Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

Loss Leader said:
In Truthseeker1234's defense, he doesn't know he's lying. All he knows is that he hates the government. He knows that the World Bank and US monetary policy is all designed by the rich to strip the liberties from normal Americans. He knows that he hates and fears the concept of government power, even democratic power. So, basically his brain is just a paranoia-engine. It takes whatever input its given and makes it part of a government plot to supress his freedoms.

He no more knows he's lying than my XBox knows that Halo is just a game.
Click to expand...
Like HE!! he doesn't!
All this d@#n time he's been insisting that all the mass from WTC 1 and 2 was ejected sideways, not participating in the collapse--now he wonders howinhell it could have done damage to something outside the footprint. His conceptualization of mathematical and physical reality are less than that of a 2-year-old child.
This is all BS, absolutely, and just a game to him--how many off-the-wall "theories" can these guys refute?.
It is indeed a vessel of that which causes things to grow, and is strong.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
im glad im not the only person who thinks that

rock anthem for saving the world :D
Click to expand...

Yep. Great game. Great music. Played it a lot. When I was sober, I went in very careful. When I had a few (to many?) beers, I just ran in... Dutch courage, you know?

But I've sold my Xbox since.
 
rwguinn said:
Like HE!! he doesn't!
All this d@#n time he's been insisting that all the mass from WTC 1 and 2 was ejected sideways, not participating in the collapse--now he wonders howinhell it could have done damage to something outside the footprint. His conceptualization of mathematical and physical reality are less than that of a 2-year-old child.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think he's trying some supposed-to-be-subtle methods for creating cognitive dissonance in us, in the hopes we'll get all confused and suddenly exclaim that he's been right all along.

He's pretty well stuck in an all-or-nothing brain loop, in which all of the mass was either (1) ejected, or (2) landed perfectly in the footprint of the building.

Case 1 allows for the adjacent building to be crushed, but then he can claim that the towers would never have collapsed, because there was "no mass" to do the crushing. Case 2 allows him to claim that the adjacent buildings must have been damaged by something else, like the Big Beam of WTC Destruction. Either way, he "wins". It's almost cute that he thinks none of us can see his little trick.

He seems simply incapable of accepting a somewhere-in-between case, where some of the mass was ejected, and caused the adjacent damage, and some came straight down, to destroy the lower parts of the towers. If we could somehow convince him that this is possible, we might get somewhere.

How to do that, I don't know yet. Perhaps he could tell us.
 
Horatius said:
Actually, I think he's trying some supposed-to-be-subtle methods for creating cognitive dissonance in us, in the hopes we'll get all confused and suddenly exclaim that he's been right all along.

He's pretty well stuck in an all-or-nothing brain loop, in which all of the mass was either (1) ejected, or (2) landed perfectly in the footprint of the building.

Case 1 allows for the adjacent building to be crushed, but then he can claim that the towers would never have collapsed, because there was "no mass" to do the crushing. Case 2 allows him to claim that the adjacent buildings must have been damaged by something else, like the Big Beam of WTC Destruction. Either way, he "wins". It's almost cute that he thinks none of us can see his little trick.

He seems simply incapable of accepting a somewhere-in-between case, where some of the mass was ejected, and caused the adjacent damage, and some came straight down, to destroy the lower parts of the towers. If we could somehow convince him that this is possible, we might get somewhere.

How to do that, I don't know yet. Perhaps he could tell us.
Click to expand...
From your handle, attitude, and sig line, I perceive that you are familiar with standing fast in the face of absolutely lost causes? :D

The greatest thing about beating you head against a brick wall is how good it feels when you finally stop...;)
 
Horatius said:
Burn the Heretic! Burn Him!
Click to expand...

Sorry for not having control over Halo anymore. Jeez... lighten up. It was just some pet invested ring. There are more, you know. I'll find you another one.

(very free interpretation of Halo 2)
 
Bell said:
Yep. Great game. Great music. Played it a lot. When I was sober, I went in very careful. When I had a few (to many?) beers, I just ran in... Dutch courage, you know?

But I've sold my Xbox since.
Click to expand...
sold it?!?!

i bought more, lol, i have 5 now, one in each room of the house, but then mine are all modded so they serve the purpose of home theater PC as well as game system, lol
 
rwguinn said:
Like HE!! he doesn't!
All this d@#n time he's been insisting that all the mass from WTC 1 and 2 was ejected sideways, not participating in the collapse--now he wonders howinhell it could have done damage to something outside the footprint. His conceptualization of mathematical and physical reality are less than that of a 2-year-old child.
Click to expand...

