Jump to content

David Icke on planes hitting the towers


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, peter said:

Just because someone doesn't officially join a group means diddly squat with regards to their personal beliefs and as far as the vote on building 7 ,don't you think there are quite a few vested interests at play here , all that says to me is there was 182 people with balls the fact that there were 179 abstentions is telling,why would you abstain from a vote in this instance unless you thought there were certain repercussions you would face

 

Of course, good response. Only if the vote was the other way of course it would be very important.

 

49 minutes ago, peter said:

I didn't say there would be no dust , I asked you how how both buildings would entirely turn to dust during free fall given the official story

 

This claim is not true, the buildings had much rubble. But please explain why explosives, the shape charges you have not explained, cause the dust and billions of joules of downforce do not.

 

49 minutes ago, peter said:

It is not ,that is how controlled demolition is achieved

 

 

The false claim is your terminal velocity insistence.

 

49 minutes ago, peter said:

Yes ,but if you don't look for them considering the way things transpired is an extremely convenient way to get the result you desire , and what diligent investigative organization wouldn't cover all angles if they weren't told too  

 

So now, all ground cleanup people must be told not to look for explosives?  

 

49 minutes ago, peter said:

Tell you why it was demolished ,that's a good question,  I can't   

 

you believe what you want to believe and I will do the same so I will just leave it there

 

No reason for such a demolition. 

 

49 minutes ago, peter said:

Sorry I only have a small laptop and don't have the ability to draw

 

Nice dodge. Shape charges cannot work this way and whether you have big or tiny computer makes no difference to that. No planes is the dumbest idea of them all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TFH said:

 

Err, you've just totally dodged answering my question by answering a question with a red herring. 

 

May I have the intellectually-honest answer to my question, please? 

 

"What's the foundational logic being applied here to reach that more-certain conclusion that the reason explosives weren't considered as a cause is because there weren't any.. when an alternative and equally valid theoretical explanation is that none were looked for?" 

 

I gave Occam's Razor alternative not the speculation alternative you preferred. Best logic of all. The simplest explanation and all things are equal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Doctor What said:

 

I gave Occam's Razor alternative not the speculation alternative you preferred. Best logic of all. The simplest explanation and all things are equal. 

 

 

Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.

 

I asked you to explain why one answer is more or less logical than another and not only did you fail to do that you've also dodged the question with disingenuous tactics. Twice. That's telling.

 

Now you're shifting the goalposts and claiming that all things are equal? No, I'm not accepting smoke & mirrors for an answer.

 

I have taken no position on either explanation. I'm merely questioning your logic behind that one claim.

 

The point here is that 'no explosives being factored in' is explained equally by there being none planted OR because none were looked for. The end result is identical, which gives no greater or lesser value to either premise (your original claim that I'm questioning stated otherwise).

 

Both inputs would produce precisely the same output (that being no explosives were given as a causal factor).

 

IOW your version is of no lesser or greater (as you claimed) of a reason.

 

That's the point. 

 

Edited by TFH
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Doctor What said:

So now, all ground cleanup people must be told not to look for explosives?  

 

 

Since when did cleanup crews look for evidence of explosives? 

 

Firstly that's the job of forensic examiners, and secondly why would you expect to find explosives in the rubble after they've been exploded? 

 

Your logic is full of holes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Doctor What said:

 

 

 

 

Nice dodge. Shape charges cannot work this way and whether you have big or tiny computer makes no difference to that. No planes is the dumbest idea of them all.

 

I didn't say there were no planes ,you are now resorting to the flat earth style of debate

 

 

Sorry oh loud one I couldn't help it 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, peter said:

I didn't say there were no planes ,you are now resorting to the flat earth style of debate

 

Sorry oh loud one I couldn't help it 😂

 

This is the OP subject, if you make a statement of support for explosives - shape charges - then why is it wrong to assume you support the reason for these? Explain how these are placed to blow building columns inwards direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TFH said:

Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.

 

 

Calm down. The idea that no explosives evidences were found is best explained that none were present than none looked for. If you think this untrue, then you think this untrue. No difference to me.

 

53 minutes ago, TFH said:

I asked you to explain why one answer is more or less logical than another and not only did you fail to do that you've also dodged the question with disingenuous tactics. Twice. That's telling.

 

I explained with simple statements. Nothing in my explanations is disingenuous - no pretence is there of less understanding than given. You have failed yo read simple words. That is telling.

 

53 minutes ago, TFH said:

Now you're shifting the goalposts and claiming that all things are equal? No, I'm not accepting smoke & mirrors for an answer.

 

 

This is not shifting goalposts - have you learned some new expressions for use and want to put them all in one post?  Your opinions are your opinions, they do not happen to be mine. I do not accept your claims of smoke and mirrors and say to you that billions of joules of falling energy doesn't need to be explosives.

