Select to expand quoteremery said..psychojoe said..
Hang in there PC. I'm not sure what happened either way, certainly looked like controlled demolition, and a lot of evidence points me in that direction. But as Fangman eluded to, a lot of people who lost love ones believe the official story which may well be true so it's important to respect that possibility.
"... remember that elude begins with an E and is often concerned with escaping and evading, while allude, beginning with an A, is a way of talking about things without direct mention."
See Remery, this is where you miss things that other more intelligent people pick up on.
The use of 'elude' was intentional and clearly a sign to others that it was a setup and that they are eluding the truth. It was no mistake.
See, you just need to pass a critical eye over everything you read (* in this case 'critical' means apply weird interpretation of things until you come up with a conspiracy for EVERY SINGLE THING.)
As we know, people that come from countries like Afghanistan are clearly subhuman and cannot come up with a clever plan to attack a nation in a way they are not expecting. They cannot learn to fly aeroplanes, even in a simulator. They cannot sacrifice themselves in a way that will surprise people. They cannot do this, and instead someone somehow rigged up explosives to a couple of buildings, demolished them, made a few plane loads of people disappear. Created "holograms" of planes hitting buildings, locked down a country and half the world, all to save a few bucks on an old building.
On another note, it is good to see we have come back to 9/11. I cannot remember which conspiracy is next in the rotation. Anyone remember?
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Many if not most of the families now question the official story according to Richard Gage the founder of Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth.
They have a petition which tens of thousands of architects and engineers have already signed calling for an independent investigation into what happened.
I am certain the victims families want to know the truth.
Many, if not most, people think that you are an idiot.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..
Hang in there PC. I'm not sure what happened either way, certainly looked like controlled demolition, and a lot of evidence points me in that direction. But as Fangman eluded to, a lot of people who lost love ones believe the official story which may well be true so it's important to respect that possibility.
As you correctly pointed out there is a lot of evidence that it was a controlled demolition.
A true independent investigation is therefore needed.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I think you are struggling with the definition for extraordinary.
Perhaps you are confusing it with imaginary?
By now I think you have 'proven' that you have little interest in science, or practical engineering. Maybe this is why you believe some of this stuff?
When is the last time a building didn't fall down close to it's own footprint? Is it a thing in conspiracy theorist's world where buildings are chopped down like trees?
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
A true independent investigation is therefore needed.
Be very careful. As we have witnessed, Bonominator was pushing for this same thing, and we haven't heard from him for quite a while and there have been reports that he has been sent to Siberia/Sanctuary Point.
Just out of interest, when is the last time you have used a simple hand-tool, like an electric drill for instance? I am wondering if these beliefs are related to not understanding how things behave in the real world?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Pcdefender said..
... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I think you are struggling with the definition for extraordinary.
Perhaps you are confusing it with imaginary?
By now I think you have 'proven' that you have little interest in science, or practical engineering. Maybe this is why you believe some of this stuff?
When is the last time a building didn't fall down close to it's own footprint? Is it a thing in conspiracy theorist's world where buildings are chopped down like trees?
YouTube is chock full of controlled demolitions gone wrong that would make a blind woodsman cringe. The art of getting a building to fall into it's own footprint is so difficult and improbable that Japan has adopted a form of slow demolition where buildings are reduced one floor at a time over a period of months.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..FormulaNova said..Pcdefender said..
... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I think you are struggling with the definition for extraordinary.
Perhaps you are confusing it with imaginary?
By now I think you have 'proven' that you have little interest in science, or practical engineering. Maybe this is why you believe some of this stuff?
When is the last time a building didn't fall down close to it's own footprint? Is it a thing in conspiracy theorist's world where buildings are chopped down like trees?
YouTube is chock full of controlled demolitions gone wrong that would make a blind woodsman cringe. The art of getting a building to fall into it's own footprint is so difficult and improbable that Japan has adopted a form of slow demolition where buildings are reduced one floor at a time over a period of months.
Well, as far as I know, the WTCs didn't just fall in their own footprint, which is what you are comparing it against. Obviously where they want it to fall in its own footprint, its so that it doesn't affect other buildings. Which is also obviously why the Japanese would be reducing a building a floor at a time.
I am pretty sure the WTCs didn't just fall into their own building envelope.
I think bringing down a building just like the WTCs, which are essentially steel buildings would be pretty difficult. Brick, concrete, a little different, but when you have the chance of a giant girder moving sideways, you have a serious problem.
Have you got any youtube videos where a building the size of the WTCs pivots on its base and swings over sideways? I think gravity would have a problem with that. This is what a lot of these nutcases think should have happened.
Select to expand quoteremery said..Pcdefender said..
Many if not most of the families now question the official story according to Richard Gage the founder of Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth.
They have a petition which tens of thousands of architects and engineers have already signed calling for an independent investigation into what happened.
I am certain the victims families want to know the truth.
Many, if not most, people think that you are an idiot.
same could easily be said of yourself and that other tool
Select to expand quoteremery said..
^I think contrails is next in the rotation of lunacy.
Sportsbet have good odds on Dihydrogen monoxide.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
As you correctly pointed out there is a lot of evidence that it was a controlled demolition.
A true independent investigation is therefore needed.
Admit it, no independent investigation would satisfy you unless it agreed with your conspiracy. You are much like Trump, the election can only be fair if he wins.
Select to expand quotefangman said..remery said..
^I think contrails is next in the rotation of lunacy.
Sportsbet have good odds on Dihydrogen monoxide.
Don't bet on it... 
This article even admits to the tanks being there!
www.wired.com/2010/02/peek-inside-boeing-747-8/
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..FormulaNova said..Pcdefender said..
... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I think you are struggling with the definition for extraordinary.
Perhaps you are confusing it with imaginary?
By now I think you have 'proven' that you have little interest in science, or practical engineering. Maybe this is why you believe some of this stuff?
When is the last time a building didn't fall down close to it's own footprint? Is it a thing in conspiracy theorist's world where buildings are chopped down like trees?
YouTube is chock full of controlled demolitions gone wrong that would make a blind woodsman cringe. The art of getting a building to fall into it's own footprint is so difficult and improbable that Japan has adopted a form of slow demolition where buildings are reduced one floor at a time over a period of months.
And in the case of the WTC, they essentially collapsed one floor at a time very rapidly.
The shock loads of the collapsing floors above were enough to keep them collapsing which prevented the shock load being transmitted to the base, one of the reasons it didn't topple from the base.
But you bring up an interesting point. If the WTC collapse was so unlikely to occur the way it did? Then surely a planned demolition was intended to collapse them on surrounding buildings as if felled by your blind woodsman, therefore the way they collapsed straight down was actually a failure of the plan?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..psychojoe said..FormulaNova said..Pcdefender said..
... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I think you are struggling with the definition for extraordinary.
Perhaps you are confusing it with imaginary?
By now I think you have 'proven' that you have little interest in science, or practical engineering. Maybe this is why you believe some of this stuff?
When is the last time a building didn't fall down close to it's own footprint? Is it a thing in conspiracy theorist's world where buildings are chopped down like trees?
YouTube is chock full of controlled demolitions gone wrong that would make a blind woodsman cringe. The art of getting a building to fall into it's own footprint is so difficult and improbable that Japan has adopted a form of slow demolition where buildings are reduced one floor at a time over a period of months.
And in the case of the WTC, they essentially collapsed one floor at a time very rapidly.
The shock loads of the collapsing floors above were enough to keep them collapsing which prevented the shock load being transmitted to the base, one of the reasons it didn't topple from the base.
But you bring up an interesting point. If the WTC collapse was so unlikely to occur the way it did? Then surely a planned demolition was intended to collapse them on surrounding buildings as if felled by your blind woodsman, therefore the way they collapsed straight down was actually a failure of the plan?
Yes. And banking 90% was also a failure, as wings level would've spread death across ten city blocks.
Welcome to the dark side.
Psychological benefits of believing conspiracy theories
doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.10135
Highlights
- Despite their negative effects, many people find conspiracy theories appealing.
- Conspiracy theories can be rewarding by providing a sense of meaning and purpose.
- This meaning and purpose sparks feelings of importance, legitimacy, and excitement.
- The benefits of conspiracy theories are likely a form of instant gratification.
Interesting....
Are you claiming that because a planned demolition was so unlikely to produce vertical collapse, that it was indeed caused by the aeroplane. But it's still a conspiracy because they were able precisely crash the plane to produce the desired vertical collapse?
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Interesting....
Are you claiming that because a planned demolition was so unlikely to produce vertical collapse, that it was indeed caused by the aeroplane. But it's still a conspiracy because they were able precisely crash the plane to produce the desired vertical collapse?
Nah. I'm not invested in this one. Just open to all possibilities. And distrusting of Americans since they dropped the gold standard, and stole Texas...and California..and...
Why do you not watch the documentary Loose Change D3?
I understand doing so is in conflict with your faith / religious trust in the establishment narrative on 911.
A single floor will provide decent resistance.
80 structurally sound floors will therefore provide massive resistance so a near free fall collapse is impossible.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
A single floor will provide decent resistance.
80 structurally sound floors will therefore provide massive resistance so a near free fall collapse is impossible.
Again you demonstrate your absolute lack of logic!
It's always a single floor, there is a gap between floors, so there's room for people and furniture!
The full weight of the previous floors falls on the one beneath.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Why do you not watch the documentary Loose Change D3?
