Jump to content

I know what happens in 2012.


titorite
 Share

Recommended Posts

Re: Right here

 

You are ignoring more facts... aren't you the guy who claims we shouldn't do that?

 

and like I said in another post...take your kitchen knife. put it to a lighter. It will blacken in 5 seconds or less. It will blacken because of the carbon the fire left behind. TRY IT! You will see I am right. Then you can ponder some of the comments made by Myself and RMT reguarding shiney polished wreckage and green green grass.

First of all, what makes you think that any pieces of airplane parts that DID happen to be inside the fireball were there for even as much as 5 seconds? Do you actually think that fireball lasted for 5 seconds?

But I notice you are ignoring, and have not dealt with the reality of, the PROOF that I have given you that pieces of the airplane flew away from the building OUTSIDE the fireball. How about you take the honorable route and admit that I have now shown you a reason why those pieces DO NOT have to be charred or sooted? You acted honorably when I proved to you an engine would not scorch the grass (and you are still calling it a turboprop...get your terms straight. How many times do I have to correct you?), so why don't you act honorably now and ADMIT it is NOT an inconsistency that we see airplane parts that are not scorched or sooted?

 

Here you are harping on me that you were right and I was wrong about the hood of the taxi not being dented... and I do admit, now that you have provided a better photo as evidence, I ADMIT I was wrong. So if you really think you are a better man than I am, you should now take your medicine and admit there is NO REASON to think it is "inconsistent" to see airplane parts on the Pentagon lawn without soot or scorching.

 

And oh, by the way... I again asked you a question and specifically asked for an answer. You ignored it. I would like an answer:

 

"Honestly, do you REALLY want me to address the "unscorched" lawn, titorite? (Please answer this question) "

 

This is your last chance to back out and tell me you don't want me to address this. That way you can still maintain your belief that the grass HAD to be scorched by the fireball, and I will not have to prove you wrong in front of all these other readers. Please answer the above question, and if you still want me to address it, get ready.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

911 was an inside job

 

titorite, cmon man, be reasonable.

 

REASONABLE?!? I am not the one insulting people. I am not the one who spouts everything the other man has to say is assumption with a dismissive tone. I am not the one that has reduced his communication the assinine libel nonsense.

 

I have no clue what magical math RMT used to pull the wool over your eyes but thiers a legion of things to consider that don't add up starting with the propaganda on september eleventh two thousand and one and leading onto the comeing war in Iran. WHY DO WE NEED TO INVADE IRAN!?! WE DON'T! But we will...probably based off another false flag terrorist attack prepatrated by the same war criminals in office now.

 

ON the day of 911 durng the begining moments you and all of america and the world were exposed to two events. One was the attacks. Two was afganistan and the fighting of the northern coalition. Now during the zero hour we had no clue and no way to know who did what BUT THE MEDIA reported about afganistan and and the attacks all day long. 22 days later we went into afganistan proper to bomb that mudstain into the 21st century by giveing them the gift of fire and scrap metal. And what was one of the first things out of Bushs mouth? "We can not tolerate outragous conspiracy theories that shift the blame away from the terrorists" Why even bother to mention something so trite?

 

WTC7: How did that building fall? Controled demolition. How long does it take do pull off a coridinated controled demolition? WEEKS OF WELL ORGANIZED PLANING. Can it be done on the fly in a building on fire? Not just no but HELL NO! The fires would pose a SERIOUS risk when working with high explosives not to mention the walls you gotta knock out to plant your charges around support columns or the electronic timing system to ensure everything goes off at the precise right time or the dry runs you preform to double check every aspect of a controled demolition. Moving onto the two towers the pancake collapse is about as flimsy as it gets and you will see lots of Illastrations (DRAWINGS) of where the planes went and what columns they cut but you can't trust that because you can't know UNLESS those columns in question were survayed and documented before the towers fell which they wern't which leave the honest to rely on the film to critical examine the event and the less than honest to draw pictures and make deductions based on assumptions of unknowns. The towers were built in three parts and they were destroy in three parts. And as with any controled demolition the destruction started from the bottom up only they bottom of part 3 in both buildings starts around the 80th floors. What a conincidence thats where the planes hit. And when the top part fell precisly timed charges went off from the bottom of part two only by this time who the hell is up close filming the towers? Not a damned soul because a freaking building is falling down. So all we are left with is cloudly long shots and the laws of physics. Pancake collapses are well documented and you can do your own research or ask for assitence but if you compare a pancake collaspe to the destruction of the towers you will find that they are two DISTINCTLY DIFFERNT styles of destruction.

 

And at the pentagon a plane rams into the wall? WTF!? I don't care if your howard huges use logic and asess risk? Is it less risky to dive bomb into the pentagon or less risky to circle the pentagon fly through light poles and into the side of the pentagon aiming for the first floor?

 

From this events it was deemed socialy unacceptable to be unpatriotic and everyone starts waveing thier plastic flags made in china and slapping us flag bumper stickers on thier cars that fade white after 3 months because RATIONAL logic was surrender to fear mongering and emotional pride.. BUT just in case you wern't scared enough they started mailing anthrax to people...BUT SUPRISE the anthrax is highly traceable and is confirmed to of come from an american bio-weapons lab and at the point the story was drop in favor of Brittney Spears' latest mental break down and MikeyOs trial. More time passes and the media says Saddam Hussane help plan 911 so we gotta go kill him too even though we are not done fighting in iraq..because we all now Sadam has nukes and is Usmas best friend. So we invade and conquer iraq set up for a perfect flank of Iran. But things like this take time and the "Leader" Needs to remain in office so osama makes a nice electoral video encourageing people to vote for the other skull and bones candidate John Kerry...natural 90% of the voteing sheep vote Bush. 6 years later we still can't find Osama despite pakistani and egyption news medias reporting is obituaries from kidney failure.

 

And here we are. On the precipice of destruction, chomping at the bit to invade Iran because we AGAIN KNOW they are makeing nukes just like WE KNEW Iraq had nukes. AND WHY? Because big money bought out government long long ago and has been in charge ever since and big money gives a flip about you me or the children no big money cares about MONEY! And thier is alot of money to capitolize on for the oilmen currently in office by controling the worlds richest supply of accessible oil in the middle east. ESPECIALY if they can sell to china. 1 billion people that want cars and all they need is premission from the government to buy them. But that isn't gonna happen till this conflict is settled.

 

AND ALL THIS BS IS BASED OF THE BS OF 911 WHICH HAS MORE HOLES IN THE OFFICAL STORY THAN A BLOCK OF SWISS CHEESE! And these "debunkers" They "Debunk" For fun. This is a past time to them. ME? I'm Pissed. I want justice. I can't even get osama bin laden fake justice let alone the real thing. So I am gonna talk about the things that don't add up. I am gonna argue the facts I know to be true against the facts I know to be false. I am gonna tell the un-informed and the shill alike that YES 911 was an inside job. I will not turn off my rational mind to wtc7. I will not imagine that nothing fishy happened at the pentagon. I will not forget that when the cellphone system of 911 got cloged with everyone calling everybody yet somehow MAGICALY every 911 victim could use thier phones in the planes to be replayed on the news to make you sympatize and turn off your rational mind.

 

I will not stop till the truth is known and the war is won.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Tooting your own horn Rainman taking time to gloat and insult rather then just debate the subject. Your no longer acting gentelman but as an adolesent.

You are ignoring who it was (YOU!) who decided to stop acting nicely, and instead started making snide remarks and accusations against not only myself, but a member of my family who is not here to defend himself. I was acting like a perfect gentleman until you elected to ratchet-up the rhetoric again. You see, I don't sit back and take that kind of stuff. I fire back.

 

If your going to limit yourself to oly addressing airplane accident related question WTC7 still counts because two planes crashed in that area.