 

53 minutes ago, TFH said:

I have taken no position on either explanation. I'm merely questioning your logic behind that one claim.

 

 

Yes indeed you have. You are not questioning logic but jumping up and down in a big huff because my opinion is different. 

 

53 minutes ago, TFH said:

The point here is that 'no explosives being factored in' is explained equally by there being none planted OR because none were looked for. The end result is identical, which gives no greater or lesser value to either premise (your original claim that I'm questioning stated otherwise).

 

 

 

Here are the posting for my original claim:

Peter says: The reason they didn't find explosives was not because there were or weren't any there they didn't even look for them (admitted by the official investigation team)

My claim is: Or even simpler, there was no explosives. 

 

It is far simpler and is given as simpler alternative.

 

53 minutes ago, TFH said:

Both inputs would produce precisely the same output (that being no explosives were given as a causal factor).

 

But the less simpler one requiring INVESTIGATORS to be told to ignore this if found. Your favourite explanation is speculation - mine is logic. All things being equal - this is passenger jets hit the building and fires make floors bow and building collapses. Unequal is being explosives must be place on floors where fires raging and aircraft strikes. 

 

 

53 minutes ago, TFH said:

IOW your version is of no lesser or greater (as you claimed) of a reason. That's the point. 

 

 

I have no need to make my version as precious to defend as you seem to think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TFH said:

Since when did cleanup crews look for evidence of explosives? Firstly that's the job of forensic examiners,

 

 

This is what I meant - I take your correction.

 

1 hour ago, TFH said:

and secondly why would you expect to find explosives in the rubble after they've been exploded? 

 

What?? So you defending your alternative for no explosives but then tell me nobody would find them which is what I said?!  

 

1 hour ago, TFH said:

Your logic is full of holes. 

 

You don't have any logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doctor What said:

 

Calm down. The idea that no explosives evidences were found is best explained that none were present than none looked for. If you think this untrue, then you think this untrue. No difference to me.

 

 

I explained with simple statements. Nothing in my explanations is disingenuous - no pretence is there of less understanding than given. You have failed yo read simple words. That is telling.

 

 

This is not shifting goalposts - have you learned some new expressions for use and want to put them all in one post?  Your opinions are your opinions, they do not happen to be mine. I do not accept your claims of smoke and mirrors and say to you that billions of joules of falling energy doesn't need to be explosives.

 

 

Yes indeed you have. You are not questioning logic but jumping up and down in a big huff because my opinion is different. 

 

 

 

Here are the posting for my original claim:

Peter says: The reason they didn't find explosives was not because there were or weren't any there they didn't even look for them (admitted by the official investigation team)

My claim is: Or even simpler, there was no explosives. 

 

It is far simpler and is given as simpler alternative.

 

 

But the less simpler one requiring INVESTIGATORS to be told to ignore this if found. Your favourite explanation is speculation - mine is logic. All things being equal - this is passenger jets hit the building and fires make floors bow and building collapses. Unequal is being explosives must be place on floors where fires raging and aircraft strikes. 

 

 

 

I have no need to make my version as precious to defend as you seem to think.

 

You're the only egregiously manipulative and dishonest person I've seen post on the forum so far. 

 

Noted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doctor What said:

 

This is what I meant - I take your correction.

 

 

What?? So you defending your alternative for no explosives but then tell me nobody would find them which is what I said?!  

 

 

You don't have any logic.

 

Once again, manipulation and dishonesty don't qualify as a response. 

 

You've been dodging addressing the fallacies in your posts throughout the thread, from several of us. 

 

Again, noted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Basket Case said:


l'm not denying the artists being there 'unsupervised' is a huge red flag...
But as Dr What pointed out...the dancing lsraelis that were arrested (and released) were not the artists.
 

 

They were never dancing - Thats a red herring

 

They were seen filming (as were many others) but as they looked a bit light brown and Muslimy somebody embellished the story .

 

Rather than proof of Mossad involvement its proof of an anti Muslim undercurrent in the US

Edited by Eldnah
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TFH said:

 

Since when did cleanup crews look for evidence of explosives? 

 

Firstly that's the job of forensic examiners, and secondly why would you expect to find explosives in the rubble after they've been exploded? 

 

There would be chemical traces of explosives in some of the debris ranging from covering a small amount of debris if were going with the explosion around impact to an absolute fuckton for a controlled demolition.

 

Whether any would be found is another matter  -  Would the subsequent fire have burnt it up entirely ? Never mind the sheer volume of debris, making it extremely difficult to identify what was near the impact site, without first testing it for that.

 

Personally I would not have  been suprised to learn no examination was made of the building debris for explosive residue - but some aircraft wreckage had been in order to determine if explosives had been smuggled aboard 

 

Quote

 

Your logic is full of holes. 

I cant delete the above without it deleting my reply

Edited by Eldnah
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TFH said:

You're the only egregiously manipulative and dishonest person I've seen post on the forum so far. 

 

Noted. 

 

Very odd person. Noted. I am now sure you have learned some forum phrases and are using them all together - big shame you are not understanding any of them

 

Of course you will never supply examples for your hot air rant.

 

6 hours ago, TFH said:

Once again, manipulation and dishonesty don't qualify as a response. You've been dodging addressing the fallacies in your posts throughout the thread, from several of us. Again, noted. 

 

I laugh at you including yourself in list of fallacies dodged. But since you are all upset list me all or some of the fallacies an I shall make you happy with replies. I say you are lying there are not any fallacies to address. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eldnah said:

 

They were never dancing - Thats a red herring

 

They were seen filming (as were many others) but as they looked a bit light brown and Muslimy somebody embellished the story .

 

Rather than proof of Mossad involvement its proof of an anti Muslim undercurrent in the US

 

That might have been the original motive for reporting them to the police but they turned out to be Israelis.. 

 

And while not exactly 'dancing' there were reportedly jumping around and 'celebrating' something.. 

BC 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Eldnah said:

 

There would be chemical traces of explosives in some of the debris ranging from covering a small amount of debris if were going with the explosion around impact to an absolute fuckton for a controlled demolition.

 

Whether any would be found is another matter  -  Would the subsequent fire have burnt it up entirely ? Never mind the sheer volume of debris, making it extremely difficult to identify what was near the impact site, without first testing it for that.

 

Personally I would not have  been suprised to learn no examination was made of the building debris for explosive residue - but some aircraft wreckage had been in order to determine if explosives had been smuggled aboard 

 

 

 

I'm not actually arguing the issue either way, as I don't know how the towers came down, I was just pointing out that the 2nd guy was using fallacious argumentation to try and con the 1st guy. 💚

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doctor What said:

 

Very odd person. Noted. I am now sure you have learned some forum phrases and are using them all together - big shame you are not understanding any of them

 

Of course you will never supply examples for your hot air rant.

 

 

I laugh at you including yourself in list of fallacies dodged. But since you are all upset list me all or some of the fallacies an I shall make you happy with replies. I say you are lying there are not any fallacies to address. 

 

You've already shown that you're a bad-faith actor in this thread.

 

Continuing to engage with you on a serious level would be an exercise in catering to a sealioner. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TFH said:

You've already shown that you're a bad-faith actor in this thread.

 

Continuing to engage with you on a serious level would be an exercise in catering to a sealioner. 

 

Of course you will never supply examples for your hot air rant.  Ad hominem arguing is the lowest form of rant.

 

9 minutes ago, TFH said:

I'm not actually arguing the issue either way, as I don't know how the towers came down, I was just pointing out that the 2nd guy was using fallacious argumentation to try and con the 1st guy. 💚

 

 

You pointed out a failure of logic. On two options: Option 1 is claimed no explosives were looked for. Option 2 is none were found.

 

Option 1 is involving instruction for investigators to avoid to look for them, even though as shown by @Eldnah, possibly explosive on jets can be used. Now we need people to be deceptive in covering up findings. Option 2 has no problems. NIST paper advises such search was carried out, so your "neutral" choice makes the authors as liars. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Doctor What said:

 

Of course you will never supply examples for your hot air rant.  Ad hominem arguing is the lowest form of rant.

 

 

You pointed out a failure of logic. On two options: Option 1 is claimed no explosives were looked for. Option 2 is none were found.

 

Option 1 is involving instruction for investigators to avoid to look for them, even though as shown by @Eldnah, possibly explosive on jets can be used. Now we need people to be deceptive in covering up findings. Option 2 has no problems. NIST paper advises such search was carried out, so your "neutral" choice makes the authors as liars. 

 

 

 

Are you still trying to get me to bite on the sealion hide? 

 

Nah. I gave you three opportunities for an honest exchange already, so you can talk to yourself now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TFH said:

Are you still trying to get me to bite on the sealion hide? Nah. I gave you three opportunities for an honest exchange already, so you can talk to yourself now

 

This suits me. Your rants are noise for the viewers - examples not provided as expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Basket Case said:

 

That might have been the original motive for reporting them to the police but they turned out to be Israelis.. 

 

And while not exactly 'dancing' there were reportedly jumping around and 'celebrating' something.. 

BC 

 

Yes thats my whole point 

The person reporting them - assumed they were muslim then embellished the story 

 

Which brings us to the point that the claim they were dancing / celebrating is erroneous and stems not from their actions but the anti muslim hysteria of the individual who reported them for being brown.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A sick illusion generates smaller sick illusions within itself. It also tries to take credit(or counterfeit) for that which is not of insanity, and not of itself, deceiving those that believe, and thereby entrapping them in the delusion that something is what it is not, and never will be. REAL.

 

Blackmagic Design.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...