1834 replies to this topic

[joc]

This thread is specifically for the discussion of this particular video.  It is almost two hours long...so, I don't expect many will watch it.  But if you  do, what you will see is a complete and thorough study of the destruction of the World Trade Centers.
You don't have to watch it from beginning to end...feel free to watch any parts of it that interest you...
....the conclusion here is that the Buildings could never have fallen as they did unless they were wired for demolition.

LINK

or

Edited by joc, 13 January 2013 - 05:05 PM.

[socrates.junior]

Time to start leaving this on all the threads. Hopefully it'll eventually sink in.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

[joc]

What is there to sink in?  Look at the picture in your post...please, in as much detail as want, tell me exactly what you are looking at.

[socrates.junior]

Trick question, there is no picture in my post.

[joc]

socrates.junior, on 13 January 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

Trick question, there is no picture in my post.

In your link .....

[socrates.junior]

WTC South Tower falling.

Now there's these things also contained in my link called words. And e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. From people who actually know what they're talking about.

I suggest you read it. Yes, read. I know it's not a pretty picture, and it's not a Youtube video, but call me old-fashioned that way.

Thanks.

[joc]

socrates.junior, on 13 January 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

WTC South Tower falling.

Now there's these things also contained in my link called words. And e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. From people who actually know what they're talking about.

I suggest you read it. Yes, read. I know it's not a pretty picture, and it's not a Youtube video, but call me old-fashioned that way.

Thanks.

Have you ever watched the video presented in this thread?  Is that video debunked in your link?

[socrates.junior]

Currently watching the video.

Yes.

[Coffey]

socrates.junior, on 13 January 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Time to start leaving this on all the threads. Hopefully it'll eventually sink in.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Please can you tell my why you think you know more about 2 planes being flown into a building than John Lear who has over 19,000 hours of flight time and has flown a variety of aircraft from Civilian to military? (including prototypes and secret spy planes)


Because he said there is no way someone could hit those building with the "training" they supposedly had, even he wouldn't be able to do it first time.

Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson are part of the truth movement. (surely ther eis a big enough lack of evidence to make them ask questions)

Why has the government stopped any kind of investigation to find answers to peoples questions? Surely if they are telling the truth they have nothing to hide?! i

I'd like to know what your profession is please? And why you would know more than professional architects, pilots and engineers about this?

Edited by Coffey, 13 January 2013 - 06:22 PM.

[Simbi Laveau]

*waves pom poms*

It does NOT all add up . Hold on ,let me find a link.

http://listverse.com...-died-suddenly/

Edited by Simbi Laveau, 13 January 2013 - 06:30 PM.

[Hasina]

Coffey, on 13 January 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Please can you tell my why you think you know more about 2 planes being flown into a building than John Lear who has over 19,000 hours of flight time and has flown a variety of aircraft from Civilian to military? (including prototypes and secret spy planes)


Because he said there is no way someone could hit those building with the "training" they supposedly had, even he wouldn't be able to do it first time.

Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson are part of the truth movement. (surely ther eis a big enough lack of evidence to make them ask questions)

Why has the government stopped any kind of investigation to find answers to peoples questions? Surely if they are telling the truth they have nothing to hide?! i

I'd like to know what your profession is please? And why you would know more than professional architects, pilots and engineers about this?

My problem with hearing things from 'professionals' is that they'll say different things.

Two of my buddies brothers are pilots in the airforce, one says he could've done it with the same amount of training those guys supposedly did, the other one thinks there's no way someone could've jumped into the seat of jet and done it.

[socrates.junior]

Coffey, on 13 January 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Please can you tell my why you think you know more about 2 planes being flown into a building than John Lear who has over 19,000 hours of flight time and has flown a variety of aircraft from Civilian to military? (including prototypes and secret spy planes)

Because he said there is no way someone could hit those building with the "training" they supposedly had, even he wouldn't be able to do it first time.

Ah, John Lear. The man who obviously lost touch with reality a long time ago. Good guy to have in your corner. John Lear is talking completely out of his ass.

Quote

Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson are part of the truth movement. (surely ther eis a big enough lack of evidence to make them ask questions)

Yes, actors are always my first source for investigations.

Quote

Why has the government stopped any kind of investigation to find answers to peoples questions? Surely if they are telling the truth they have nothing to hide?!

Mmmmm wrong. Please read the link.

Quote

I'd like to know what your profession is please? And why you would know more than professional architects, pilots and engineers about this?

Hmmmm which architects, pilots, and engineers? Yes, because I'm not a raving lunatic, I do know more than John Lear...but you've provided no one else.

I provided a whole truckload of engineers.

[Babe Ruth]

socrates.junior, on 13 January 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

WTC South Tower falling.

Now there's these things also contained in my link called words. And e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. From people who actually know what they're talking about.

I suggest you read it. Yes, read. I know it's not a pretty picture, and it's not a Youtube video, but call me old-fashioned that way.

Thanks.

I wonder if Socrates Sr. would approve of your strange reasoning?  From your statement above you consider evidence ONLY if it comes from somebody who actually knows what he is talking about.  People, actually.

So does this mean that you ignore other evidence, that does not meet your standard?

[socrates.junior]

No, that is not what it means. I give more credence to evidence from qualified sources because...uh...they're....QUALIFIED. That was the word I was looking for.

If you've read the Republic, you'd realize that Socrates is in complete agreement with that. You, apparently, have not.

EDIT: Dug up a relevant passage. From Book 1.

Quote

Enough, I said, of these civilities. It will be better that I should ask you a question: Is the physician, taken in that strict sense of which you are speaking, a
healer of the sick or a maker of money? And remember that I am now speaking
of the true physician.
A healer of the sick, he replied.
And the pilot–that is to say, the true pilot–is he a captain of sailors or a mere
sailor?
A captain of sailors.
The circumstance that he sails in the ship is not to be taken into account; neither
is he to be called a sailor; the name pilot by which he is distinguished has
nothing to do with sailing, but is significant of his skill and of his authority
over the sailors.
Very true, he said.
Now, I said, every art has an interest?
Certainly

AKA, qualified people are the people to ask about their craft.

Edited by socrates.junior, 13 January 2013 - 07:19 PM.

[joc]

socrates.junior, on 13 January 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

No, that is not what it means. I give more credence to evidence from qualified sources because...uh...they're....QUALIFIED. That was the word I was looking for.

If you've read the Republic, you'd realize that Socrates is in complete agreement with that. You, apparently, have not.

EDIT: Dug up a relevant passage. From Book 1.



AKA, qualified people are the people to ask about their craft.

Which in no way should imply that the only Qualified People on this subject are on the 'debunk' side.  There are some very real questions here...Just watch the North Tower collapse...and as your watching ask yourself...How did THAT happen? No debunking of anything...within your own heart and soul...how did that happen.  How does a building of that size come down so quickly in a pile of dust...leaving behind virtually nothing?  How are large concrete projectiles blown 600 feet away from a 'collapsing' building?  Is it really possible for two buildings to fall almost identically an hour apart?  And for WTC7 to fall 'the exact same way' when it wasn't even touched by any aircraft at all?  And...why didn't any other buildings then fall in the same manner?
These are real questions Socrates.  They demand real answers.  Do you have any?