Reply #120

In the discussion thread: What is the thing about 911 being a inside job that is the hardest to explain away? [View all]

Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #113)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:45 AM

Logical (8,064 posts)

120. Here, do some reading......

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Black_Boxes

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

150 replies	Author	Time	Post
What is the thing about 911 being a inside job that is the hardest to explain away? [View all]	Logical	Dec 2011	OP
No links for you but a documentry	zeemike	Dec 2011	#1
Clear?	pinqy	Dec 2011	#3
My answers and some questions to you.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#10
Not really an answer	pinqy	Dec 2011	#15
It would be even harder to convince that Osama hijacked a cruz missil don't you think?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#39
jesus!	wildbilln864	Dec 2011	#142
Flight 77 was itself the missile.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#148
I think you missed my point! nt	wildbilln864	Dec 2011	#149
I took a glance at the video "In Plane Sight"	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#5
Explain why there are no viedo of the plain hitting the Pentagon	zeemike	Dec 2011	#11
Explain what happened to the passengers of Flight 77.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#16
I asked you first.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#17
Did I know anyone personally on those planes? No, I didn't.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#20
The only power "they" have is the power you have fictiously ascribed to "them"	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#22
You don't have to be omnipotante to manipulate people and things.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#27
You're arguing in circles; question-begging	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#28
Well you understand the power of a straw man don't you?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#31
A straw man is when you assign a fallacious argument to someone that they did not make	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#33
You ,keep saying there is ZERRO evedence.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#44
it's ZERO evidence...and yes, you have none.	zappaman	Dec 2011	#45
So there we have it...we are at an impass	zeemike	Dec 2011	#51
Even the NIST had to finally admit freefall occured!	wildbilln864	Dec 2011	#143
And even Gage and Chandler had to admit ...	William Seger	Dec 2011	#147
You present assertions that have already been thoroughly debunked	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#46
Well that would be hard to do.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#50
Then there is no amount of evidence that can change your mind.	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#58
And no amount will change yours	zeemike	Dec 2011	#61
So what if it fell in "free fall"? I wouldn't expect otherwise.	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#48
The only way it could have fallen like that strait down is if ALL the suprot structures failed	zeemike	Dec 2011	#49
You really pin this entire idea on the notion that structural failures dont spontaneously occur?	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#52
Well the building could have collapsed from damage	zeemike	Dec 2011	#55
I regard your refusal to counter our evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon as a concesion.	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#54
No you are wrong there	zeemike	Dec 2011	#99
you make me laugh when you say "our evidence"!	wildbilln864	Dec 2011	#144
I regard your refusal to counter our evidence for a plane hitting the Pentagon as a concesion.	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#146
There is one poor frame from one of their low speed cameras.	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#26
So they only have low speed cameras and only released 5 frames?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#29
You didn't address the evidence presented	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#32
Well I used WTC7 as my smoking gun	zeemike	Dec 2011	#37
Could I request that you please remove that link from your post(s)?	Make7	Dec 2011	#64
I didn't look at the site closely	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#87
Thank you. I did pretty much the same thing the last DU3 test period.	Make7	Dec 2011	#117
This post was hidden by jury decision.	Danchi	Dec 2011	#2
Oh, my God.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#6
Sory but I don't know what any of that means...	zeemike	Dec 2011	#12
It may be a reason to believe in God.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#13
Don't know what that means eather	zeemike	Dec 2011	#18
Where did the plane parts go that hit the pentagon?	liberal N proud	Dec 2011	#4
Here's more evidence for the plane that hit the Pentagon:	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#9
There are plenty of pictures of airplane parts in the Pentagon	hack89	Dec 2011	#21
All the competing theories	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#7
The truth is out there	zeemike	Dec 2011	#14
So the Truthers are part of the lies	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#19
no they are bieng manipulated.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#30
So which ones are bing manipulated?	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#34
oh my	zappaman	Dec 2011	#35
Well that is what Journalist used to do	zeemike	Dec 2011	#36
So what you're saying is	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#38
utter absence of genuine evidence?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#40
"I show you that there is plenty of it?"	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#41
So basicly you just want to run me round and round	zeemike	Dec 2011	#43
The only evidence in the videos is of a burning, wrecked building that collapses.	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#47
I guess that is true	zeemike	Dec 2011	#53
What laws are you referring to?	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#56
The law of gravity for one.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#57
Here's a brief video that shows WTC7 didn't all collapse at the same time	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#59
I have seen it and it is consistant whith what I said	zeemike	Dec 2011	#60
Thermal expansion and weakening of steel can explain the structural failure	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#62
Well what I don't believe is that this thermal expansion was distributed evenly	zeemike	Dec 2011	#65
It wasn't. No one claims that it was.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#66
i am not protesting anything...I am questioning the official story	zeemike	Dec 2011	#68
Protesting, questioning, whatever. You need to find out what the official story is.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#70
Well sory to disapoint you but I have seen the official story	zeemike	Dec 2011	#72
No, you haven't, not with that straw man claim you made about thermal expansion.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#73
What a statement...	zeemike	Dec 2011	#75
I agree. Your post 75 is some statement, indeed.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#77
So I am hearing you say that because it is not part of the official story	zeemike	Dec 2011	#80
No, you are hearing me say, "Locate that phrase or that concept in the Final Report on Building 7."	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#81
So if it is not in the offical report then it does not exist.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#84
"we then have estalished that the collaps was not caused by thermal expansion" - No, we have not.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#86
Well then present it as evedence	zeemike	Dec 2011	#88
Here's a short presentation of the NIST report	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#94
Yep seen it.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#96
Seen it? And still you were here saying that the report claimed uniform thermal expansion was	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#97
Because it said that thermal expansion caused the iner part to fail	zeemike	Dec 2011	#101
Large massive objects don't behave like small light objects.	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#102
All good points....and demolition experts use these facts in their work.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#106
WTC7 didn't fall straight down	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#107
Are you saying that the shell was suported by the inside of the building?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#108
By the way here is a photo of the framework of WTC7	zeemike	Dec 2011	#110
I just showed you with the video of the collapse on comment 59 that there wasn't a uniform collapse.	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#82
So expalin where I am not telling the truth	zeemike	Dec 2011	#85
I am not saying that you are a liar. Not at all.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#91
Well I admit I have not read the report	zeemike	Dec 2011	#92
That's an engineering question	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#63
And Arcitects and Engineers have addtessed it	zeemike	Dec 2011	#67
In the latest holy book in their online store?	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#69
You can dismiss anthing can't you?	zeemike	Dec 2011	#71
I've dismissed the arguments of AE911Truth after nine years of examining 9/11 Truth arguments	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#74
Funy but after 9 years of doing the same thing I came to a diferent conclusion	zeemike	Dec 2011	#76
9 years of avoiding the actual statements of NIST?	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#78
Questioning is not avoiding.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#79
The way you are questioning is avoiding.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#83
That is just the same thing said in a deferent way	zeemike	Dec 2011	#89
But you are misrepresenting what the report says.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#90
If you then take the oposing view it is up to you	zeemike	Dec 2011	#93
You might have that backwards	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#95
And he is sayint that the "proper explanation" is the "official one"	zeemike	Dec 2011	#98
But neither Boffin or the report he cites claims the building fell straight down	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#100
Well nothing is perfict.	zeemike	Dec 2011	#103
Sorry, but the evidence presented by Boffin convinces me it was NOT uniform	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#104
Are you saying that all buildings should behave the same while collapsing?	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#105
not too suprising sense they were very close togather to beguin with	zeemike	Dec 2011	#109
"Only the outer shell collapsed at the same time. That was only after the internal structure collaps	wildbilln864	Dec 2011	#145
bombs in the bldgs. going off plus	ensho	Dec 2011	#8
For me, it was the spike in options trading in United and American airlines	coalition_unwilling	Dec 2011	#23
The willful destruction of the FAA recordings for that time.	kickysnana	Dec 2011	#24
MercutioATC explained that.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#25
There isn't one corner of the Government and media ...	T S Justly	Dec 2011	#42
No Black Boxes ever recovered	Cherchez la Femme	Dec 2011	#111
Not true.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#112
Good to know	Cherchez la Femme	Dec 2011	#113
In a movie theater, links will have to wait	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#114
Here, do some reading......	Logical	Dec 2011	#120
More BS, The Flight 93 flight data recorders were recovered. Also....	Logical	Dec 2011	#119
The attacker's passport that survived the explosion,	FourScore	Dec 2011	#115
Show us how you know	zappaman	Dec 2011	#116
Government protection of fraudulent workers in basement levels.	melonkali	Dec 2011	#118
firemen and policemen said wtc7 was going to come down	tiny elvis	Dec 2011	#121
But the reasons for fearing a collapse are on record.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#122
That's apples and oranges	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#123
someone with some authority said	tiny elvis	Dec 2011	#124
I have posted why firefights though the building would fall	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#125
Already asked and answered	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#126
nist said the collapse was unexpected and unexplained prior to nist's investigation	tiny elvis	Dec 2011	#127
Here's a real time video of a firefighter predicting WTC7's collapse	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#128
the national institute of standards and technology disagrees with you	tiny elvis	Dec 2011	#129
Clearly the collapse was "expected" the day of 9/11	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#130
Here's the link to the 2008 Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#132
i thought maybe you read it	tiny elvis	Dec 2011	#133
Obviously you don't know what you're talking about	cpwm17	Dec 2011	#139
Hmmm, I seriously doubt that claim	William Seger	Dec 2011	#131
Hmmmm...	Nuclear Unicorn	Dec 2011	#141
Message deleted by the DU Administrators	Nathan_Hale	Dec 2011	#134
I don't think you've got that quote right.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#135
Yes, my recollection was.....	Nathan_Hale	Dec 2011	#136
No, not at all. There's enough intent AFTER seeing the towers attacked to document it.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#137
One can split hairs over....	Nathan_Hale	Dec 2011	#138
Actually, it is resolvable.	Bolo Boffin	Dec 2011	#140
just around 911 there was a story about stock trading for American Airlines	Whisp	Dec 2011	#150

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.