It counts only in your mind. And I have exhibited just how poor your investigative skills are due to all the bad assumptions you make as a means to scream "inconsistency". In reality, NONE of the things you have asked me to address have ANY inconsistencies. Not one. Instead, you remain steadfastedly attached to YOUR BELIEFS about how certain events happened which are shown in photos. Forget the fact you cannot provide evidence for why a reasonable person should believe what you insist is an inconsistency. Evidence doesn't seem to matter to you... only what YOU BELIEVE the truth to be is all that matters to you.

 

Also I release from any promises. You don't have to doing anything your tired of or uncomfortable doing for my sake.

The only thing I am tired of is your attitude, and I am not uncomfortable about anything. I asked you a question about your belief that the grass HAD to be scorched. This is your last chance out of it, so I suggest you give me an answer. You can back out and I won't say anything. But if you really want me to show you why it is a bad assumption, I would be more than happy to put this last nail in the coffin of all your alleged "inconsistencies" about the Pentagon airplane attack.

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

ONE more thing! I am in the majority! Disinformationalists that like to grasp at straws to explain away the truth for support of the government authorized version of the 911 events are in the minority.

 

Over 80,000 votes. Cast yours NOW!

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720

 

Do you believe any of the conspiracy theories suggesting the U.S. government was somehow involved in 9/11? * 80541 responses

 

Yes. The government has left many questions unanswered about that day.

 

64%

 

No. These theories are absurd and disrespectful -- especially to those who lost their lives on 9/11.

 

31%

 

I'm not sure.

 

5.4%

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

and leading onto the comeing war in Iran. WHY DO WE NEED TO INVADE IRAN!?! WE DON'T! But we will...probably based off another false flag terrorist attack prepatrated by the same war criminals in office now.

And here we see titorite tipping his hand. It wasn't very long ago we had a "time traveler" here on this site who was telling us about how "the invasion of Iran is starting". Let's see...in fact, I believe there were a COUPLE fly-by-night posters who had to continually beat this drum. One was "Falzon", who I remember quite well. He sure did vanish (a disinfo tactic) as soon as his predictions of an Iran invasion (and "false flag" operation) did NOT come to pass last October (IIRC).

So what we have here is a CONSISTENCY... between Falzon (and other past-posters) and our new friend titorite. I'm calling Darby in on this one again. What do your forensic talents tell you Darby? Is titorite just a reincarnation of past (now vanished) posters singing the exact same song as above?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

ONE more thing! I am in the majority! Disinformationalists that like to grasp at straws to explain away the truth for support of the government authorized version of the 911 events are in the minority.

 

Over 80,000 votes. Cast yours NOW!

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720

And right after you cast your vote there is a neat little disclaimer on this "survey"...

"Not a scientific survey. "

 

What that means is that there is no way they can assure "one person, one vote". So what we end up having here is all the conspiracy theorist crackpots, who have all sorts of time to spread their vile theories online, are all voting their little hearts out on this survey...over and over and over again.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

911 was an inside job

 

RMT you have resorted to name calling and libel. I really have lost interest in what you have to say because while I have made a consistint effort to maintain civility with you, you have made no such efforts of reciporcation.

 

This is your last chance to back out and tell me you don't want me to address this. That way you can still maintain your belief that the grass HAD to be scorched by the fireball, and I will not have to prove you wrong in front of all these other readers. Please answer the above question, and if you still want me to address it, get ready.

What the heck is that a threat? Your threatening me AGAIN!? My last chance? The only reason a person resorts to name calling and libel/slander in an argument is because they have run out of rational ideas and must rely on the base idioms to express themselves in the hopes of wearing down an oppenent... Many pages ago I asked if you would rather make a friend or defeat an enemy. I even droped this subject for a bit and extended a hand of friendship to you, which you have figurativly slaped.

Show me your argument or don't I care little now as you have degenerated in respectiblity.

 

Reguardless I will refute what I see as inconsistent. And for the record 5 seconds was generous. To blacken a knife it only takes 2 to 1 seconds depending on what part of the flame you apply to the knife or wood or anything! The black left behind, thats carbon sticking to the object the fire was applied too.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

What ever RMT. YOUR now addressing something that was not addressed to you... You can't even comprehend the context of those words....But if need be You bet Darby WILL vouch for my identity along with a few other poster of this site. If need be I'll ask Oliver Williams and Karl Simonook to verify me. I'm not some time travel wanna be. I'm the real deal in the cyber flesh watching you threaten to argue but not doing it and when you do its not about the subject but some distractionary point to draw everyones attention AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT!

 

YOu have also become quite hostile and uncivil.

 

Let the John Titor be your guide to online manners.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

And for the record 5 seconds was generous. To blacken a knife it only takes 2 to 1 seconds depending on what part of the flame you apply to the knife or wood or anything! The black left behind, thats carbon sticking to the object the fire was applied too.

And yet you STILL cannot bear to address, or even ACKNOWLEDGE the FACT that there is evidence of parts flying OUTSIDE the fireball. Why don't you just give up on this one? I have shown you the evidence of this...you just wish to ignore it. And you know what you always say, don't you?

"Even if you ignore the facts it doesn't change the truth. "

 

But still, now that you have basically admitted that the flameball could not have lasted more than 2 to 1 seconds, I think it is now patently ridiculous that you would make the following suggestion as an "experiment" to show why the grass should be scorched:

 

Instead of useing a lighter direct appllied to the grass a better experiment would be to take a can of hairspray and a lighter and burn a patch of grass.. The grass should turn brown it may not catch but apply the hairspary flame "close" for 6 seconds and see if the grass turns brown with in a few hours.

Lovely. Folks: See how he squirms and changes his mind...but can't quite come to admit that there does not HAVE to be scorching on that grass? So right here he is trying to say it is a "valid comparision" to squirt a flamed aerosol at the grass for SIX WHOLE SECONDS, even though above he admits the flameball could not last but "2 to 1" seconds! Allow me to also point out another fallacy for why his "experiment" is disingenuous to the actual fireball: If you are setting fire to an aerosol stream (for SIX seconds, no less!) that is a continuous source of constant pressure that is feeding that fire. Now a flame front in a "BLEVE" explosion (look up the acronym on Wikipedia) does NOT behave like an essentially constant pressure source aerosol flame front. Can anyone guess why? That's right. The BLEVE flame front only has an initial pressure wave that moves outward and that central pressure source DISSIPATES over time... whereas the controlled release of the aerosol can maintains a CONSTANT pressure of the flow. Two completely different forms of pressure phenomenon. So let's recount:

1) SIX seconds for an experiment does NOT match the "2 to 1 second" fireball that actually occurred at the Pentagon.

 

2) A pressurized can of aerosol constantly feeding a flame (for SIX seconds!) does NOT match the fireball pressure conditions at the Pentagon.

 

But now look how after all this screaming and shouting and making fun of the fact that "This fireball did not burn the grass. AMAZING! I wanna use thier fertilizer."... now we see the great titorite squirming yet again, and hedging on what he claims, and NOW he seems to be almost admitting that the grass did NOT have to be scorched... only "browned"...and he also seems to be admitting that it did NOT have to happen immediately, but perhaps over a "couple hours". Look again, right here are his own words!!

 

grass should turn brown it may not catch but apply the hairspary flame "close" for 6 seconds and see if the grass turns brown with in a few hours.

Pay close attention to these words that titorite himself admits! Because as should be obvious, I have now begun my assault on titorite's "last big hope" for showing some sort of "inconsistency" in the Pentagon photos. This ride is just about over, folks. I know some of you have enjoyed (especially some lurkers who have PM'ed me) watching me tear apart his weak arguments and bad assumptions. But we are finally reaching the endgame with titorite's poor approach to investigation.

And you watch.... as I finish my debunking of this last fallacy, you will see him ignore the salient points I make (Just like he is ignoring the FACT that airplane parts were thrown completely clear of the fireball, hence logically they do not need to be sooted). I wonder how he will ignore the facts he has now admitted: The fireball only lasted "2 to 1 seconds", and I wonder how he is going to deny that the grass did NOT have to be scorched black, but that it could actually "turns brown within a few hours."

 

I think I know how he will deal with it. He will resort to his good old, disinfo tactic "#11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions." He can't make anything else stick, so this is his only fall-back position... "but what about WTC7". He will have no more ammunition to "prove a conspiracy" at the Pentagon...so he will have to retreat to his "safe harbor" of WTC7.

 

So now let me complete this reply, before I continue on with my debunking of titorite's last great hope for "inconsistencies" in Pentagon photos with a point:

 

Because titorite has now admitted, via his "experiment", that the grass at the Pentagon did NOT have to be charred black, only turn brown after a couple hours... all I now have to do is show some photos of the Pentagon lawn after the attack where the grass was browned!

 

Of course, he will try to backpedal, and act in a dishonorable manner, and claim that no, it is still inconsistent if there are no black, charred grass. But I will even go further than showing you browned grass. I will provide you CLEAR evidence from not just an experiment, but a real situation, that will show why the grass does NOT have to be charred.

 

I hope you are all ready to see how this final push plays out. It should be enjoyable to some. Let's just call this my last, "colorful" proof that titorite's "inconsistencies" are just a whole bunch of bull dookie!

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

its not about the subject but some distractionary point to draw everyones attention AWAY FROM THE SUBJECT!

OK, let me stay on subject then....the subject being the "Penta-grass" that we are now fully engaged in addressing titorite's bad assumption. Looky here! Look what I have found! Check out these photos of the Penta-lawn:

spacer.png

 

You see, the photo that titorite loves to use with the "golfers welcome" has a problem... it has firefighters spraying a "curtain" of foam in the area...so you cannot really see if the grass is browned in the area behind where the firefighters are spraying. As you can see in the photo above, there actually IS EVIDENCE OF BROWNED GRASS! Imagine that! But wait! There's more!

 

spacer.png

 

And now look at the browned grass on the left side of this photo...interestingly enough, look how it is RIGHT IN FRONT of the zone where the aircraft hit the Pentagon!! AMAZING!

 

spacer.png

 

But now, if you look a page or two back in this thread, you will see how titorite ignored my explanation for how a flameball dynamics progress. He continues to ignore it. I had explained that, just like a hot air balloon where the hot air is lighter than the air around it, a flameball moves UPWARD as well as outward, we can also see evidence that proves this is true. Not only the video evidence which shows that the flame ball grows UPWARD even after it has moved to its outermost extent. But now we have evidence that the intensity of the heat and flame is ALSO more concentrated the higher you get above the ground. Look at how singed and burned this tree is:

 

spacer.png

 

And now let's good a closeup look at this tree, for it will give even more evidence that what I am telling you about fireball dynamics are TRUE!

 

spacer.png

 

So this supports my argument that the intensity of the flame front along the ground is NOT as intense as it is above the ground, and it is CERTAINLY not as intense as a flamed aerosol stream operating for SIX SECONDS "close to the ground".

 

The game is just about up, titorite...I wonder how you will ignore these facts I have provided.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

You know you said you can vote more than once just a little to hasty. You made a bad assumption. Go ahead. Try to vote twice. See what doesn't happen.

A few ways:

1. Delete the cookie they send you when you vote

 

2. Block cookies from that site

 

3. Turn off cookies all together

 

4. Use another browser (firefox, opera) on the same computer

 

5. Use another computer in your house

 

6. Visit your neighbor and use his computer

 

7. Use a web anonymizer that changes your IP each request

 

8. Use a zombie network of 1000 machines to all vote the same way (this one is hard, you have to be a hacker to have one of these)

 

And then there is the fact that you are only asking on the internet and as such, are getting the opinion only of people who are on the internet.

 

Since we don't know who refered people to the vote, we don't know if it was posted to 10,000 conspiracy sites and only 1000 non-conspiracy sites.

 

No survey or vote over a network can be valid without first distributing unique keys per ballot on a different medium than the one holding the vote or survey. Bogz'z principle, copyright 2007.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

Oh I am just getting "warmed up"... pardon the pun! :P

 

Check out this brief video... seems a bit like what titorite was saying. And of course, now that he has backed-down and said the grass ONLY needs to be "brown" and after "a couple hours", he will claim this video is somehow not valid. But is is at least interesting to see the PROOF that the grass would not be scorched black!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARsRVjSm86AOh yes... there is more!!!

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Right here

 

You made a bad assumption.

Wrong again... I checked it out before I said what I said, and saw what you are referring to. But as bogz pointed out, there are any number of ways to "stack the deck" in that non-scientific survey. Bogz covered them all, but I was just going to give a real simple answer:

Go to a public library. Logon to each machine that is there (different IP addresses) and vote from each machine. Repeat at other libraries. So you see, you can't even make the "bad assumption" charge stick on me. (BTW, did you happen to read the scientifically-conducted poll covering these topics that the article you referred to provided a link to? If you look at this scientific poll I think you will find yourself in the minority, esp. when it comes to your belief that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon!) :eek: Foiled again, titorite! Confirmational bias at its worst! :yum:

 

Hmmm.... no response from titorite to my posts on the Penta-lawn... must be that classic disinfo tactic of "vanishing" he is pulling again. ;)

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

Oh I am just getting "warmed up"... pardon the pun! :P

 

Check out this brief video... seems a bit like what titorite was saying. And of course, now that he has backed-down and said the grass ONLY needs to be "brown" and after "a couple hours", he will claim this video is somehow not valid. But is is at least interesting to see the PROOF that the grass would not be scorched black!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARsRVjSm86A

It was brief alright. :D

Actually, the brown areas in the picture you posted above, could be evidence of nothing. Yet - 1 or 2 below make alot of sense, as being possible or more likely causes.

 

The least likely of these is: 1.) Over watering, that caused lawn parasites. 1) Would make sense, if we had a way of knowing what the condition of the penta-lawn was in - prior to the plane crash in that area of the building.

 

or 2.) Gradual heat related thermal damage. 2) this is a byproduct of prolonged exposure to extreme heat in close proximity. The lawn was exposed to extreme heat for up to 1/2 an hour.

 

If I had to make a choice between 1 or 2 - I'd go with 2. Gradual heat related thermal damage has a distinct look, and in the photo you posted above the finding would more likely be consistant with this explanation - as areas beyond it, and around it, seem unremarkable in their appearance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

Hi JL,

 

Actually, the brown areas in the picture you posted above, could be evidence of nothing. Yet - 1 or 2 below make alot of sense, as being possible or more likely causes.

I think I could possibly agree with that. Of course, as you realize, it is my contention that the dynamics of flame fronts in explosions such as this (especially ones that were NOT right at ground level, but slightly above it) does not require that the grass be scorched or even browned. In fact, I have not even begun to talk about the aerodynamic boundary layer concept, which is the precise mechanism that acts to "damp out" lateral velocities close to the surface of the earth (i.e. the "boundary"). I am saving my best evidence until after we hear back from titorite on what I have presented so far (IF we hear back from him!) ;)

I am sure you also understand why I offered these photos... because titorite has sort of painted himself into a corner with his claims and assumptions. First he was screaming it was "inconsistent" that the grass was not scorched black. Now he has changed his stance that perhaps it only has to be browned, and he gave us his alleged experiment that would prove it (not really). So by showing him browned grass, now his claim of "inconsistency" falls apart because he, himself, was saying it should at LEAST be browned.

 

I still maintain that the flame front dynamics of a BLEVE explosion such as this, in this condition with the visual evidence we have, does NOT automatically require that the grass has to be visibly damaged. And in reality, I am being easy on titorite. For honestly, following proper scientific method, the burden would be on him to scientifically establish his claim that the grass should be visibly damaged from the flame. If titorite were submitting his claim in a paper that was to be peer-reviewed by experts in the field (combustion engineers and chemical engineers), they would require at least that he do one of two things:

 

a) Show a mathematical thermobaric model of the subject BLEVE explosion and the boundary layer effects over earth and grass. This model would have to show calculations for heat intensity, pressure, and temperature as a function of distance from the center of the BLEVE and above the boundary surface (the grass)... or

 

b) Provide evidence from experiments of representative, similar tests that would provide direct evidence that his claim is valid. And we have already estbalished (and he has agreed) that the BLEVE flame ball seen on the Pentagon video lasted nowhere near 6 seconds... so his proposed "experiment" would certainly not be accepted by a peer-review panel as "representative" of the actual event at the Pentagon.

 

So titorite is in a bit of a sticky wicket here. He has painted himself into a corner. And there is really little he can do to continue to argue that the Penta-lawn is an "inconsistency".

 

Thanks for the inputs...

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

"I think I could possibly agree with that. Of course, as you realize, it is my contention that the dynamics of flame fronts in explosions such as this (especially ones that were NOT right at ground level, but slightly above it) does not require that the grass be scorched or even browned. "

Agreed. Will be interesting to see it explained.

 

" In fact, I have not even begun to talk about the aerodynamic boundary layer concept, which is the precise mechanism that acts to "damp out" lateral velocities close to the surface of the earth (i.e. the "boundary"). I am saving my best evidence until after we hear back from titorite on what I have presented so far (IF we hear back from him!) "

My sense of Titorite is he's a good Joe. Like a few of us - he's become passionate to the point of becoming hard headed about alot of things that have been discussed here. And much of that comes out of his feeling we're all being dicked around about the events of 9/11 - and I would agree with him -in some ways we are still not, or ever will be told the entire truth (or not for 30 more years.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

RMT YOur second and thrid photo from the top, Same angle same cop car the bottom right hand corner.

 

When you look the left hand corner you see two differnt brown patterns in that grass. What gives? Did you photo shop the photos or did your source of the photos photoshop those photos?

 

Either way you have now begun to add false evidence to your insults and libel.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

Oh yea Also I am not falzon or titorian or darwin murphy or anyone else you wanna accuse me of being RMT. I think your presentation of false evidence and your insults and libel is a testament to your failing argument. People only resort to name calling when they have no other avenue left to the to argue upon.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

Agreed. Will be interesting to see it explained.

Unfortunately, as we can see, titorite is not interested in explaining it. Perhaps because he cannot justify his belief that the grass should be damaged? I can clearly give explanations and even present a video why it should not... but he cannot provide a scientific explanation why it should have been. And what does that say about his argument?

 

My sense of Titorite is he's a good Joe.

I would agree with that if he would simply admit when he is wrong, and stop ignoring the direct evidence I have given him that disputes his claims. I would also agree with this if he DIDN'T start accusing me of libel, and now fraud, when he can no longer defend his bad assumptions. But we now see, as his story has fallen apart, it is now more about focusing on ME rather than focusing on that video showing parts being thrown OUTSIDE the fireball. Notice how he has not addressed it...not even ONCE... since I pointed that out?

 

Like a few of us - he's become passionate to the point of becoming hard headed about alot of things that have been discussed here. And much of that comes out of his feeling we're all being dicked around about the events of 9/11 - and I would agree with him -in some ways we are still not, or ever will be told the entire truth (or not for 30 more years.)

I completely agree with this part, JL. And one of the reasons for showing why it is bad to make accusations that cannot be scientifically vetted is because it actually WORKS AGAINST us in getting the truth. Titorite has constantly asked me why I don't "cross the Rubicon" and move from believing the GOV had foreknowledge to assuming the GOV acted to make these tragedies happen. The reason should now be obvious to someone who looks at reality: There is NO evidence to support going any further than I have. Beyond this, by constantly "banging the drum" as conspiracy theorists do (and IGNORING THE FACTS, when they are cornered just as titorite has), they make themselves and their cause look bad. You have seen the video of Penn & Teller where such people are often looked upon as kooks who continue to insist upon things that no evidence supports.

