmmakers who were on the scene. Hundreds of witnesses were interviewed for the 9/11 commission: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/barack-obama-urged-to-declassify-report-detailing-links-between-911-and-saudi-arabia-a6980771.html But you know that. 2) Explosions did happen, bombs did not. Initial reports, when followed up, show you that very few would report "bombs" separate from the sounds of the events associated with the impact of the planes. 3) 4) Has been discounted. 5) Not psychology but personal experience with tunnel-visioned individuals. I have stated already that I'm open to evidence. Please state what would cause you to disbelieve the theories you have posted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Eventually, as with the fantastic JFK conspiracies, You often spout the lines, with a self assurance that has no basis in fact, Michael. You weave and dodge, mostly you are absent, then you come back with a bunch of unsupported nonsense, all the while ignoring the innumerable facts that demolish your nonsense. ============== http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/09/07/the-tide-is-turning-the-official-story-is-now-the-conspiracy-theory-paul-craig-roberts/ The Tide is Turning: The Official Story Is Now The Conspiracy Theory — Paul Craig Roberts The official explanation of the assassination of President Kennedy never made any sense. Videos of the assassination contradicted the official story, as did witnesses, and many credible people challenged the government’s story. The CIA was faced with the official explanation becoming unglued and launched its media program stigmatizing doubters as “conspiracy theorists.” See:http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/08/31/are-you-a-mind-controlled-cia-stooge-paul-craig-roberts/ The CIA’s psych warfare against the public succeeded at the time and for a number of years during which witnesses had mysterious deaths and the trail grew cold. But by the late 1970s there was so much public skepticism of the official story that the US Congress took the risk of being labeled “conspiracy kooks.” The House Select Committee on Assassinations reopened the inquiry into JFK’s murder. The House Committee concluded that the Warren Commission’s investigation was seriously flawed, that there was more than one person firing at President Kennedy and that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. The corrupt US Department of Justice (sic) contradicted the House Select Committee’s report. However, the American people believed the Select Committee and not the corrupt Justice (sic) Department, which never tells the truth about anything. By 2013 polls showed that most Americans are “conspiracy kooks” who do not believe the official government line on JFK’s assassination. So with regard to JFK’s assassination, the “conspiracy theorists” are in the majority. The minority are the Americans who cannot escape their brainwashing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/11/20/poll-62-percent-believe-broader-plot-killed-kennedy/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, hot enough said: You often spout the lines, with a self assurance that has no basis in fact, Michael. You weave and dodge, mostly you are absent, then you come back with a bunch of unsupported nonsense, all the while ignoring the innumerable facts that demolish your nonsense. Paul Craig Roberts is quite an anomaly, as his crackpot theories (for example, he thinks Sandy Hook was falsified) are made by somebody whose institutional work has been recognized. Good find. You need to really hold onto these gadflies as there aren't too many of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 The JFK conspiracy is going the way of other 70s fashions such as bell bottoms. There was a huge archive of material released recently. Did you hear about how it proved the conspiracy theory ? Of course not. Back to the drawing board, or the basement I suppose, for the conspiracy cottage industry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 1) I have seen the video, including that of the French filmmakers who were on the scene. Hundreds of witnesses were interviewed for the 9/11 commission: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/barack-obama-urged-to-declassify-report-detailing-links-between-911-and-saudi-arabia-a6980771.html But you know that. No evidence from Michael Hardner, again. You don't even know the French filmmakers' name. And the 911 Commission was a totally guided farce. You likely know this and you are being deceptive. 2) Explosions did happen, bombs did not. Initial reports, when followed up, show you that very few would report "bombs" separate from the sounds of the events associated with the impact of the planes. That too is false. The sound record shows explosions before the plane hit. These are described by William Rodriguez. Co-workers of his badly injured by explosions before the WTC1 impact. Notice how you are only using Michael Hardener as your evidence. That is no evidence at all. Quote 3) 4) Has been discounted. Your say so means absolutely nothing. 5) Not psychology but personal experience with tunnel-visioned individuals. I have stated already that I'm open to evidence. You abhor evidence. That is so abundantly apparent because you never offer any. Please state what would cause you to disbelieve the theories you have posted here. What a ludicrous notion! You provide zero evidence for anything and then you pull this crazy Omni. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: Paul Craig Roberts is quite an anomaly, as his crackpot theories (for example, he thinks Sandy Hook was falsified) are made by somebody whose institutional work has been recognized. Good find. You need to really hold onto these gadflies as there aren't too many of them. Typical no evidence, Michael. Address what he says. Remember the MLW rules about not playing the body, playing the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, hot enough said: What a ludicrous notion! I agree that my apparent attempt to reach out for you for a measure of objectivity was ludicrous, in retrospect. My assertions to listen to evidence stand. I would wish you enjoyment of your fantasies, but they appear instead to burn you up - which is concerning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: Typical no evidence, Michael. Address what he says. Remember the MLW rules about not playing the body, playing the facts. The fact is that this person denigrates the tragedy of families for his harebrained theories. I'm not going to moralize further than that, but it's not really my thing to dive into the minds of miscreants and pick apart their falsehoods. The prevailing orthodoxy on the other hand, provides plenty of obvious evidence such as the videos by the French film makers. And you choose to ignore that. If you can show some objectivity then it would probably help your case, and likely your overall balance as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: 2) Explosions did happen, bombs did not. Initial reports, when followed up, show you that very few would report "bombs" separate from the sounds of the events associated with the impact of the planes. You won't watch it. Will you read it? Quote 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers Graeme MacQueen August 21, 2006 One of the greatest mysteries of September 11, 2001 is the collapse of the Twin Towers. Claims that explosions contributed to the collapses were made on 9/11 and have persisted, but studies supportive of the U.S. government’s account of events have ignored or denied these claims. A great deal is at stake in this debate. If explosions were critical to the collapses, the official al Qaeda narrative may need to be radically altered or abandoned altogether. In January, 2006 an article by David Ray Griffin appeared entitled, “Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories.”[1] Drawing on a collection of oral histories from the New York Fire Department (FDNY), Griffin argued the case for controlled demolition of the towers. I found myself intrigued by the data he had used and impressed by his method, but I decided there was room for further research. I wanted answers to two questions. (1) Are the roughly 31 witnesses to explosions quoted by Griffin the total of all witnesses to explosions in these sources, or are there others he does not mention? (2) Are there witnesses in these sources whose testimony supports the non-explosive collapse of the Towers—the U.S. government’s perspective? I decided to read the primary sources in order to answer these questions. This paper ... http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY! / MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: I agree that my apparent attempt to reach out for you for a measure of objectivity was ludicrous, in retrospect. My assertions to listen to evidence stand. I would wish you enjoyment of your fantasies, but they appear instead to burn you up - which is concerning. Does Omni have two accounts? Still no evidence from you, Michael, but your song and dance routine is beginning. Soon, following your usual patter, you will disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: The fact is that this person denigrates the tragedy of families for his harebrained theories. I'm not going to moralize further than that, but it's not really my thing to dive into the minds of miscreants and pick apart their falsehoods. You try this cheap trick, when it is science denying, anti-truthers like you who make a mockery of all the people murdered on 911 and since because of huge lies, huge lies that you are supporting with your ZERO evidence. Quote The prevailing orthodoxy on the other hand, provides plenty of obvious evidence such as the videos by the French film makers. And you choose to ignore that. If you can show some objectivity then it would probably help your case, and likely your overall balance as well. Still none of this voluminous evidence you say is available, Michael. Answer the questions I have posed to you and bcsapper. What are you so afraid of? Why do you continue with your lame song and dance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 31, 2017 Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 10 minutes ago, hot enough said: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY! / MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses I watched. Parsing the testimonies for words as he has done is fraught with problems. The pre-planted explosion theory still makes no sense, let alone the "no planes" theory or whatever else.... If I were more bored I would watch more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts