Star Wars Beam Weapon and the WTC Bathtub

Bell said:
I know C.Q.D.
But what does Q.E.D. means?
Click to expand...

Q.E.D. is a short form for the latin "quod erat demonstrandum," which, loosely translated means "that which was to be demonstrated" and was used mainly in mathematics at the end of mathematical proof of a proposition to show that the result was proven.

In popular use, it means "that which has been definitively proven".
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

When did this happen again? And what were the counter evidence?

Alternative explanations have not been proven true. We're working on it.
Click to expand...

Which means it's not an explanation at all but guess work. Come back when you have evidence of either of your little assertions.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Same with the mysterious building-evaporating material that took care of WTC3, most of 4, and hollowed out 6?
Click to expand...
Here's some of that "mysterious building-evaporating material" about to evaporate WTC 3. Whatever could it be? Better get Judy Wood on the horn to help you out with that one, TS. Better yet, take a stroll down the hall and ask her. Just remember to let the orderlies know your intentions this time. You don't want to be put in the Unhappy Place for another day.

8790455726a662acc.jpg

​
 
LashL said:
Q.E.D. is a short form for the latin "quod erat demonstrandum," which, loosely translated means "that which was to be demonstrated" and was used mainly in mathematics at the end of mathematical proof of a proposition to show that the result was proven.

In popular use, it means "that which has been definitively proven".
Click to expand...

Thanks LashL.
 
Gravy said:
Here's some of that "mysterious building-evaporating material" about to evaporate WTC 3.
Click to expand...

Careful. If you show him too much material hitting other buildings, he'll conclude that no material was available inside the towers to continue the collapse by downward failure so there must have been explosives. And if you don't show him enough, he'll conclude that WTC3 shouldn't have collapsed and thus must have been demolished with explosives.

Of course, neither of these has anything to do with his simultanious contention that everything expelled from the towers was in the form of microscopic dust and steel vapor.

Whatever you do, don't tell him that the total mass of the towers was so huge and the energy picked up by debris falling from such a height was so vast that there was plenty of matter and energy available inside the towers to continue the collapse, outside the towers to destroy and incinerate surrounding buildings and cars and all around the towers to kick up dust clouds for blocks. Because, if you convince him of that, he'll have nothing in his life except his music. And we all know how bad that is.
 
Loss Leader said:
Careful. If you show him too much material hitting other buildings, he'll conclude that no material was available inside the towers to continue the collapse by downward failure so there must have been explosives. And if you don't show him enough, he'll conclude that WTC3 shouldn't have collapsed and thus must have been demolished with explosives.
Click to expand...

No, no, that one picture out of dozens merely shows, according to a super-generous estimation, at most 0.00000000000001% of the mass of the towers. What we're looking for is an entire floor structure flipped up into the air, to a height of at least double the intial height of the tower, and coming down flat on top of WTC3 (the "pancake flipping" theory). Nothing else could account for the splattening of WTC3, after all......
 
Gravy said:
Here's some of that "mysterious building-evaporating material" about to evaporate WTC 3. Whatever could it be?
Click to expand...

From the dust *behind and above* the material, it is obvious that this material is being shot from a satellite weapon from space. Instead of billiard balls, the weapon was designed to shoot what *appears* to be normal building materials. This is so that no one cleaning up the debris later finds any evidence -- as everything there looks like it came from a building.
 
WildCat said:
TS1234 has a brain? You know the saying, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...
Click to expand...
well he has a collection of neurons capable of sustaining not only autonomic functions but also simple voluntary actions such as typing, pointing, and clicking, an at least rudimentary grasp of language also exists, i beleive this qualifies as a brain, if not sentient intelligence
 
Gravy said:
Here's some of that "mysterious building-evaporating material" about to evaporate WTC 3. Whatever could it be? Better get Judy Wood on the horn to help you out with that one, TS.


​
Click to expand...

Excellent picture Gravy. Let's proceed. This Biggart photo shows material from WTC2 about to hit WTC3. First curious question: Why is the top front of WTC3 already coming apart before anything hits it?

Image335.jpg
The uncropped version of the photo does show other material already below this point, perhaps it caused the damage. Notice the brown dust? And the grey dust? See how it is looks like pieces of steel are belching thick dust? Is that not evaportating steel? Sure looks like material is disintegrating as it falls.

Next, consider this photo, also by Biggart:

Biggart1833.jpg



This shows WTC3 after WTC2 blew up, and before WTC1 blew up. Consider the overall size of WTC3. Now, tell me what on earth happened to it later. Where did it go? So much stuff from WTC1 rained down upon it that it disappeared?
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Notice the brown dust? And the grey dust? See how it is looks like pieces of steel are belching thick dust? Is that not evaportating steel? Sure looks like material is disintegrating as it falls.
Click to expand...
"Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,
Blowing down the backroads headin' south.
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
You're an idiot, babe.
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe"

-Bob Dylan
 
LOL troothydude you are totally wrong. You pick out a couple pictures that support your theory, and totally ignore the vast amount of eye witness and photographic evidence that doesn't.

Isn't that what you and Russell and other of your ilk accuse US of doing?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Excellent picture Gravy. Let's proceed. This Biggart photo shows material from WTC2 about to hit WTC3. First curious question: Why is the top front of WTC3 already coming apart before anything hits it?

[qimg]http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image335.jpg[/qimg]

The uncropped version of the photo does show other material already below this point, perhaps it caused the damage. Notice the brown dust? And the grey dust? See how it is looks like pieces of steel are belching thick dust? Is that not evaportating steel? Sure looks like material is disintegrating as it falls.
Click to expand...

Nice job supporting our position. "Perhaps it caused the damage"? YaThink? Why would you look at this photo and think anything else?

And why does "brown dust" automatically equal disintegrating steel? What colour is steel dust anyways? Have you ever tried to find out?

And if the steel had been targeted by a "beam weapon" of some sort, such that it started to evapourate, wouldn't it actually be glowing from the heat? You CTists go on so often about "molten steel", but the one place your pet theory would predict such molten steel, we don't see it, we see "brown dust", which could be almost anything. Does anyone know what colour the fireproofing on these beams was? Or if they had any rust on their surfaces, a brownish-sort of coloured substance?

There's so many mundane possibilities for what that dust might be, why do you jump right to the most exotic, least likely explanation? Shouldn't you at least try to eliminate a few other options first?


TruthSeeker1234 said:
Next, consider this photo, also by Biggart:
[qimg]http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Biggart1833.jpg[/qimg]


This shows WTC3 after WTC2 blew up, and before WTC1 blew up. Consider the overall size of WTC3. Now, tell me what on earth happened to it later. Where did it go? So much stuff from WTC1 rained down upon it that it disappeared?
Click to expand...

So a building already compromised by having a huge chunk taken out of the middle by one 110-story building falling on it, later collapsed entirely when another 110-story building fell on it. Again, why is this surprising? I'm actually kind of amazed it stayed up as long as it did with that amount of damage. Truly a testament to the skill of its designers and builders, that.
 
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