Are All of These People Crazy?

camlok · Oct 25, 2017

jimbo said:
Exactly. I'm not wasting my time looking for evidence to support your 20 yo conspiracy theory. I'm busy finding out something about how a watch works.

That's just one of the usual lame responses. How come you don't already know of this "evidence"? You're telling us you have been blaming alleged hijackers and you don't even have a lick of evidence.

Isn't that prima facie evidence for a totally brainwashed individual?

How uninformed are you? It's not 20 years.

gamolon · Oct 26, 2017

camlok said:
And you folks do it with fervor, but like all people supporting a fantasy, you have an impossible task. You can't create evidence for a fable, so you don't even try, you just use distractions and diversions to move the discussions away from the science and the actual events.

Is that why you ran from the other thread where you started discussing the "missile nose" coming out of the tower? You claim was completely destroyed and you ran. What about the Russ Wittenberg debacle you keep bringing up? I showed you multiple times that what he claims was wrong and you just ignore it. How about your claims of molten molybdenum being present at the site? That complete garbage. You are basing that on there being molybdenum microspheres in the dust correct? Was there a study done on those spheres to shows they formed the day of 9/11? How do you know they weren't formed by torches when the towers were built?

You talk a big game, but when it comes to backing up your claims or debating in a rational manner, you are seriously lacking.

So how about it camlok? How about you put your big boy pants on and debate like an adult? Respond to Russ's incorrect statements. Show me how you know those molybdenum spheres were from the day of 9/11. Stop running from the "missile nose" debate.

Thoreau72 · Oct 26, 2017

camlok said:
Then it should be very simple, jimbo, provide some evidence that supports the USGOCT.

He cannot, and he knows it. 16 years later the bluff is painfully obvious.

gamolon · Oct 26, 2017

Thoreau72 said:
He cannot, and he knows it. 16 years later the bluff is painfully obvious.

The irony is strong with this one...

Deuce · Oct 26, 2017

There's no evidence! Except for the video of planes crashing into buildings, video of them collapsing, etc. There's no evidence at the Pentagon, except for the giant hole in the side of the building and the airplane parts strewn about.

mike2810 · Oct 26, 2017

Thoreau72 said:
He cannot, and he knows it. 16 years later the bluff is painfully obvious.

Ask cam to provide evidence of the missile being used on one of the towers. Only evidence he has post is a frame from a clip of a dust cloud.

Quag · Oct 26, 2017

Deuce said:
There's no evidence! Except for the video of planes crashing into buildings, video of them collapsing, etc. There's no evidence at the Pentagon, except for the giant hole in the side of the building and the airplane parts strewn about.

And the DNA, RADAR tapes, ATC tapes, etc....

But truthers, they have "DA TRUTH" which translates to no evidence just fear and hatred of the ebil US govt.

Quag · Oct 26, 2017

mike2810 said:
Ask cam to provide evidence of the missile being used on one of the towers. Only evidence he has post is a frame from a clip of a dust cloud.

Cam doesnt do evidence or science, he is all about lies and insults
You know typical truther

camlok · Oct 26, 2017

gamolon said:
Is that why you ran from the other thread where you started discussing the "missile nose" coming out of the tower? You claim was completely destroyed and you ran. What about the Russ Wittenberg debacle you keep bringing up? I showed you multiple times that what he claims was wrong and you just ignore it.

There are multiple, myriad pilots that say the same thing. And yet you are advancing the preposterous notion that YOU some unknown guy, with zero expertise, a guy known full well as a distractor, a diversionist, a liar, in short a USGOCT conspiracy theorist, the folks who never provide an evidence, who can't provide any evidence.

Pull the other one, gamolon.

How about your claims of molten molybdenum being present at the site? That complete garbage. You are basing that on there being molybdenum microspheres in the dust correct? Was there a study done on those spheres to shows they formed the day of 9/11? How do you know they weren't formed by torches when the towers were built?

See what an avid liar you are. They are not my claims of molten molybdenum. This is illustrative of just how patently dishonest you USGOCT conspiracy theorists are. You make phony claims to "have turned over a new leaf - "I want to discuss the issues in an adult like manner" - pure piffle from you and your fellow USGOCT conspiracy theorists. You always support your fellow conspiracy theorists' cat calls and childish behaviors.