Guys, take a deep breath. WTC3 wasn't "damaged". It is gone. Look at the evidence. If you guys think buildings disappear just because rubble rains upon it, I think you are the ones who have no concept of reality.

Sometimes, I point out internal inconsistencies in the "official" story. For instance, if most of the mass of the towers is supposed to have fallen straight down into the footprint, then how does it also wipe out other buildings?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Well, wait a minute. I thought we were supposed to believe that WTC1 collapsed straight down. What part of WTC1 could just wipe out WTC3? And where is that part? It's not like we see WTC3 with debris crashing the roof. It's just gone. Same thing with WTC4 acutally.

WTC4, the north wing of the building survived, there is a very clean cut, and the rest of WTC4 is missing.

You guys don't think this is weird? Really? Impact damage makes whole buildings disappear?
Click to expand...

You really need to understand that once collapsed, buildings really don't take up all that much space. A 30-story, 380-foot tower reduced to a pile not much higher than a chain link fence.

I know this seems unusual to you, but it's really truly real and true. and when mixed in with all the debris from two other much larger buildings, it's not at all surprising that another building might appear to "vanish", particularly in photos on the scale you've posted.
 
rwguinn said:
From your handle, attitude, and sig line, I perceive that you are familiar with standing fast in the face of absolutely lost causes? :D

The greatest thing about beating you head against a brick wall is how good it feels when you finally stop...;)
Click to expand...

You should have seen me do kendo. I once lead a team that consisted of me and four newbies up against the Toronto JCCC A team, which you can argue is the best kendo team in Canada, and which could compare with the best in the world.

We lost.

But we went down swinging.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Guys, take a deep breath. WTC3 wasn't "damaged". It is gone. Look at the evidence. If you guys think buildings disappear just because rubble rains upon it, I think you are the ones who have no concept of reality.

Sometimes, I point out internal inconsistencies in the "official" story. For instance, if most of the mass of the towers is supposed to have fallen straight down into the footprint, then how does it also wipe out other buildings?
Click to expand...

Jezus Christ, TS1234...

Lookit here...
More here
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Sometimes, I point out internal inconsistencies in the "official" story. For instance, if most of the mass of the towers is supposed to have fallen straight down into the footprint, then how does it also wipe out other buildings?
Click to expand...

See what I mean? That right there is the main support beam. If we can just blow that, he'll fall right down.....
 
Horatius said:
You really need to understand that once collapsed, buildings really don't take up all that much space. A 30-story, 380-foot tower reduced to a pile not much higher than a chain link fence.

I know this seems unusual to you, but it's really truly real and true. and when mixed in with all the debris from two other much larger buildings, it's not at all surprising that another building might appear to "vanish", particularly in photos on the scale you've posted.
Click to expand...

The amount of rubble at WTC7 seems reasonable for a standard controlled demolition. Can you link me to any other building that apparently disappeared from "collpase"? By what evidence do you come to the conclusion that the disappearance of WTC3 and 4, and the hollowing out of WTC6 is something we should expect?
 
Bell said:
Sorry for not having control over Halo anymore. Jeez... lighten up. It was just some pet invested ring. There are more, you know. I'll find you another one.

(very free interpretation of Halo 2)
Click to expand...

Man, you just don't know when to quit, do you?




:D
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Guys, take a deep breath. WTC3 wasn't "damaged". It is gone. Look at the evidence. If you guys think buildings disappear just because rubble rains upon it, I think you are the ones who have no concept of reality.

Sometimes, I point out internal inconsistencies in the "official" story. For instance, if most of the mass of the towers is supposed to have fallen straight down into the footprint, then how does it also wipe out other buildings?
Click to expand...
Just curious, so were these atomized by an invisible death ray from space also?

I just want to hear you say it.
 
DavidJames said:
You should take that question to a CT board. You are using one CT to refute another CT.

You are a piece of work UnableToThinkStraight1234.
Click to expand...

No, the notion that the mass of the twin towers stayed within the footprint is the official story now. See Frank Greening, for instance.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The amount of rubble at WTC7 seems reasonable for a standard controlled demolition.
Click to expand...
on what are you basing this?

Can you link me to any other building that apparently disappeared from "collpase"? By what evidence do you come to the conclusion that the disappearance of WTC3 and 4
Click to expand...
nothing "disappeared" as you put it

WTC3 is buried under debris from WTC1+2, unless youre an ostrich, buried and disappeared are two different things

and the hollowing out of WTC6 is something we should expect?
Click to expand...
wasnt WTC6 a standard masonry structure? that would mean load is supported by the exterior walls, which would be very thick, it stands to reason they would be the last part left standing, correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom