Conspiracy Theory 9/11 and the Europhysics News - Controlled Demolition

Remove this Banner Ad

yebiga said:
It's not an either/or option
Rather, the fire had to be stopped for fear it might spread. Demolishing saves the fire fighters and the possibility of it spreading
Click to expand...
So you're saying he chose to demolish the building because he feared the fires would spread??
 
BustedWing said:
So you're saying he chose to demolish the building because he feared the fires would spread??
Click to expand...

Yes....He chose to demolish a building in less than an hour, that would take weeks to wire in order to bring it down in the manner they did.

You can't possibly be that dumb....Although it's fairly clear that you imagine most other people are.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

yebiga said:
You have arrived at the point.
I warned you that if you persist with deliberately lying long enough - at some point you will not know what you believe or understand.
Click to expand...

You’re not making any sense sunshine. Lay off the gear for 20 mins or so and then respond, so I can read something from you that’s vaguely coherent.

Stop. Breathe. Have a read over what you’ve typed over the past few posts.

Then get back to me.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Last edited:
Please be civil people, so I don't have to go to the trouble of issuing warnings :)
 
Werewolf said:
Please be civil people, so I don't have to go to the trouble of issuing warnings :)
Click to expand...

Good advice….What Busted Wing requires most of all, is a degree in Civil engineering.....That way he can then grasp even the most rudimentary principles of physics & architecture....Something he has failed rather badly at, for some 52 pages.
 
tants said:
Could you summarise the parts of the WTC event (preferably in order) so I can get a clear picture of your view of events.

For example my very simple version would be:
Plane hits building
People start jumping to death
Plane hits building
Lots of smoke and flames
Building collapses
Panic
Building collapses
Dust plume covers Manhattan
...
Later tons of rubble

Now I'm pretty sure of all those events but happy to be corrected on any of them, including the order, if you can show where I've gone wrong. If you'd like to provide more detail that would be great. I can then look at the parts that are important to you and understand your view better.
Click to expand...
Anyone willing to give my their timeline of events?
 
Edward Snowden:

“It says so much about the bureaucratic character of how the government works. The people who rise to the top of these governments. It’s about risk management for them. It’s about never being criticized for something…

Everybody wants to believe in conspiracy theories because it helps life make sense. It helps us believe that somebody is in control… that somebody is calling the shots, that these things all happen for a reason. There are real conspiracies… but when you look back at the 9/11 report and when you look back at the history of what actually happened, what we can prove. Not on what we can speculate on, but what are at least are the commonly agreed facts… it’s very clear to me, as someone who worked in the intelligence community… that these attacks could have been prevented.”


Full interview with Joe Rogan here on october 2019.




Great, on your bikes then. 20 years after the attack you tin foil hatters are still waiting for classified documents to be leaked to prove it's was a blast. Benghazi has been leaked, Iraq been leaked, Syria been leaked but 9/11 was a perfect inside job. Tin foil hatters know more than Snowden even. LOL.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Total Power said:
Edward Snowden:

“It says so much about the bureaucratic character of how the government works. The people who rise to the top of these governments. It’s about risk management for them. It’s about never being criticized for something…

Everybody wants to believe in conspiracy theories because it helps life make sense. It helps us believe that somebody is in control… that somebody is calling the shots, that these things all happen for a reason. There are real conspiracies… but when you look back at the 9/11 report and when you look back at the history of what actually happened, what we can prove. Not on what we can speculate on, but what are at least are the commonly agreed facts… it’s very clear to me, as someone who worked in the intelligence community… that these attacks could have been prevented.”


Full interview with Joe Rogan here on october 2019.




Great, on your bikes then. 20 years after the attack you tin foil hatters are still waiting for classified documents to be leaked to prove it's was a blast. Benghazi has been leaked, Iraq been leaked, Syria been leaked but 9/11 was a perfect inside job. Tin foil hatters know more than Snowden even. LOL.
Click to expand...