Still more remarkable, the Jones group reported, was a spherule found in the dust that was not mentioned in USGS’s “Particle Atlas,” and which was obtained only through an FOIA request, namely, “a molybdenum-rich spherule,” which had been observed and studied by the USGS team. This information is remarkable, because molybdenum (Mo) is “known for its extremely high melting point”: 2,623°C (4,753°F). [30] The presence of this molybdenum-rich spherules in the WTC dust was not mentioned by NIST, although it could have learned about it from the article by the Jones group or directly from the USGS.

Point TT-6: The Claim That There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC Buildings | Consensus 911

camlok · Oct 26, 2017

Quag said:
Cam doesnt do evidence or science, he is all about lies and insults
You know typical truther

Another zero evidence post from an avid USGOCT conspiracy theorist. Good job, Quag. See what I spoke of, gamolon, you folks are nothing but diversionists, background noise distractors, ... .

That is so odd, don't you USGOCT conspiracy theorists think, always zero evidence from a conspiracy theory that supposedly has so much evidence, and you guys just can't seem to locate any. That is so out of this world silly that it is amazing you have the guts to continue showing your faces.

camlok · Oct 26, 2017

mike2810 said:
Ask cam to provide evidence of the missile being used on one of the towers. Only evidence he has post is a frame from a clip of a dust cloud.

An outright lie, mike. Why you guys continue to deny reality amazes. Carry on with your delusions.

The following, with sharp edges, a distinct cylindrical shape, a round nose is a "debris cloud".

Highly illustrative of the lengths that USGOCT conspiracy theorists will go to advance their totally empty of evidence conspiracy theory.

camlok · Oct 26, 2017

Thoreau72 said:
He cannot, and he knows it. 16 years later the bluff is painfully obvious.

jimbo is no different from any of the other USGOCT conspiracy theorists like gamolon, mike, Quag, zyzygy, ... who always have always zero evidence posts for the USGOCT.

Just diversions and distractions, inane, nonsensical questions about the scientists, architects, engineers, physicists who have put out voluminous studies that clearly show the USGOCT conspiracy theorists' bags are totally empty.

No one knows any of their "experts'" names because they are all too frightened to bring forward any "evidence" from their "experts". How much more sarcasm can one put on the words "USGOCT evidence" - it's totally nonexistent!!

mike2810 · Oct 26, 2017

camlok said:
An outright lie, mike. Why you guys continue to deny reality amazes. Carry on with your delusions.

The following, with sharp edges, a distinct cylindrical shape, a round nose is a "debris cloud".

Highly illustrative of the lengths that USGOCT conspiracy theorists will go to advance their totally empty of evidence conspiracy theory.

View attachment 67224320

You really should get your eyes checked. What other sources besides the misinterpreted photo you post of the dust cloud.?

So cam. lay it out for us. You claim it was a controlled demolition of the towers. One of them was hit by a missile, yet military nanothermite was used.

What role did the missile play in the demolition of the tower? Provide an example of any other controlled demolition where the building was hit by a missile and nanothermite was used.

Thoreau72 · Oct 26, 2017

camlok said:
jimbo is no different from any of the other USGOCT conspiracy theorists like gamolon, mike, Quag, zyzygy, ... who always have always zero evidence posts for the USGOCT.

Just diversions and distractions, inane, nonsensical questions about the scientists, architects, engineers, physicists who have put out voluminous studies that clearly show the USGOCT conspiracy theorists' bags are totally empty.

No one knows any of their "experts'" names because they are all too frightened to bring forward any "evidence" from their "experts". How much more sarcasm can one put on the words "USGOCT evidence" - it's totally nonexistent!!

I will go one step further--what facts and evidence there is, what facts and evidence that have not been destroyed, hidden away or suppressed, all work against the official story. They contradict the official story.

No airplanes where there were supposed to be, wrong airplanes where there were any, molten iron in the belly for 3 months and toxic air consistent with that, major political cover-up as demonstrated by The Jersey Girls and their Press For Truth documentary. And many more.

gamolon · Oct 26, 2017

camlok said:
See what an avid liar you are. They are not my claims of molten molybdenum.

They're NOT your claims?

camlok said:
I just want to get it absolutely clear from you folks that you have never heard of the molten steel, vaporized steel, vaporized lead, molten molybdenum, all found at WTC.

camlok said:
you deny molten molybdenum,

camlok said:
The existence of molten metals; steel, molybdenum, iron at WTC

camlok said:
Molten and vaporized steel tells us that, as does the molten molybdenum, the vaporized lead, the almost 6% of WTC dust being made up by iron microspheres, one of the products of the nanothermite found at WTC.

camlok said:
And the molten molybdenum, vaporized lead, the voluminous iron microspheres, the product of the nanothermite.

Can you show me where in the link you keep supplying that they observed molten molybdenum at the WTC site?
Point TT-6: The Claim That There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC Buildings | Consensus 911

I don't see anyone saying they observed molten molybdenum do you? Go ahead. Do a search on "molten molybdenum" in that article. I see them saying they found molybdenum spheres. I don't see them saying they were created on 9/11 do you? They were created by torches when the towers were built.

And I'm the liar...

:lamo

gamolon · Oct 26, 2017

camlok said:
An outright lie, mike. Why you guys continue to deny reality amazes. Carry on with your delusions.

The following, with sharp edges, a distinct cylindrical shape, a round nose is a "debris cloud".

Highly illustrative of the lengths that USGOCT conspiracy theorists will go to advance their totally empty of evidence conspiracy theory.

View attachment 67224320

Where is that "sharp edges, a distinct cylindrical shape, a round nose" shape in the video I posted? I asked you to point it out with a time stamp. Is that why you ran away?

mike2810 · Oct 26, 2017

Thoreau72 said:
I will go one step further--what facts and evidence there is, what facts and evidence that have not been destroyed, hidden away or suppressed, all work against the official story. They contradict the official story.

No airplanes where there were supposed to be, wrong airplanes where there were any, molten iron in the belly for 3 months and toxic air consistent with that, major political cover-up as demonstrated by The Jersey Girls and their Press For Truth documentary. And many more.

T72, is the photo that cam keeps posting (post 86) evidence of a missile? Yes or No.

camlok · Oct 26, 2017

mike2810 said:
You really should get your eyes checked. What other sources besides the misinterpreted photo you post of the dust cloud.?

Are you saying the cylindrical object with the round nose cone in the picture is a cloud of debris, mike?

View attachment 67224320[/QUOTE]

mike2810 said:
So cam. lay it out for us. You claim it was a controlled demolition of the towers. One of them was hit by a missile, yet military nanothermite was used.

What role did the missile play in the demolition of the tower? Provide an example of any other controlled demolition where the building was hit by a missile and nanothermite was used.

Science, not to mention ordinary common sense, is far far beyond you, mike. Your connections are illogical and unscientific and if your reading comprehension is actually this bad, you have no business engaging in these types of discussions.

Or the alternative, which is much much worse because it highlights how you are engaging in the rankest dishonesty possible.

camlok · Oct 26, 2017

Thoreau72 said:
I will go one step further--what facts and evidence there is, what facts and evidence that have not been destroyed, hidden away or suppressed, all work against the official story. They contradict the official story.

No airplanes where there were supposed to be, wrong airplanes where there were any, molten iron in the belly for 3 months and toxic air consistent with that, major political cover-up as demonstrated by The Jersey Girls and their Press For Truth documentary. And many more.

Correct, Thoreau. All the USGOCT conspiracy theorists do is throw up dust, create inane and meaningless distractions. They never EVER provide any actual evidence for their conspiracy theory, the USGOCT.

Here we are 16 years later and Gordon Ross's words, below, as as true as ever.

As the Scottish engineer, Gordon Ross has so eloquently said,

"If I say that the WTC towers were brought down by means other than the aircraft impacts and the consequent fires then it would be perfectly acceptable for anyone to ask for the evidence and reasoning behind this belief. By exactly the same reasoning, exactly the same question can be asked of those who believe that the towers were brought down by the impacts and fires.