It is one thing to have a belief that the GOV did it. But it is a whole different aspect when you actively admit to trying to "change people's minds" to match YOUR unfounded belief. THIS is PRECISELY what DAMAGES the effort to GET TO THE TRUTH. Because those of us who believe there is truth that the GOV knew about what was coming on 9-11, but did nothing about it, are often "lumped in" with the nutcases who insist upon the things titorite insists upon. What titorite does not realize, but what is obviously true, is that he is doing more to jeapordize the ability to get to the truth just by continuing to try to "change people's minds" into believing something for which there is NO EVIDENCE. If all these conspiracy theorists would STOP with the extreme accusations which cannot be supported, and simply quiet down and work on the "who knew what, and when?" questions, we might actually push for actions that would result in knowing the answers to these basic questions.

 

I really appreciate your inputs, JL. You are a level-headed person, and I know you can see the points I have made and the evidence I have provided for titorite's claims of inconsistency. It seems you can accept the facts... too bad he cannot.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

And so titorite's entire argument has come down to this:

 

I think your presentation of false evidence and your insults and libel is a testament to your failing argument. People only resort to name calling when they have no other avenue left to the to argue upon.

My failing argument? That is pretty laughable. Folks can obviously see that you are refusing to address the salient points of evidence I have provided against your unfounded claims. The biggest one you do not want to touch is the clear video evidence of airplane parts flying outside the fireball. Interesting that you have not ONCE touched that issue since I showed the evidence. And... so you don't like photos 2 & 3 above? Well what about photo #1? Are you going to now assert that ALL my evidence is "false evidence"? Probably, knowing your games as I do.

And so when he cannot address the evidence that disputes his claims, he starts the road towards accusing me to be "part of the conspiracy" by accusing me of libel and fraud. It is not too long before he will accuse me of being "paid by the government" to come to places like this and make people like him look bad. But you know, the most interesting aspect of when someone accuses someone else of "libel" and "fraud" is whether that person is willing to pursue these accusations legally. I would be happy to give titorite the name and address of my lawyer if he wishes to take me to court and sue me for libel or fraud. It is because I am confident he can't make them stick.

 

Not too many posts ago, titorite was accusing me of not staying on the subject. Now who is not staying on the subject (Pentagon conspiracy)? Instead he has now made ME the subject. And one need only witness this thread to see all the times titorite goaded me on to "answer his issues". Each time he couldn't be patient as I addressed them one at a time... he had to continually goad me and pretend as if I was not going to address them. But did I not address them all? Yes. Yes, I did. Each and every one of them. And I am still addressing them, because I am far from done with his last "Penta-lawn" issue.

 

Titorite has just shared a video. Here is a very interesting video which shows a flamefront progressing along a grass surface. Much like titorite's claim for his video, the most interesting part of this video I am sharing is at the end. Notice that as the cameraman approaches the burning pile, TAKE NOTE that the grass through which the flamefront progressed IS STILL A HEALTHY SHADE OF GREEN!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXKcnR-jgtQ

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: 911 was an inside job

 

RMT you have taken to insults,name calling,libel,false evidence, accusations that I pose as "wanna be" time travelers however, if you can't say those sorts of thing you don't really have freespeech do you? So no, I don't care to sue you or anyone ever over some poor choice words. If I have stopped addressing your posts exactly as you desire its because of your poor choice of words. I have no desire to correspond with a grown man that behaves like an immature teenager.You attempted to put me on a pedestal. I decline.

 

As for your photos... You have presented many unaltered photos but that you would present a "faked" photograph to win your argument really makes me lose interest in what you have to say.

 

Reguards,

 

Titorite

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...