You are verging on Dolph territory here. No, AcidHell2 will never conclusively prove what happened and niether will you. The evidence we have on the scenario allows us to draw conclusions. A lack of evidence does not, not by anything other than mindless speculation.
NIST admits freefall speed
- Thread starter gillywibble
- Start date
You are verging on Dolph territory here. No, AcidHell2 will never conclusively prove what happened and niether will you. The evidence we have on the scenario allows us to draw conclusions. A lack of evidence does not, not by anything other than mindless speculation.
OMFG whats wrong with you?
are you taking acid? thats the whole point Nist did not go all the
way down to the ground just to what you saw..
its not hard...
THATS YOUR MAIN MAN THERE Nist ...
exactly..
You're asking us to prove a negative. That's illogical. It makes about as much sense as me saying to you "Conclusively 100% disprove the involvement of alien life forms in the WTC collapse". You couldn't do that, could you? Of course you couldn't.
But let's humour you for a moment.
Can you tell us what conditions are required in order for your request to be fulfilled? What would it take to "conclusively 100% disprove the use of explosives in the WTC collapse"? Give us a list of criteria to meet.
Of course, what you should really be doing is providing evidence which proves that the official explanation is not correct. But you're not doing this. You have not even attempted to do it. You've simply said "Well, it could have been explosives" without making any attempt to explain how it could have been explosives. That's just a complete waste of our time.
But you have already agreed they could not simulate that due to the massive amounts of variables. You can't have it both ways. You agreed with me that they could not simulate the entire collapse, now you saying that because they didn't they are hiding stuff. Which one is it?
THE SAME aaaarrrrrrrrr
whats the same...hmmmm the wall are like floors but the wrong way around? you sure you ant tripping?
I am being open minded and putting one against the other.
Oh and if you ever get someone to paint your wall dont worry if he paints
your floor instead because as you say "They are essentially the same"
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,979
- Location
- Way up High.
I bet v v v very few people on this forum have no official training in what they are spouting...
What i should really be doing is polishing up my english or learning better ways to put forth my opinions, not to sit here and have to write something a differnt way to satisfy yourself.
but as its so important to you, the terms are;
Unless anyone can prove that controlled demolitions where not used in WTC collapse, please do not laugh at others opinions.
altho this is probably pointless as no doubt somebody else will find another peice of poor grammar to qoute and twist to mean soemthing else
hahaha, didnt even realise that lol
one's saying eh floors failed, the other is saying because teh floors failed it pulled the main supporting columns out.
And can you stop on the whole acid stuff, I've never even tried it.
Not really - I have a broad, but not in depth knowledge, whereas several people have demonstrated a very indepth knowledge of specific areas, but complete lack of knowledge in other areas and are completely dismissive of these areas.
My turn...
show me where it says that in there report because as you back
one or all of them you have read them.
tbh I'm not perticaly interested in it. it was for an insurance claim, not for an investigation into the building and if changes to building designs need to be made.
But if you post the relevant info rather than a 2 line quote with no links, then I'll have a read.
How about you read back through this thread, or the other big thread. Or if you post some evidence for a CT then I'll post what you ask for, as I'm pretty fed up of posting reports, quotes and links, which you jsut totally ignore. when all I get back is mindless dribble with no supporting evidence.
Again: this is not a list of criteria. You haven't told me what will satisfy your requirements. Under what conditions could I possibly meet the demand? What would it take to prove that controlled demolitions were not used in the WTC collapse?
altho this is probably pointless as no doubt somebody else will find another peice of poor grammar to qoute and twist to mean soemthing else
You're missing the point. The point is that you're asking me to prove a negative, and you haven't told me what evidence will satisfy you. I am asking you what it would take to prove the point. What sort of evidence or proof are you looking for? What do I have to produce?
I am not asking you to write in a different way; I am simply asking you to be specific.
Also: can you prove that aliens weren't involved in the WTC collapse? Can you prove that the Russians weren't involved? Can you prove that the Chinese weren't involved? Can you prove that the Australians weren't involved?
Can you?