Yet here we are, more than seven years later, and not one single person has shown one single piece of physical or visual evidence that supports this latter claim. No detailed scenario of events exists, no meaningful theory of fire-caused collapse exists and no sensible explanations have been given for the very many unusual events which occurred immediately prior to and during the collapses themselves.

In contrast to this desert of information, the claim that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition has a wealth of accompanying argument. There are many pieces of evidence, all of which can easily be fitted into a meaningful explanation that shows a logical train of events and giving cause and effect for each of those evidential instances." Gordon Ross, BSc ME, M.Eng

camlok · Oct 26, 2017

mike2810 said:
T72, is the photo that cam keeps posting (post 86) evidence of a missile? Yes or No.

You needn't answer mike's lame distraction because I am not advancing evidence for a missile, Thoreau. It's only mike's usual pointed, purposeful distractions aimed at taking the focus off his zero evidence USGOCT.

camlok · Oct 26, 2017

gamolon said:
Where is that "sharp edges, a distinct cylindrical shape, a round nose" shape in the video I posted? I asked you to point it out with a time stamp. Is that why you ran away?

Done long ago, when I first posted the video with the object with sharp edges, a distinct cylindrical shape, a round nose, gamolon.

After you acknowledge or deny that the object in the photo has or does not have sharp edges, a distinct cylindrical shape, a round nose can we move to the video. Which I will happily do.

View attachment 67224320

While you are at it, please explain how the object with sharp edges, a distinct cylindrical shape, a round nose looks anything like the actual debris clouds in the same photo.

camlok · Oct 26, 2017

gamolon said:
I don't see them saying they were created on 9/11 do you? They were created by torches when the towers were built.

And I'm the liar...

:lamo

Yes, you are the liar, gamolon. You have lied multiple times here by trying to advance the ludicrous notion that I am personally advancing the molten molybdenum found at WTC. It's just another of the myriad USGOCT conspiracy theorists' planned diversions and distractions.

If you are really so incompetent that you cannot find the information in that short and highly concise link, then there is no hope at all for you.

gamolon · Oct 26, 2017

camlok said:
Yes, you are the liar, gamolon. You have lied multiple times here by trying to advance the ludicrous notion that I am personally advancing the molten molybdenum found at WTC.

You're not advancing it? You post that claim here all the time and argue that there was molten molybdenum on site. How is that NOT advancing it?

:lamo

camlok said:
It's just another of the myriad USGOCT conspiracy theorists' planned diversions and distractions.

:roll:

camlok said:
If you are really so incompetent that you cannot find the information in that short and highly concise link, then there is no hope at all for you.

I searched for the term "molten molybdenum" within that page you linked and didn't see it. You want SO bad for the existence of molybdenum rich microspheres to mean that there was molten molybdenum created on 9/11 that you're blinded. Tell me camlok. Do you see anyone showing research that those molybdenum spheres were formed on 9/11? No?

I didn't think so.

gamolon · Oct 26, 2017

camlok said:
While you are at it, please explain how the object with sharp edges, a distinct cylindrical shape, a round nose looks anything like the actual debris clouds in the same photo.

Show me where in the video I posted that same shape shows up. Your video is crappy resolution. Tell me something camlok. Where are the windows on those buildings? Why do they look like they're smooth facades? It's the same reason the debris cloud looks like it's "round" and has "smooth edges".

The fact that you can't figure this out for yourself amazes me.

gamolon · Oct 26, 2017

camlok said:
Done long ago, when I first posted the video with the object with sharp edges, a distinct cylindrical shape, a round nose, gamolon.

Hey camlok. Where is that "object with sharp edges, a distinct cylindrical shape, a round nose" in the video below.

gamolon said:
Edit: I'll make this real easy for you. The link below is to the video I took my picture from. Show me what timestamp your "missile nose" shows up in prior to the explosion. It goes from 3:23 to 3:28.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

Show me your "object with sharp edges, a distinct cylindrical shape, a round nose" within the 3:23 to 3:28 timeframe. It's better quality and closer.

Put your money where your mouth is.

I bet you ignore it.

Are All of These People Crazy?

Outer space potato man