Reply With Quote
All smeagol does is throw mud like a little child and never support any claims.
Welcome to ignore.
They thought of 22 simultaneous hijackings?
Prove it.
All smeagol does is throw mud like a little child and never support any claims.
Welcome to ignore.
So why would he say anything at all? There would be no reason to if all he wanted to do was save his ass. You are saying he purposely incriminated himself.
Why would he purposely incriminate himself?
As opposed to your claims, which are all substantiated.
Look dude, again, you tie unconnected events and try to pass them as doctrine.
No different than any of the other loonies out there who call themselves Truthers.
When you are so out there that even Bill Mahr calls you a loon, well, you should rethink your strategy . . .
smeagol, chumpdumper has been posting in 9/11 threads for five years, but in each post he pretty much says "Hey, theres this 700 page report out there, backed by a load of money, that provides a logical and scientific basis for the towers falling, and until you provide that kind of evidence to support your theory, I claim ownage over you."
Then he blabs on about girders.
What theory?
Wow, you're so good at playing chumpdumper.
See, when you post that, you aren't asking "What theory has anyone mentioned in this forum?" because people have told you from the start of what they think happened. What you are really asking is
"What theory can you provide me that is as dense and detailed as the 9/11 commission report, because until you post a detailed theory that is comparable to this report, I'm claiming strict ownage rights over you"
Which is totally totally gay.
Honestly, only one person has even tried to post an actual theory, and that was Galileo's "three individuals pulled off 9/11 by themselves" theory.
As you might imagine, he didn't elaborate much on it.
I can bump the alternative theory thread and you can see how many takers I had. That might be fun.
Actually yes go ahead and bump it, because I include myself among others who list ideas of what happened that don't conform strictly to the 9/11 commission report. But seeing as how you're chumpdumper, you will wait for someone else to acknowledge them, then post a question or statement that pretty much says "But this isn't as detailed as the 9/11 commission report, I call bull , and I am right because the 9/11 commission report is flawless and free of error"
But don't expect me to post in it, because we'll start a near infinite loop of your CDisms all over again.
Have you ever personally posted what you thought happened on 9/11?
I'd like to see a link to it.
Most of the little theorlets posted on this board are pretty easily discounted by actual facts. It's not my fault truthers get so butthurt when they are challenged or proven wrong. Now all you're saying is you are preemptively butthurt, so you won't post what you think.
Yes I did. Many times, before you created a trap of a thread that is your "alternative" theory thread as well, because you said this exact thing in that thread, to goad me into your infinite CD loops. And my personal opinion of what happened is in that thread. You took every sentence I posted, and posted some version of "But that isn't as airtight as the 9/11 commission report" in response, and like i said, infinite loop.
Where?
I don't remember anything more than a few abstractions.
You can listen to the propaganda all you want. The way I see it, the previous administartion said they knew and gave president Bush the information. If it was such credible information, why didn't they do anything?
Or maybe one of the several rats that kept leaking secrets out told Obama that exercise was happening and would be a good day.
Make up everything you want, and look the fool. No proof. Just conjecture.
Duh... No .
Think this wasn't hashed over years ago? That doesn't mean such a plot was crafted today, and Northwood wasn't planned with casualties, but a swap of planes.
Conjecture, no proof. Now I agree the intelligence they had was poorly used, but that doesn't mean there was a sinister plot.
What? Then why was he at the school?
With what credibility level? Far less I bet than the credibility of Saddam having weapons.
Bull . Would you please get the facts strait. That was after the second plane hit. The first was undetermined why it hit. The second showed a pattern.
That time line is also false. Please stop quoting Michael Moron. He's a proven "Big Fat Liar." You should watch Fahrenhype 9-11. The teacher/principle tells what happened.
What's he going to do? Isn't it best to ponder the situation for a few minutes before reacting?
That you're a fool? Yes.
You know, one thing about the heart of America that you clearly lack is that we have a burden of proof. You would have been a great 18th century Englishman, being jury, judge, and executioner. Now I could agree that such things can happen, but there simple is no credible evidence.
Wow. So they never though of a professional pilot hitting a building like that, or that terrorists would do it with large jets. That's a far cry different that a passenger plane, which a steel or concrete building would smash like a bug.
Actually, Smeagol usually doesn't say something without some rather good thoughts around it. Chump, Smeagol, and I often don't agree, but neither are fools. I would say they are both far above average intelligence, and actually do more fact checking than most people. Obviously more than you, by the material you source.
Unexploded Nanothermite Found In WTC Dust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE_tuWKsBko
Here are the three best 9/11 Movies on the WTC (in order of complexity):
September 11 Revisited: Were Explosives Used?
by Dustin Mugford
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...r+11+revisited
9/11 Mysteries
by Sophia
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ysteries&emb=1
Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic
by Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, and Kevin Ryan
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...collapse&emb=1
These films, of course, were made before this new scientific paper was published. The new paper is consistent with these films.
actually, one dude tried to claim ownage over CD because he was an engineering student.
what are your list of ideas of what happened?
who planted the explosives? when were they planted? why did they need to use airplanes? who triggered the detonation device(s)? from where? why are you still using Steven Jones as a reliable source?
Best 9/11 Movies
9/11: Press For Truth
by the Jersey Girls
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
by John Albanese
Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut
by Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe
Loose Change Final Cut
by Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe
Zeitgeist
[warning - contains controversial material]
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/lib...tm#9/11_Movies
Has Chump finally met his match?
So let me see if I get this right:thermite
noun
(chemistry) a mixture of aluminium metal and ferric oxide; used in incendiary devices
A building made out of aluminum and iron collapses, and the geniuses in the 9-11 movment find aluminum and iron dust in the debris?
Seriously though.
Read the whole paper.
The authors attribute the dust to "super-thermite" or "nano-thermite", that is thermite that has been powderized or put into a gel-suspension. The supposition is that such a material was sprayed all over the building.
The FAIL is that the authors have taken a fairly quiet exothermic reaction, and then shoehorned their data to change normal thermite into a conventional explosive.
One of the graphs in the paper indicates that the amount of energy in the chips they examined had more energy per gram than HMX, a commercially available high-explosive.
So we are left with:
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
The 9-11 guys have taken the first steps towards using some actual science.
Honest skeptical questions:
Did the study consider alternate means of formation of the redish chips they studied, and compared those alternate means of formation to what was observed?
The confounding thing about their theory is that the formation of thermitic compounds in an aluminum and steel builiding during a conventional fire would be expected.
To be able to conclusively prove their theory, they would have to show that the chips they observed could NOT have been formed by other means, and MUST have been ONLY formed by unexploded "nano-thermite".
There is no evidence that this normal control-type examination was done. That makes it bad science, as I am sure someone else will point out.
Lastly, the problem remains for the "explosive" theory:
Since this paper posits really energetic explosives being used, this implies debris speeds in the range of thousands of feet per second.
Why was glass and small debris not scattered for miles around?
--The towers' upper floors were high enough off of the ground for the glass and small debris on those floors to have been propelled upwards of 2+ miles. Give me ONE instance of such debris hitting any one of the millions of people within that radius who came out to watch.
If this really was massively energetic explosives, why was this not clearly heard for tens of miles?
--I was within two blocks of a VERY small building demolition, and it was deafening, and extremely distinct. If two 100+ story buildings were demolished it would have to have been MUCH louder.
I do give you guys kudos for actually trying the science route, even if the paper had its flaws.
I think the truth movement gained ground today!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
