- This topic has 245 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
All completely irrelevant to the point you are replying to. You don’t have to reply to every post, just when you have something relevant to say.
You have mentioned Chandler 22 times on this page. Nobody else has mentioned him at all, except Gerry offering to get him to personally explain to you why you don’t understand what he is saying. If Chandler was so crucial to the demolition theory, we would reference him all the time. But we don’t because there is abundant other evidence that the 3 Towers were explosively demolished. Repeating a straw horse 22 times does not make it any less strawy.
The Administration and State Department et al is the government, I think you are splitting the hairs as usual. Parliament voted for the Iraq war.
But I do understand Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration”, and why it doesn’t apply to the collapses of the Twin Towers – which is probably why the Truthers aren’t mentioning it.
Don’t claim it isn’t important. It is the reason Truthers continually repeat the fallacy that the collapses “break Newton’s laws” (a phrase you have used yourself, and never retracted) unless some external destructive process (eg. explosives) were being applied. It is the only argument for demolition that is specific to the Twin Towers, eg. residues of explosives (if such there were) could have come from anywhere.
If it were so unimportant you could have denounced it right there. Instead you claimed that I didn’t understand it. That was silly, because there are plenty of others who also understand, and you thereby discredit yourself with them.
Yes, the UK government voted for the Iraq war on the basis of Blair’s deception; that’s how the war became government policy. Likewise, the US government and NATO agreed to invade Afghanistan on the basis of 9/11.
I’m not splitting hairs; this is the method by which any false-flag or similar works. The deception is devised to determine policy.
Did Binney address the Lawyers’ Committee to support Twin Tower demolition theory?
No, he was there to deliver his own lecture:
– “Constitutional violations: 9/11 could have been prevented.”
The constitutional violations he refers to concern detection of the hijackers, and not prevention of any supposed demolition. But the Lawyers’ Committee seems to have become obsessed with barking up the non-existent demolition tree, so another opportunity will be missed.
2223 times.Please follow the basic conventions of debate. You don’t get to decide what I think then get to tell me why the thing you have decided I think is wrong. Not even if you say it 24 times.
…“break Newton’s laws” [is] a phrase you have used yourself …
That’s a lie.Did Binney address the Lawyers’ Committee to support Twin Tower demolition theory?
No, he was there to deliver his own lecture:Did Binney speak at the Lawyers’ Committee’s event knowing they support Twin Tower demolition theory?
Yes.Did Binney thereby support the Lawyers’ Committee’s event?
Yes.Did Binney thereby tacitly support the Twin Tower demolition theory?
Yes.It may be a mistake, but it is not a lie, Node. As best I remember, it was on the 9/11 Post.
Whatever; the phrase is continually repeated by Truthers, but I have never known you to set anyone straight. on the matter.
They voted for war irrespective of Blair’s deception, everyone knew he was lying.
Craig Murray gave an interview on an Alex Jones radio show. Does Craig therefore tacitly support all the nonsense Alex Jones promotes? Or was he more likely trying to spread some intelligent thinking?
If it helps, controlled demolition doesn’t mean all Jews or even you are to blame.
That’s a dishonest analogy. In order to make it applicable to the situation we’re discussing, we would need to imagine that Alex Jones was famous for promoting only one single cause, and that Alex Jones held an event to publicise that cause, and that Craig then chose to speak at that event. In those circumstances, yes, Craig would be tacitly supporting Alex Jones’ cause.
Well, you could retract the accusations of me having sold my soul, or claiming that black is white, or of skunking the thread then. You could even apologise 🙂
It may be a mistake, but it is not a lie, Node. As best I remember, it was on the 9/11 Post.
It was no mistake, it was a lie of the type that you repeatedly commit. For example you once claimed I had made antisemitic remarks on the 9/11 thread, but when challenged you couldn’t provide a single example. You make up anything that suits you, or that is provocative, depending on your mood, and if it isn’t challenged, you take that as proof of your claim.
