Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

TruthSeeker1234 said:
No, the notion that the mass of the twin towers stayed within the footprint is the official story now. See Frank Greening, for instance.
Click to expand...
He just says the bulk of the mass stayed in the footprint during most of the collapse. Not after.
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
Just curious, so were these zapped by an invisible death ray from space also?

I just want to hear you say it.
Click to expand...

I am quite certain that the official story of 9/11 is false.

I don't know what really happened on 9/11. I don't know about no planes, I don't know about beam weapons. What I do know is that the correct explanation will be the one that accounts for all the relevant data.

With all due respect, the explanations forthcoming have been far less than persuasive to me.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
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?
Click to expand...

"apparently disappeared" is just that. The debris is there. It's just piled under a much larger pile. Again, with the scale of the photos we've seen, it's not surprising that you can't tell exactly where one building starts and the other ends. Why would you expect to?

If it had "disappeared", don't you think someone might have mentioned this? "Oh, by the way, guys, we went to excavate building 3, and it wasn't there. Odd, huh?"
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I am quite certain that the official story of 9/11 is false.

I don't know what really happened on 9/11. I don't know about no planes, I don't know about beam weapons. What I do know is that the correct explanation will be the one that accounts for all the relevant data.

With all due respect, the explanations forthcoming have been far less than persuasive to me.
Click to expand...
so your position is "i dont know what happened, i just know the government did it"
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I don't know what really happened on 9/11. I don't know about no planes, I don't know about beam weapons.
Click to expand...

Or basic physics, or engineering...

You don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about science books
Don't know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you loved me too
What a wonderful world this would beeeee...
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
With all due respect, the explanations forthcoming have been far less than persuasive to me.
Click to expand...

So, you don't like the pictures we've provided, you don't like the reports we've provided of how much debris was removed from the site, you don't like any of the analyses we've offered, either from our own calculations or from others.

So, pray tell, what would, at this late date, persuade you? Please consider that the site has been almost completely cleaned up, and there's not likely to be a significantly greater number of photos ever published, and any new witness testimonies would be both 5 years after the fact, and easily dismissed by you anyways.

Seriously, what would it take? And why do you think such evidence should be available? And why do you think it would be available to us here at JREF?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Or basic physics, or engineering...

You don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about science books
Don't know much about the french I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you loved me too
What a wonderful world this would beeeee...
Click to expand...

You do know you've just set yourself up for a massive misquote, right?

:eek:
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I am quite certain that the official story of 9/11 is false.

I don't know what really happened on 9/11. I don't know about no planes, I don't know about beam weapons. What I do know is that the correct explanation will be the one that accounts for all the relevant data.
Click to expand...

This brings up a question I asked myself earlier today: CTists: The Worst Analysts in All History, or Just This Century?

How can you have spent all this time looking at the evidence, and not come up with any conclusions, no matter how tenative?

When I took a look at the photos of "round holes" you posted, it took me all of about 30 seconds to note the straight lines that seemed to line up, and then to notice the regular spacings. This lead me in short order to the conclusion that we were seeing the effect of the roof beams, which seems to have been born out by the evidence.

So why can't you (or any other CTist, for that matter) ever seem to come to a conclusion, that can be tested? Are you all really that bad at figuring things out?

I think I need to figure out how to create a poll, so we can vote on this question.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
With all due respect, the explanations forthcoming have been far less than persuasive to me.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, it's not the teacher's fault, but the student's.

I truly mean this, Ace: why don't you go back to your community college and take a physics class? If you could pass that class, I think your reasoning skills about physical reality might improve. I'm really serious here.

I'm wondering how long we can all play "whack-a-mole" with your random paranoic theories.
 
Kent1 said:
He just says the bulk of the mass stayed in the footprint during most of the collapse. Not after.
Click to expand...

That may be what he says to you in private, but his paper says that all the mass stays in the footprint for all of the collapse. It's right there in his initial assumptions. But whatever. OK. The bulk of the mass stays in the footprint for most of the collapse.

So that big pile that landed between WFC2 and 3, it stayed in the footprint, hit the gound , then flew across the Westside highway? Same with the mysterious building-evaporating material that took care of WTC3, most of 4, and hollowed out 6?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
That may be what he says to you in private, but his paper says that all the mass stays in the footprint for all of the collapse. It's right there in his initial assumptions. But whatever. OK. The bulk of the mass stays in the footprint for most of the collapse.

So that big pile that landed between WFC2 and 3, it stayed in the footprint, hit the gound , then flew across the Westside highway? Same with the mysterious building-evaporating material that took care of WTC3, most of 4, and hollowed out 6?
Click to expand...

Well it didn't, so there isn't any reason to harp on that theory now is there...
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
That may be what he says to you in private, but his paper says that all the mass stays in the footprint for all of the collapse. It's right there in his initial assumptions. But whatever. OK. The bulk of the mass stays in the footprint for most of the collapse.
Click to expand...

So the rest of the mass would end up... where exactly?
And also, did you notice the outer core beams that fell from uphigh and crashed down all over the place? Including WTC3?

So that big pile that landed between WFC2 and 3, it stayed in the footprint, hit the gound , then flew across the Westside highway? Same with the mysterious building-evaporating material that took care of WTC3, most of 4, and hollowed out 6?
Click to expand...

:confused:

That the same that killed all the firefighters and civilians in WTC3? Or was it the debris from WTC2, and after that the debris from WTC1?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
so your position is "i dont know what happened, i just know the government did it"
Click to expand...

There is a difference between proving one hypothesis false, and coming up with a new correct hypothesis. The official story is proven false. Alternative explanations have not been proven true. We're working on it.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
There is a difference between proving one hypothesis false, and coming up with a new correct hypothesis. The official story is proven false. Alternative explanations have not been proven true. We're working on it.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Must of missed that. Where was the official story proven false again?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
There is a difference between proving one hypothesis false, and coming up with a new correct hypothesis. The official story is proven false. Alternative explanations have not been proven true. We're working on it.
Click to expand...

Hurry up man. You need to re re double your efforts. The world needs more alternative trooth.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Same with the mysterious building-evaporating material that took care of WTC3, most of 4, and hollowed out 6?
Click to expand...
stop being dishonest, nothing "evaporated," its buried under debris, ostrich boy

TruthSeeker1234 said:
There is a difference between proving one hypothesis false, and coming up with a new correct hypothesis. The official story is proven false. Alternative explanations have not been proven true. We're working on it.
Click to expand...
you cna poke as many holes in a theory that you want, unless you can provide a viable alternative (with fewer holes) you still have nothing
 
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