That's not a documentary, it's a money-making bull**** film designed to engage idiots like you. I can't believe that someone as stupid as you can actually windsurf.
Strawman or projection, right there.
I don't do religion.
I probably won't be watching anymore of your video recommendations unless something changes.
I'm short on time, so I'll just provide a summary of the situation so far and how it will likely go this time.
I watch a video you recommend
I will point out logical fallacies, unsubstantiated claims (you know, the things that rely on pure faith) and maybe even flat out lies contained in video.
You won't respond except to come up with even more videos
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
Strawman or projection, right there.
I don't do religion.
I probably won't be watching anymore of your video recommendations unless something changes.
I'm short on time, so I'll just provide a summary of the situation so far and how it will likely go this time.
I watch a video you recommend
I will point out logical fallacies, unsubstantiated claims (you know, the things that rely on pure faith) and maybe even flat out lies contained in video.
You won't respond except to come up with even more videos
Hence why I don't bother engaging, other than pointing out that he is an idiot.
Select to expand quoteD3 said..
I don't do religion.
Faith in the establishment narrative is your speciality.
Belief based on faith without supporting physical evidence is effectively religious.
You are religious.
I am also religious.
Why - because i believe there is a creator though i cannot prove it absolutely with physical evidence.
So we are both religious just we have different Gods.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..
Faith in the establishment narrative is your speciality.
Belief based on faith without supporting physical evidence is effectively religious.
You are religious.
I am also religious.
Why - because i believe there is a creator though i cannot prove it absolutely with physical evidence.
So we are both religious just we have different Gods.
I don't believe, I think.
Something your are obviously incapable of.
Select to expand quoteremery said..D3 said..
Strawman or projection, right there.
I don't do religion.
I probably won't be watching anymore of your video recommendations unless something changes.
I'm short on time, so I'll just provide a summary of the situation so far and how it will likely go this time.
I watch a video you recommend
I will point out logical fallacies, unsubstantiated claims (you know, the things that rely on pure faith) and maybe even flat out lies contained in video.
You won't respond except to come up with even more videos
Hence why I don't bother engaging, other than pointing out that he is an idiot.
Yeah Peter does have some very quaint beliefs, but sorry what?
How many threads have you started trying to draw him into arguments? And you certainly look to be "engaging" in argument with him here in this thread.
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..D3 said..psychojoe said..FormulaNova said..Pcdefender said..
... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I think you are struggling with the definition for extraordinary.
Perhaps you are confusing it with imaginary?
By now I think you have 'proven' that you have little interest in science, or practical engineering. Maybe this is why you believe some of this stuff?
When is the last time a building didn't fall down close to it's own footprint? Is it a thing in conspiracy theorist's world where buildings are chopped down like trees?
YouTube is chock full of controlled demolitions gone wrong that would make a blind woodsman cringe. The art of getting a building to fall into it's own footprint is so difficult and improbable that Japan has adopted a form of slow demolition where buildings are reduced one floor at a time over a period of months.
And in the case of the WTC, they essentially collapsed one floor at a time very rapidly.
The shock loads of the collapsing floors above were enough to keep them collapsing which prevented the shock load being transmitted to the base, one of the reasons it didn't topple from the base.
But you bring up an interesting point. If the WTC collapse was so unlikely to occur the way it did? Then surely a planned demolition was intended to collapse them on surrounding buildings as if felled by your blind woodsman, therefore the way they collapsed straight down was actually a failure of the plan?
Yes. And banking 90% was also a failure, as wings level would've spread death across ten city blocks.
Welcome to the dark side.
When is the last time you flew a 747 at 1000mph, aiming at a building but trying to avoid other buildings in the way? I suspect that it's not like a video game and inertia is your enemy.
The fact that it didn't have it's wings level is clearly a sign for the pro-conspiracy-theorists amongst us, but to those that can think its probably just a side-effect of what they were doing.
I think this where it breaks down. People come up with weird-arse facts and want to get to a certain point and ignore reality along the way till they get there. They always get there as that's all that they wanted. Not truth. Not fact, just a feeling that they know something the rest of people don't and that they are special for having "discovered" it.
Select to expand quotePcdefender said..D3 said..
I don't do religion.
Faith in the establishment narrative is your speciality.
Belief based on faith without supporting physical evidence is effectively religious.
You are religious.
I am also religious.
Why - because i believe there is a creator though i cannot prove it absolutely with physical evidence.
So we are both religious just we have different Gods.
Your understanding of science is way off base. People don't just get told things and accept them as fact. Quite the opposite a lot of the time. Science is not a god, and it is only other crazies that think it is.
Religion on the other hand has no evidence based backing. You can't test any of it. You can't even find anyone that has had experiences with it.
Yeah, you're right FN, I can see how it really would have been a struggle to navigate through all them much higher buildings.
