Jump to content

Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

Hey li'l buddy, nobody lies about being a pilot. Ask Wilber, he speaks pilot talk. And then off to bed with you.

That's all you have done is lie about being a pilot, along with your frequent lies about 911, which you are doing again right here and now. 

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/vaporize steel [2,750F/4900F]; vaporize lead [3,180F]; melt molybdenum [4,170F]?

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/create iron microspheres [2,800F] amounting to 6% of WTC dust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hot enough said:

That's all you have done is lie about being a pilot, along with your frequent lies about 911, which you are doing again right here and now. 

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/vaporize steel [2,750F/4900F]; vaporize lead [3,180F]; melt molybdenum [4,170F]?

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/create iron microspheres [2,800F] amounting to 6% of WTC dust?

I suspect perhaps you always wanted to be a pilot, but just couldn't make it. It is a fun job for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Omni said:

I guess you've never soldered or gas welded. 

Are you suggesting that the same conditions were present on 911 in the twin towers and WTC7 as those of gas welding? 

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/vaporize steel [2,750F/4900F]; vaporize lead [3,180F]; melt molybdenum [4,170F]?

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/create iron microspheres [2,800F] amounting to 6% of WTC dust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hot enough said:

Are you suggesting that the same conditions were present on 911 in the twin towers and WTC7 as those of gas welding? 

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/vaporize steel [2,750F/4900F]; vaporize lead [3,180F]; melt molybdenum [4,170F]?

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/create iron microspheres [2,800F] amounting to 6% of WTC dust?

Throw a beer can in a campfire you get microspheres. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, hot enough said:

That's all you have done is lie about being a pilot, along with your frequent lies about 911, which you are doing again right here and now. 

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/vaporize steel [2,750F/4900F]; vaporize lead [3,180F]; melt molybdenum [4,170F]?

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/create iron microspheres [2,800F] amounting to 6% of WTC dust?

Have you perhaps abandoned the idea that you would have to be a highly trained pilot in order to fly a plane into a huge office tower? If so I'm very glad I never had you as a student while I made a paycheck as an instructor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that the same conditions were present on 911 in the twin towers and WTC7 as those of gas welding? 

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/vaporize steel [2,750F/4900F]; vaporize lead [3,180F]; melt molybdenum [4,170F]?

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/create iron microspheres [2,800F] amounting to 6% of WTC dust?

When you actually get around to answering these many questions and their implications for your goofy, totally crazy USGOCT, included some evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, hot enough said:

Are you suggesting that the same conditions were present on 911 in the twin towers and WTC7 as those of gas welding? 

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/vaporize steel [2,750F/4900F]; vaporize lead [3,180F]; melt molybdenum [4,170F]?

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/create iron microspheres [2,800F] amounting to 6% of WTC dust?

When you actually get around to answering these many questions and their implications for your goofy, totally crazy USGOCT, included some evidence. 

Still awaiting your "explanation" as to how all that explosive got into those towers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, hot enough said:

Are you suggesting that the same conditions were present on 911 in the twin towers and WTC7 as those of gas welding? 

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/vaporize steel [2,750F/4900F]; vaporize lead [3,180F]; melt molybdenum [4,170F]?

Are you suggesting that jet fuel/office furnishings can melt/create iron microspheres [2,800F] amounting to 6% of WTC dust?

When you actually get around to answering these many questions and their implications for your goofy, totally crazy USGOCT, included some evidence. 

The first question is illogical. The comment Omni provided did not suggest nor does it infer, imply or automatically mean  the same conditions had to exist. The comment was made on an  erroneous presumption based on the questioner's  inability to understand what Omnui  said and I would suggest  summarizes what the questioner has  done throughout this thread-demonstrate an inability to understand basic fundamental science posed to him that repudiates his assumptions and when caught unable to respond, name calls then circles back, and repeats the same  defective assumptions and inferences.

In fact the second and third comments are in fact  close ended questions which by their very wording preclude any answer but the one the questioner wants to hear.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Omni said:

Still awaiting your "explanation" as to how all that explosive got into those towers.

As you are aware he ignores anything asked that he can't answer  with some superficial name calling, then and simply repeats  his false assumptions again . His technique of using close ended questions that make false assumptions that conclude the answers  also speaks for itself

The thread was in fact an attempt to canvass opinions that reflect his own. Offering him an explanation other than the one he wants to hear is pointless.

If someone tells me they know the truth I simply say, yah so do I, so they should do their fly up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rue said:

As you are aware he ignores anything asked that he can't answer  with some superficial name calling, then and simply repeats  his false assumptions again . His technique of using close ended questions that make false assumptions that conclude the answers  also speaks for itself

The thread was in fact an attempt to canvass opinions that reflect his own. Offering him an explanation other than the one he wants to hear is pointless.

If someone tells me they know the truth I simply say, yah so do I, so they should do their fly up.