You do realise that Snowden was a whole 17 years of age when 9/11 happened; & that he didn't join the NASA & Booz-Allen in particular until 2013.....An entire 13 years after the fact/event....His job as An NSA analytical specialist had bugger all to do with 9/11 or it's investigation.

Given that your premise is so utterly flawed & horribly askew to begin with….It follows that your conclusion is also.
 
Crankitup said:
If I spend time outlining all the lies, twists and misrepresentations you've made, will I be wasting my time? What's in it for me? Will you change how you operate or apologise?
Click to expand...

BustedWing said:
Given I believe I've done nothing wrong in this matter, you will need to convince me that I have in fact erred. If you do this, then of course, I will cheerfully right my wrongs!
Click to expand...

Crankitup said:
By doing what? Apologising and refraining from doing it again?
Click to expand...

BustedWing said:
Sure!
Click to expand...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ask and you shall receive.

I entered the thread for the first time at page 39 asking you a simple question.

A bit of back and forth ensued where IMO you lied to me the first time although you deny it so I won't count that one.

(1) The first misrepresentation was your comment after I tagged nut to confirm whether what you'd said about what you'd failed to get back to him on was correct. You suggested he might not remember "given this was three years ago". In truth it was 2 and a half years ago. In effect you were exaggerating the length of time a little to strengthen your argument that he'd likely forgotten. Not a big misrepresentation sure, but I don't want to miss any. You've been waiting long enough and you did ask me to outline them all.

(2) The second misrepresentation was in #1,030 where you said

BustedWing said:
EDIT EDIT: I have now read a couple of interviews he did post 9/11, and its very clear that he agrees with the official story. Let me know if you want me to link them for you. The fact that this report lists him as someone who believes there is something fishy going on with the 9/11 events surely tells you something about the credibility of said report no?
Click to expand...

This was in response to a link I'd posted at the bottom of #1,022. As I went on to point out in #1,036 the report had done nothing like what you claimed it had. It just quoted him from an engineering conference some time after the event, speaking of seeing "little rivers of steel" at the B1 level.

(3) The third misrepresentation was at #1,064 where during our discussions on the colour of molten aluminium at certain temperatures you claimed that NIST had recorded the temperatures of the fires at the impact sites and found them to be "approximately 1100 degrees". The truth was NIST ran some computer simulations and came up with theoretical maximum upper air temperatures of 1000 degrees.

(4) The fourth misrepresentation occurred in #1,076 where you twisted my words. In #1,071, quoting a third party I had said "Generally, high rise fires burn at about 593 Celsius". You responded with ...

BustedWing said:
A "general office fire" vs what was observed at the WTC site - do you think they are comparable?
Click to expand...

You used quotation marks which would lead most people to conclude you were quoting me verbatim when in fact you'd actually deleted my words "high rise" and replaced them with "general office".

(5) The fifth misrepresentation or twisting of the truth occurred in #1,083 where in response to my posting a link to a paper authored by the Scientists for 9/11 Truth went back into ad hom mode and said ....

BustedWing said:
I HIGHLY encourage you to take a look at the people listed as signatories in the group you presented in your post above. Take a good look at who you're holding up as bastions of critical and rational thought who dispute the official story.

Its eye opening.

I read through the Bio's of the first five or so and.....wow....

One "runs" a company that doesn't do much (website defunct), and as best I could tell thinks he has discovered the path to cold fusion. From his home. yep.

One has lived in the woods to "clear his head" for a number of years. Now he makes truther DVDs. Really. this is his "company": http://911tv.blogspot.com/

Another being held up as a high rise building engineering expert, was a ship builder. Cos they're totally the same thing.

Another "read a conspiracy book", and was convinced. Thats the extent of his credentials.
Click to expand...

It was no surprise to me that when I read through the bios of the first five I found something completely different to what you'd claimed.

Alan Frank Aeschliman, Chemistry, BS Chemistry, California State University, Long Beach, CA
Sterling D. Allan, Microbiology, BS Microbiology, Brigham Young University, 1987
Hummux Anax, Physics, PhD Physics, Case Institute
Mark Basile, Chemical Engineering, BS Chemical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic
Stanley A. Beattie, Physics, Engineering, B.S. Physics, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, 1959
Click to expand...









(6) The sixth example is #1,087 where you lied, exaggerated, and misrepresented my position in a number of ways which should be self evident. If you need me to spell them out for you let me know as this post is already too long as it is.

If an apology is forthcoming for all or most of the above, along with a commitment to deal honestly henceforth, then I'm happy to move on and let it all become water under the bridge.
 
Last edited:
Crankitup said:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ask and you shall receive.

I entered the thread for the first time at page 39 asking you a simple question.

A bit of back and forth ensued where IMO you lied to me the first time although you deny it so I won't count that one.

(1) The first misrepresentation was your comment after I tagged nut to confirm whether what you'd said about what you'd failed to get back to him on was correct. You suggested he might not remember "given this was three years ago". In truth it was 2 and a half years ago. In effect you were exaggerating the length of time a little to strengthen your argument that he'd likely forgotten. Not a big misrepresentation sure, but I don't want to miss any. You've been waiting long enough and you did ask me to outline them all.

(2) The second misrepresentation was in #1,030 where you said



This was in response to a link I'd posted at the bottom of #1,022. As I went on to point out in #1,036 the report had done nothing like what you claimed it had. It just quoted him from an engineering conference some time after the event, speaking of seeing "little rivers of steel" at the B1 level.

(3) The third misrepresentation was at #1,064 where during our discussions on the colour of molten aluminium at certain temperatures you claimed that NIST had recorded the temperatures of the fires at the impact sites and found them to be "approximately 1100 degrees". The truth was NIST ran some computer simulations and came up with theoretical maximum upper air temperatures of 1000 degrees.

(4) The fourth misrepresentation occurred in #1,076 where you twisted my words. In #1,071, quoting a third party I had said "Generally, high rise fires burn at about 593 Celsius". You responded with ...



You used quotation marks which would lead most people to conclude you were quoting me verbatim when in fact you'd actually deleted my words "high rise" and replaced them with "general office".

(5) The fifth misrepresentation or twisting of the truth occurred in #1,083 where in response to my posting a link to a paper authored by the Scientists for 9/11 Truth went back into ad hom mode and said ....



It was no surprise to me that when I read through the bios of the first five I found something completely different to what you'd claimed.











(6) The sixth example is #1,087 where you lied, exaggerated, and misrepresented my position in a number of ways which should be self evident. If you need me to spell them out for you let me know as this post is already too long as it is.

If an apology is forthcoming for all or most of the above, along with a commitment to deal honestly henceforth, then I'm happy to move on and let it all become water under the bridge.
Click to expand...
OK.So if I can summarise here...

1 - I made the egregious error of saying three years, when it was in fact 2 1/2 years instead, which in no way affected the POINT I WAS MAKING, namely that it was a long time between conversations, and I suspected that Nut wouldn't remember what was being discussed.

You're off to a flyer so far. Please allow an eyeroll from me.

2 - You posited a person of expertise as someone who's opinion supported yours. I countered that his opinion is NOT consistent with yours, in hopes that it would cause you to question why you would present it in support of your argument at all?

Clearly you missed this nuance, and in the interest of clarity I'll state it more simply:

" I dont think this guy agrees with your position on 9/11 at all. Do you agree/disagree with me? If you do agree with me, why would you present his commentary on 9/11 in a way that might be construed as supporting your claim?"

3- You take issue with the fact I used the word "recorded" when instead perhaps I should have used "found"? "Discovered" maybe? "ascertained"? My opinion is that, given NIST have shown extensively how they arrived at their conclusion, and said findings were peer reviewed and NOT disputed during said review, this is merely semantics, and barely worth a retraction.