Well I’m challenging you. I’m calling you a liar. It is trivially easy to search the 9/11 thread for that phrase. Find a single example of me saying it, or anything with similar words with the same meaning, and I’ll apologise abjectly and sincerely to you. And if you can’t you’re a liar.
Yeah, most were very keen for war. About 30 Labour rebelled, I think, Old Labour mostly. The Conservatives were in opposition, but they voted to support Blair.
But false flag is a pattern, so it must serve some purpose.
Node, do you maintain that after collapse initiation, the collapses of the Twin Towers contravened Newton’s laws unless external means of destruction were applied?
I don’t remember accusing you of anti-Semitic remarks, and I don’t remember you making any. However, you have been consistently chummy with commenters who have, indeed right now you’re having a go at me but have had not a word of criticism for Dave, who leaped in with abuse and has recommended a Holocaust denier. But then Dave’s a demolition disciple, and supporting each other no matter what is the Truther modus operandi.
Extract from the press release accompanying the draft UAF report:
“The research team plans to make public by the end of September all of the data used and generated during the study, a decision that contrasts with NIST’s withholding of key modeling data on the grounds that releasing it “might jeopardize public safety.”
This is a game changer. The UAF report has side-stepped all the dirty tactics of the Deniers – sarcasm and smears, misinformation and lies, shills and useful idiots – and rendered them irrelevant overnight. At a stroke a battleground has been established where only reasoning and science can prevail. You can’t undermine a 3D modelling programme by calling it a conspiracy theorist. “Hey, mathematical formula, where’s your tin foil hat?” doesn’t work either.
Kempe recognised this and scuttled off. Others are slower on the uptake.
Really? Your lies are exposed and you just change the subject as if nothing happened? Thought about a career in politics, Clark?
Love, love is a verb
Love is a doing word
Fearless on my breath
Gentle impulsion
Shakes me, makes me lighter
Fearless on my breath
Teardrop on the fire
Fearless on my breathNight, night of matter
Black flowers blossom
Fearless on my breath
Black flowers blossom
Fearless on my breath
Teardrop on the fire
Fearless on myWater is my eye
Most faithful mirror
Fearless on my breath
Teardrop on the fire
Of a confession
Fearless on my breath
Most faithful mirror
Fearless on my breath
Teardrop on the fire
Fearless on my breathIt’s tumbling down (as in love falling apart)
It’s tumbling down (as in love falling apart)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7K72X4eo_s
Yeah, it’ll be just great after the New York fire-fighters are exposed for the murderous scum they are, and Truthers everywhere are recognised as the heroes.
Sorry Node, I shouldn’t have written that you used that exact phrase; that was imprecise of me. As I remember it was a quip, an aside, and I’m not even entirely certain that it was you.
But there’s no need to quibble when you could state your position perfectly clearly right now. Do you maintain that to be consistent with Newton’s laws, collapse progression of the Twin Towers required explosives?
– “we would need to imagine that Alex Jones was famous for promoting only one single cause”
But the Lawyers’ Committee didn’t promote only the “one single cause” of Twin Tower pre-rigged demolition. Here’s the archive record of their website:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/
In fact they still promote other matters too eg. the FBI lawsuit, but more recently they do seem to have been heavily influenced by A&E9/11″Truth”.
Finally lost it!
Yes Dave; I despair at the id-ego driven nature of human behaviour, each individual’s faults invisible to themselves. Look at what Node wrote above; there are those such as yourselves who accept “controlled demolition” of the Twin Towers and thus are above criticism, and then there’s everyone else – quote, “Deniers – sarcasm and smears, misinformation and lies, shills and useful idiots”.
Black flowers blossom. My only hope is that the teardrops eventually quench the fires.
It would confirm a prejudice, but you’ve nailed the professional victim routine!
- The topic ‘Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC’ is closed to new replies.