ANZACs and war and stuff

**Madness** · 29th May 2013, 21:21

Originally Posted by Hinny

Ed's debunking theory proof:
1/ The towers could not have been blown up as it would have taken tens of thousands of tonnes of explosives to do it.

Ed's reason for the towers coming down:
2/ An aeroplane flew into the building and the kerosene caught on fire causing global collapse.

If the towers came down because of a kerosene fire, does that not then put a lie to the first statement?
ie. If the second statement is true then the first cannot be true.
Equally, if the towers needed tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosive to demolish them then the second statement must be false.
You can't have it both ways.

Simple logic.

Makes perfect sense to me. In fact I think you'd have to be a bit thick (as pig shit) not to grasp the point you've made there.

**Hinny** · 29th May 2013, 21:33

Originally Posted by Ocean1

I did. Just for you.

The two statements still refuse to contradict each other. You're still wrong.

I'll try again; just for you.

The building fell down without explosives being used.

The building would have needed tens of thousands of tons of high explosives to bring it down.

Clearly if statement one is correct then statement two cannot be correct.

The confusion may lie in me not elucidating the fact that the explosives were assumed to be used in conjunction with the aeroplane crash.

Better?

**Ocean1** · 29th May 2013, 21:46

Originally Posted by Hinny

I'll try again; just for you.

The building fell down without explosives being used.

The building would have needed tens of thousands of tons of high explosives to bring it down.

Clearly if statement one is correct then statement two cannot be correct.

The confusion may lie in me not elucidating the fact that the explosives were assumed to be used in conjunction with the aeroplane crash.

Better?

No.

Assume, for a moment, (and I understand this might be difficult) that something other than an explosive device caused the building to fall down. A spontaneous existence failure of several steel columns, say.

Now, magically both statements are perfectly correct, no?

If not then try step #1 again...

**Kickaha** · 29th May 2013, 23:15

Originally Posted by Hinny

If you are referring to the destruction of 'the Grand Chancellor' building then you must surely have noticed the similarity in the way that building and WTC7 came down.

I didn't notice a huge mechanical arm, diggers and other assorted demoliton equipment being used for WTC7, so no I didn't see any similarity at all
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6882...and-Chancellor

**Crasherfromwayback** · 30th May 2013, 01:29

Yeah...it's like...

http://usahitman.com/dwccbctmi/

**Edbear** · 30th May 2013, 07:18

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

Yeah...it's like...

http://usahitman.com/dwccbctmi/

When anyone refuses to acknowledge proven and verifiable facts and proceeds to oversimplify their argument ignoring the actual sequence of events they are of questionable mental capacity.

It has been clearly proven that explosives were not used, that commercial aircraft were used in all four incidents.

These proven facts are consistently denied by conspiracy theorists.

What more can be said?

**Katman** · 30th May 2013, 07:44

Originally Posted by Edbear

It has been clearly proven that explosives were not used, that commercial aircraft were used in all four incidents.

What more can be said?

Remember Building 7?

**oneofsix** · 30th May 2013, 07:49

Originally Posted by Katman

Remember Building 7?

Yeah, Building 7 had the guts knocked out of it by Building 1 and set on fire from the side not in the video, the video shows an empty shell collapsing. So your point is?

**Katman** · 30th May 2013, 08:21

Originally Posted by oneofsix

Yeah, Building 7 had the guts knocked out of it by Building 1 and set on fire from the side not in the video, the video shows an empty shell collapsing. So your point is?

It certainly didn't have the guts knocked out of it and the fires were certainly not consuming the building.

The reality is that very little of the official story has been conclusively proven.

The 911 Commission offered no proof of anything (and interestingly, totally ignored the collapse of Building 7) while NIST (a government agency) have been repeatedly shown to have displayed highly questionable methods of investigation.

What is needed is an entirely independent investigation.

Trouble is, that would cost a fortune to carry out - and you can bet that the government won't be offering up any funding.

**Katman** · 30th May 2013, 08:51

Originally Posted by Edbear

When anyone refuses to acknowledge proven and verifiable facts......

What has been proven and verified about the collapse of Building 7?

NIST have simply given an explanation and said "trust us, our computer simulation proved it". Trouble is, they refuse to offer up for independent verification, their method of working this out .

As I've said before Ed, governments love people like you. You'll accept any story that's offered as an official explanation without the slightest murmur.

That's a classic sign of government control.

**Edbear** · 30th May 2013, 09:02

Another notable symptom of conspiracy illness is the refusal to look at all the evidence and focus on one thing in a belief that one relatively minor inonsistency renders everything questionable. Consistently accusing those of sounder mind of being brainwashed by the Govt.

And as I have pointed out before, only conspiracy websites will tell the truth no matter how often they and their so-called experts are proved wrong. Remember how insistent was the expert opinion that claimed a specific type of missile was used against the Pentagon and definitely was not an aircraft? Claiming the video evidence as proof?

**Katman** · 30th May 2013, 09:05

Originally Posted by Edbear

Claiming the video evidence as proof?

Where's the video evidence that it was a plane?

**Katman** · 30th May 2013, 09:07

Originally Posted by Edbear

Another notable symptom of conspiracy illness is the refusal to look at all the evidence and focus on one thing in a belief that one relatively minor inonsistency renders everything questionable.

I would hardly call the collapse of Building 7 "one relatively minor inconsistency".

If there are dodgy dealings going on with regard to Building 7 it most certainly calls into question the whole official version of events of that day.

**oneofsix** · 30th May 2013, 09:12

Originally Posted by Katman

It certainly didn't have the guts knocked out of it and the fires were certainly not consuming the building.

The reality is that very little of the official story has been conclusively proven.

The 911 Commission offered no proof of anything (and interestingly, totally ignored the collapse of Building 7) while NIST (a government agency) have been repeatedly shown to have displayed highly questionable methods of investigation.

What is needed is an entirely independent investigation.

Trouble is, that would cost a fortune to carry out - and you can bet that the government won't be offering up any funding.

That pics post earlier show the guts knocked out of it and the fires consuming the building but because they came from a site that debunked the conspiracy they have to be wrong according to your dogma, don't they? Even though the conspiracy can't refute them by putting up pics of that side of the building without the 10 floors missing.
The Conspiracy theory mentions the fire service not actively fighting the fires and then extends this to mean there were no fire personal to be pulled out of the building therefore the fire chief's comment about pulling it must mean demolition

not actively fighting the fires because there is no water due to building 1 & 2 taking out the supply doesn't mean fire people weren't there trying to rescue people etc.

Keeping a disbelieving eye on TPTB is recommended but muddying the waters with fantasy is Hollywood's job and tends to provide cover for their real conspiracies.