If you're hell bent on me altering that one word to something that better reflects reality in your eyes, sure, happy to do so, but I maintain that doing so DOES NOT alter the point being made. Why you insist on bringing this up, given that even if I do what you ask, the point and conclusion does not change is beyond me.

Hence - semantics.

4- Again - pointless semantics in my opinion. The point you were trying to make is that typically what was observed on 9/11 is not something we would expect to see resulting from an office fire. I countered that what occurred on 9/11 was far from typical. We can change the words around if it makes you happy, but again...and i feel like a broken record here...THE POINT HAS NOT CHANGED.

5 - I maintain I am 100% correct. Let me know if you want me to screenshot each and every one of them, with the relevant bits highlighted? I really shouldn't have to do that...this is getting silly.

6- You're going to need to, as I have reread said post, and frankly...I completely dismantle your position.

So in summary, the BEST you have is 3yrs vs 2.5yrs, and the rest is the odd word that you feel needs to be changed, but even if it IS changed, the central theme and point is not altered in the slightest.

I'll be clear. EVEN IF I AGREED WITH YOUR POINTS, BEGGED FOR AN APOLOGY, AND MADE EVERY CHANGE YOU HAVE ASKED FOR, NOT A SINGLE POINT I MAKE RE HOW FLAWED YOUR POSITION ON 9/11 IS HAS BEEN ALTERED. What were you hoping to achieve with this seemingly pointless exercise??

Honestly - this was your trump card? This is what I waited weeks and weeks for??
 
BustedWing said:
OK.So if I can summarise here...
Click to expand...


tenor (6).gif


If you can summarise?? Your post (excluding quotes) is longer than mine FFS!

No, what you mean by 'summarise' is to revert to your normal habit of twisting, lying, distorting and otherwise misrepresenting what I've said in order to defeat the straw man you thus create rather than just quote each point I made verbatim and deal with them that way.

It's so ironic that in a post where you are endeavouring to counter the point that this is the way you routinely operate, you once again revert to type.

So, no ... you can't summarise ... you simply can't be trusted. Separately quote each point of mine that you are responding to verbatim rather than disingenuously 'summarising' my position and deal with each point that way or GAGF and stop wasting my time. I entered this thread agnostic about 9/11 and after listening to your dribble and observing your tactics, if anything I'm more skeptical of the official story than I was. This is your baby topic after all. Something you have spent more time on Bigfooty debating than anything else. If the official position (and thus your position) is so strong why do you feel the need to operate in this way? Change the way you operate and you may convert me to your POV in the end but until you do, the hurdle is just too high to jump I'm afraid.

BustedWing said:
EVEN IF I AGREED WITH YOUR POINTS, BEGGED FOR AN APOLOGY ...
Click to expand...

Why would you beg for an apology?? I've done nothing to apologise for.
 
Last edited:
Crankitup said:
View attachment 810238


If you can summarise?? Your post (excluding quotes) is longer than mine FFS!

No, what you mean by 'summarise' is to revert to your normal habit of twisting, lying, distorting and otherwise misrepresenting what I've said in order to defeat the straw man you thus create rather than just quote each point I made verbatim and deal with them that way.

It's so ironic that in a post where you are endeavouring to counter the point that this is the way you routinely operate, you once again revert to type.

So, no ... you can't summarise ... you simply can't be trusted. Separately quote each point of mine that you are responding to verbatim rather than disingenuously 'summarising' my position and deal with each point that way or GAGF and stop wasting my time. I entered this thread agnostic about 9/11 and after listening to your dribble and observing your tactics, if anything I'm more skeptical of the official story than I was. This is your baby topic after all. Something you have spent more time on Bigfooty debating than anything else. If the official position (and thus your position) is so strong why do you feel the need to operate in this way? Change the way you operate and you may convert me to your POV in the end but until you do, the hurdle is just too high to jump I'm afraid.



Why would you beg for an apology?? I've done nothing to apologise for.
Click to expand...

