View Single Post
Old 8th October 2013, 09:32 AM   #281
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
SonOfGloin, care to explain how the towers were constructed to withstand an impact from a plane that didn't exist when they were finished? Or do you think all plain impacts are created equal?

Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
The problem is you people insist on making this into some episode of CSI / Criminal Minds. It's not that complicated.

One of the biggest aircraft in the world went as fast as it possibly could into one of the largest buildings in the world. happens. One of the largest buildings collapses wreaking havoc on the surrounding areas.

Fini. Investigation COMPLETE.
Actually, even Criminal Minds depicts profiling more realistically than your average truther perceives 9/11.

Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
It wasn't designed to resist a collision with a luxury liner either.


Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
The Pesident of the United States says he watched it on TV at the school.....and you say he didn’t, that he imagined it.....that’s what it comes down to Mark.....he said it. He misrepresented the facts. He even dreamed up a hokey folksy line about what a terrible pilot the guy was.[...]
It's cute how you're trying to logically end-run "he lied" by using thinly veiled allusions and thinking we can't figure it out. For the record, when I was first told, I too thought it was some kind of accident. And I'm certainly no kind of Good Ol' Boy (never meanin' no harm).

Quote:
...Rob it was simply acknowleging that the WTC extoled that the towers were impact resistant. Some here commented that it was not a design feature, that the ability to resist came as a consequence of the design....whats the difference...WTC acknowlege that they were....someone asked me to qualify it....
What was that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of someone backpedalling.

Quote:
Jay you are correct, witness testimony is not worth the electricity it cost to generate it...that is why it is the most valid testimony in our legal system. The only way to rebuke witness testimony is to show that there is an agenda to the statements other than just an account of experienced events.Why would all the testimony on the day by uninterested parties there by chance be highly prone to subjectivity, hyperbole, and metaphor?
Welcome to the stundies.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top