 

I admit I have been sucked into trying to set him straight whilst I should have simply walked away and let the conspiracy theory simmer away. I guess there are still people who think the world is flat too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2017 at 8:56 AM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

It's been proven time and again you don't need to keep people quiet, all you need to do is make sure they are labeled "conspiracy theorists" and the rest is taken care of. 

Following up on this - I asked for a cite and didn't get one so I'll assume that the 'time and time again' part isn't true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2017 at 4:27 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Following up on this - I asked for a cite and didn't get one so I'll assume that the 'time and time again' part isn't true.

I gave you plenty of cites, Michael, which you have dutifully ignored, as you always do. 

Quote

The United States of False Flags

Finian Cunningham

15679512210

The United States government is the world leader in purveying false flags and propaganda stunts. Or, more generally, downright, systematic lies. To justify the outrageous violation of international law, wars and aggression.

 

Current president and Commander-in-Chief, Donald Trump, is himself the object of fraudulent US intelligence, accused of "collusion with Russian agents." In a rare admission, the Washington Times this week described the US intel dossier against Trump as "riddled with fiction."

 

Yet, ironically, Trump, in turn, serves as a shameless conduit for US propaganda to fuel conflict with Syria and North Korea.

In the latter case, a world war could break out at any moment as a result of insane American goading. The dispatch of a US nuclear-powered submarine to the Korean Peninsula this week is just another reckless provocation by Trump.

 

On Syria, the Trump administration has slapped on more economic sanctions over an alleged chemical weapons incident earlier this month. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the "sweeping sanctions" were because of "Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad's horrific chemical weapons attack on innocent men, women and children."

 

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov said the latest US sanctions were "unfounded" since there is no proof that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in Idlib Province on April 4.

Indeed, several respected international authorities, such as American professor Theodore Postol, a weapons expert at MIT, have dismissed official US claims about the chemical incident. The only "proof" provided by the US government and Western media are videos of alleged victims. That is, videos supplied by al Qaeda-linked terrorists and their media agents known as the White Helmets. This terror nexus is a creation of US, British and French military intelligence, financed with Saudi and Qatari money.

https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201704251052983749-the-united-states-of-false-flags/

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2017 at 2:05 PM, Rue said:

The first question is illogical. The comment Omni provided did not suggest nor does it infer, imply or automatically mean  the same conditions had to exist.

...

In fact the second and third comments are in fact  close ended questions which by their very wording preclude any answer but the one the questioner wants to hear.

As always, zero evidence from Rue. Try some sources because you don't know anything about the science or the events. 

Steel was melted and vaporized. That couldn't have happened on 911 without the aid of the known nanothermite. 

Quote

Where's your evidence?

Gordon Ross, BSc ME, M.Eng – Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineer.

If I say that the WTC towers were brought down by means other than the aircraft impacts and the consequent fires then it would be perfectly acceptable for anyone to ask for the evidence and reasoning behind this belief.

By exactly the same reasoning, exactly the same question can be asked of those who believe that the towers were brought down by the impacts and fires. Yet here we are, more than seven years later, and not one single person has shown one single piece of physical or visual evidence that supports this latter claim. No detailed scenario of events exists, no meaningful theory of fire-caused collapse exists and no sensible explanations have been given for the very many unusual events which occurred immediately prior to and during the collapses themselves.

In contrast to this desert of information, the claim that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition has a wealth of accompanying argument. There are many pieces of evidence, all of which can easily be fitted into a meaningful explanation that shows a logical train of events and giving cause and effect for each of those evidential instances.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id6.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2017 at 8:40 PM, Omni said:

Have you perhaps abandoned the idea that you would have to be a highly trained pilot in order to fly a plane into a huge office tower? 

You, and of course Rue, never offer any evidence for your silly contentions.

Quote

Robin Lloyd, a Boeing 737 captain with a British airline, told The Telegraph that "the hijackers had to be experienced pilots with more than just a rudimentary knowledge of navigation." Lloyd, who co-runs the Professional Pilots' Rumour Network website, which is "regarded worldwide as one of the prime sources of accurate information for the aviation industry," said the terrorists at the controls of the hijacked aircraft "had to be 100 percent switched on people, 100 percent experienced pilots, probably military trained." He said someone like Osama bin Laden "wouldn't have access to pilots of the caliber needed to pull it off." [4]

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-12/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who-became-super-pilots-september-11

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You, and of course Rue, never offer any evidence for your silly contentions.

 

Are you not aware you can order a portable GPS for ~300 bucks? So much for the navigation problem.

And lots of people, myself included, soloed an airplane in under 10 hours. A solo flight means you have to perform a take off, a circuit, and a landing all by your little lonesome. That doesn't make you a skilled pilot, but it certainly makes you skilled enough to be able to just point a plane at a huge building and hit it. Ya know, when you're not really worried all that much about making a smooth landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Omni said:

And lots of people, myself included, soloed an airplane in under 10 hours. A solo flight means you have to perform a take off, a circuit, and a landing all by your little lonesome. That doesn't make you a skilled pilot, but it certainly makes you skilled enough to be able to just point a plane at a huge building and hit it. Ya know, when you're not really worried all that much about making a smooth landing.

You absolutely despise evidence and truthfulness. Learning to solo a small plane is not at all like a 757.

Captain Robin Lloyd points out how dishonest you are being. 

And not a boo from any of those pilots. Why? Because there were no hijackers. None of you can provide any evidence for the existence of any hijackers. 

In fact, none of you USGOCT conspiracy theorists can provide any evidence at all for the USOCT. Never have never will, because there isn't any.

Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility

 

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You absolutely despise evidence and truthfulness. Learning to solo a small plane is not at all like a 757.

Captain Robin Lloyd points out how dishonest you are being. 

And not a boo from any of those pilots. Why? Because there were no hijackers. None of you can provide any evidence for the existence of any hijackers. 

In fact, none of you USGOCT conspiracy theorists can provide any evidence at all for the USOCT. Never have never will, because there isn't any.

Simulator Recreation Demonstrates Pentagon Attack Impossibility

 

 

sorry, your little movie seems simply a set up to suit conspiracy theorists. For one thing the suggestions that turns can't be made in a 75/767 at cruise speed is ridiculous. How do you think planes change course in mid flight to avoid weather for instance? Back to the drawing board li'l buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Omni said:

sorry, your little movie seems simply a set up to suit conspiracy theorists. For one thing the suggestions that turns can't be made in a 75/767 at cruise speed is ridiculous. How do you think planes change course in mid flight to avoid weather for instance? Back to the drawing board li'l buddy.

Actually, it sinks your goofy conspiracy, the one that you can't provide a single piece of evidence for.

It must be noted, as always, zero evidence and to boot, patent dishonesty. Hani Hanjour, a fella they wouldn't even rent a Cessna to.

Oh and by the way, you still haven't provided any evidence that there were any hijackers, ever. Why can't you ever provide any evidence for your conspiracy theory? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

Actually, it sinks your goofy conspiracy, the one that you can't provide a single piece of evidence for.

It must be noted, as always, zero evidence and to boot, patent dishonesty. Hani Hanjour, a fella they wouldn't even rent a Cessna to.

Oh and by the way, you still haven't provided any evidence that there were any hijackers, ever. Why can't you ever provide any evidence for your conspiracy theory? 

 

 

The evidence is alreay out there, and been provided for you multiple times. Conspiracy theorists have a serious one track "mind", and that's that. And as a pilot, I have already explained to you how easy it would be for even a low time guy to hit a building with a plane. 

Hey, have also you bought heavily into the Melania "body double" conspiracy too?

Seems right up your alley.

Edited by Omni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

The evidence is alreay out there, and been provided for you multiple times. Conspiracy theorists have a serious one track "mind", and that's that. And as a pilot, I have already explained to you how easy it would be for even a low time guy to hit a building with a plane. 

The thread is entitled, 

Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory

and you, actually no one has ever offered one piece of evidence for the wackiest of all time USGOCT. 

If you are a pilot then you are lying because real pilots, aeronautical engineers state that the Arabs didn't have the necessary skills. 

You still haven't even provided any evidence for there being any hijackers. You still haven't produced any evidence for the alleged planes being the same ones as the nonsensical USGOCT.

You still haven't addressed the impossibility of the molten/vaporized steel, the vaporized lead, the molten molybdenum, the iron microspheres. 

Quote

Recovered from the debris pile and dust were spheroids and these were briefly mentioned in a subsection of the NIST report and notably examined by Professor Jones. These spheroids can only exist if the parent material was, at some stage, molten. Professor Jones has also noted that these spheroids were made up of iron, not steel. Molten iron cannot be achieved from an atmospheric jet fuel and office contents fire and no reason is given in the official accounts for the existence of such. A thermite type reaction would give rise to the existence of such iron spheroids.

Gordon Ross, BSc ME, M.Eng

Quote

Hey, have also you bought heavily into the Melania "body double" conspiracy too?

Seems right up your alley.

You're the one who believes in wacky conspiracy theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Your typical zero evidence post. 

You are the fabricator who says the evidence is out there but you can never provide any. 

 

I'm sure all this has been sent to you before. Conspiracy theorists seem to lack reading comprehension skills. 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/flight-school-owner-recalls-training-9-11-hijackers-1.951384

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

I'm sure all this has been sent to you before. Conspiracy theorists seem to lack reading comprehension skills. 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/flight-school-owner-recalls-training-9-11-hijackers-1.951384

I have never denied that there was training involved. The US government isn't that stupid that they wouldn't cover that base somewhat.

What you ignore is the fact that Hani Hanjour could not rent a Cessna. 

Speaking of problems with reading comprehension, ...

What you also ignore is that you can't even provide any evidence for the existence of any hijackers. 

What you also studiously ignore is that you haven't, because you can't address the impossibility of the molten/vaporized steel, the vaporized lead, the molten molybdenum, the iron microspheres to your wacky USGOCT. 

This is pathological denial on a grand scale and it affects many more than just you. 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...