So nothing to refute my central point then - that even if I succumbed to your requests to change the odd word here or there, the central point being made is no different?

What a surprise.

Not a single attempt to address the points made that in my opinion blow your silly conspiracy out the water, instead you focus you attention on: you used THIS word/phrase, when you should have used THAT wordphrase! DECEPTION!

Take any one of these six points you raised. Choose ANY OF THEM. You will find that for each of these points I posted multiple clarifying questions about your position. And you chose to ignore them.

Go on - choose one. Choose your BEST one. Go back and answer the clarifying questions i posed. I'll even re-quote them for you. Tell me which one you want to look at, and I'll QUOTE VERBATIM the questions you ignore because you either couldn't answer them, or they were inconvenient for you.

Instead you focused on spelling errors, or an alleged misuse of a word, or god forbid, a 6 month time gap between responses. Never the actual point of the discussion.

Can you do that? Will you do that?

Do you have the balls to hold this magnifying glass you wield up to your own ideas and fanciful stories?

Go on - choose one of these ones that took you WEEKS AND WEEKS to get around to proudly displaying for me.

..................Queue the gutless response along the lines of "its not worth it with the likes of you".........
 
BustedWing said:
So nothing to refute my central point then - that even if I succumbed to your requests to change the odd word here or there, the central point being made is no different?

What a surprise.

Not a single attempt to address the points made that in my opinion blow your silly conspiracy out the water, instead you focus you attention on: you used THIS word/phrase, when you should have used THAT wordphrase! DECEPTION!

Take any one of these six points you raised. Choose ANY OF THEM. You will find that for each of these points I posted multiple clarifying questions about your position. And you chose to ignore them.

Go on - choose one. Choose your BEST one. Go back and answer the clarifying questions i posed. I'll even re-quote them for you. Tell me which one you want to look at, and I'll QUOTE VERBATIM the questions you ignore because you either couldn't answer them, or they were inconvenient for you.

Instead you focused on spelling errors, or an alleged misuse of a word, or god forbid, a 6 month time gap between responses. Never the actual point of the discussion.

Can you do that? Will you do that?

Do you have the balls to hold this magnifying glass you wield up to your own ideas and fanciful stories?

Go on - choose one of these ones that took you WEEKS AND WEEKS to get around to proudly displaying for me.

..................Queue the gutless response along the lines of "its not worth it with the likes of you".........
Click to expand...

133u12.jpg
 
Crankitup said:
View attachment 810632
Click to expand...

Pathetic.

Simple questions put to you, and you can’t or won’t answer them.

How embarrassing for you.

I fully expect you to skulk away from this conversation - do so knowing that your views, thought process, and intellectual integrity have been absolutely, completely, exposed




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Last edited:
BustedWing said:
Pathetic.

Simple questions put to you, and you can’t or won’t answer them.

How embarrassing for you.

I fully expect you to skulk away from this conversation - do so knowing that your views, thought process, and intellectual integrity have been absolutely, completely, exposed




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
Bs, you’re running your usual shill tactics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Malifice
Conspiracy Theory There actually are people (State and non-State actors) who ARE brainwashing you, and most of you don't actually know it's happening.
20 21 22 23 24
Replies
575
Views
16K
CM86
CM86
PieLebo87
Conspiracy Theory The New Silk Road - Israel
Replies
11
Views
1K
Kurve
Kurve
T
Conspiracy Theory Queen Elizabeth & Co. own and run the United Nations
Replies
11
Views
1K
owen87
owen87
peetoo
Conspiracy Theory The 15 minute city
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Chief
Chief
Exe Gesis
Revisionism The Aryan Religion
Replies
0
Views
435
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
HaveCrankOnMe
Conspiracy Theory The strange death of Loretta Fuddy
Replies
5
Views
612
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis
Shane Heard
Conspiracy Theory Fall asleep to 5 hours of Bill Burr ranting on about conspiracy theories.
Replies
1
Views
541
Mofra
Mofra

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top