"Wow, what an arm-chair expert you are."
More comical irony from the moron who thinks his assessment of a picture of a room as a shooting position is better than a Marine sniper's assessment of the room that he actually visited. Also, unlike firefighters, who aren't experts in physics and structural engineering (nor do they necessarily know that no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from a fire), a Marine sniper is an expert on shooting and shooting positions.
"Hmm, who to believe? Firefighters who were actually there, or some numbnuts on the internet? Tough call. LOL"
Comical Irony Alert: Part VI, from the well-established idiot. Also, LOL at your false dichotomy fallacy. Who to believe? The engineers at UAF.
"And a photo of the North Tower collapsing on Building 7:"
Your link doesn't work. In any case, it didn't collapse "on" building 7. Some of its debris hit building 7.
"Wrong. Witness testimony is allowed in court. And the more witnesses saying the same thing, the more the evidence is incriminating."
Anecdotes are usually "witness testimony" in nature, clodpate. Again, "witness testimony" and "anecdote" are not mutually exclusive. This is like saying, "That's not a fruit, it's an apple". You + an idiot = 2 idiots.
"So, according to you, if 12 people witnessed a guy shoot another guy and told about it, that would be just short, amusing or interesting stories."
It would be an anecdote if anyone found it interesting or amusing, by definition. There is no "just" about it. Something that is an anecdote can fit the definition of other terms as well, rather than being "just" an anecdote.
"It wasn't Hathcock's anecdote. It was Robert's anecdote."
No, ninny, it was Hathcock's anecdote; Roberts only quoted his anecdote. Quoting someone's anecdote doesn't make it your own, obviously.
"You seem to have a hard time discerning between facts and opinions. No, that's an opinion that the window and angle and pipes would've made a difference."
Reading Deficiency Alert: Part V
I said it's a fact that those two things are not the same, and therefore the shooting was never duplicated:
Shooting from an open tower where you can freely aim in any direction you want is not the same as shooting through a window at a ~45-degree angle while competing with a wall and pipes for space. That's a fact.
Does the "bolding" help, airhead?
"Especially when the claim is being made that those factors make the shots impossible."
Neither of them claimed that it made the shots impossible in those quotes. They indicated that they didn't believe that Oswald did it because they themselves couldn't do it, and they are drastically more qualified to do it than that Oswald buffoon. And until someone proves it can be done, with indisputable documentation of it being done, it remains as something that can't be done as far as anyone knows.
"You need to prove those factors make a difference."
I don't need to prove any such thing to someone too stupid to know that shooting accurately from a window at a ~45-degree angle while competing for space with a wall and pipes is more difficult than shooting from an open tower.
"You mean the one where an anecdote claimed he said something?"
Quoting someone's anecdote doesn't make it your own anecdote, dumbass. See above.
"That same guy who someone claimed he said something?"
Yes, that guy, obviously. And there's nothing to even remotely suggest he didn't say it; no lawsuits, no controversy, nothing, even though the quotation was published ~five years before Hathcock died. As such, your suggestion that the quote was merely invented by Roberts is entirely without merit and can be dismissed out of hand.
"A true conspiracy nut is someone who dismisses eyewitness testimony from many people who where there"
Those anecdotes aren't from structural engineers who have researched the situation. They are off-the-cuff statements made by laymen.
"but then believes the word of one person who makes a claim with absolutely no proof at all."
And more comical irony from you. What proof did the firefighters provide that fire was the cause of the collapse? None, obviously. Even if you eliminate Hathcock's statement for no good reason, Roberts alone is way more than qualified to assess the shooting. Did you forget that he was a Marine sniper as well? He's also been a police sniper and has written books about sniping:
Craig Roberts retired from the armed forces in 1999 with 30 years total service. He was awarded ten decorations for his Marine Corps service in Vietnam, where he served as a Marine sniper. He was also a career police officer with the Tulsa, Oklahoma, police department. An internationally published writer, he is the author of Combat Medic-Vietnam and Police Sniper, as well as the co-author of One Shot-One Kill, and The Walking Dead.
https://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Craig-Roberts/1499864
reply
share
KinkyInk (1694)
3 years ago
'Also, unlike firefighters, who aren't experts in physics and structural engineering (nor do they necessarily know that no steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from a fire)"
So they're standing in front of the building, watching it burning and damaged, putting instruments on it to determine how much it's leaning, and determining it's going to collapse. And then it collapsed. Yeah, what a bunch of boneheads.
And yet, you're somehow smarter than them. Hilarious.
"In any case, it didn't collapse "on" building 7. Some of its debris hit building 7."
And it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. Okay, Clinton.
on preposition
\ ˈȯn , ˈän \
Definition of on (Entry 1 of 7)
b—used as a function word to indicate position in or in contact with an outer surface
the fly landed on the ceiling
I have a cut on my finger
paint on the wall
So yes, the North Tower landed ON WTC7. Learn to read.
"No, nin ny, it was Hathcock's anecdote; Roberts only quoted his anecdote. "
Wow. How can you be this clue less?
It was an anecdote that Roberts told, so it's his anecdote. If I talked about what someone else had said to me, it would be my anecdote, not theirs. Once again, learn English. It's making sense now why you're such a conspiracy nutter.
"I said it's a fact that those two things are not the same, and therefore the shooting was never duplicated:"
So let's see. If the temperature was different, it's not the same. If the experiment was done on a Saturday and not a Thursday, it's not the same. If it was a different guy doing the shooting, it's not the same. If it was a different altitude, it's not the same. All that makes it not the same, but does it change the fact that the shot couldn't be made? Maybe, but those factors would have to be proven. You just can't claim any factor invalidates the test just because you think those factors are important.
It's a simple concept. Try to keep up.
reply
share
KinkyInk (1694)
3 years ago
"And there's nothing to even remotely suggest he didn't say it"
Of course there is. He never came out publicly and said Oswald couldn't have done it. There could be various reasons for that. Maybe he didn't want the attention. Or maybe he was joking when he said that to Roberts. Or maybe he was stretching the truth and realized he was in a tough spot after the book came out. Or maybe he never said, it and didn't want to cause trouble for Roberts.
Any of that could've happened, so to say it's iron-clad proof that Oswald couldn't make the shot is just ridiculous.
"Roberts alone is way more than qualified to assess the shooting."
And he was also trying to sell a controversial book.
Did you hear they removed the word 'gullible' from the dictionary because no one was looking it up?
reply
share
KinkyInk (1694)
3 years ago
"And until someone proves it can be done, with indisputable documentation of it being done, it remains as something that can't be done as far as anyone knows."
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you're going to claim something didn't happen, then the burden is on you to prove it couldn't happen. And when you prove it can't happen, it has to be under conditions where all the factors are taken into account, with all the proper documentation and witnesses. And no, it can't be based on something someone might have, or might not have, said.
"I don't need to prove any such thing to someone too stupid to know that shooting accurately from a window at a ~45-degree angle while competing for space with a wall and pipes is more difficult than shooting from an open tower."
Sorry, but 'more difficult' doesn't mean impossible. Again, please learn English. As much as you want it to be true, those factors don't necessarily mean Oswald couldn't have made the shot.
"Quoting someone's anecdote doesn't make it your own anecdote."
It sure does. Unless that other person has already related that anecdote in public. If I tell people something I claim that you have said, it's my anecdote, not yours.
Again, simple English.
"They are off-the-cuff statements made by laymen."
They are not laymen. They were NYFD who were on the scene, and determined that the building was going to collapse. And they were proven right when the building did collapse. So it's obvious they knew what they were talking about.
"What proof did the firefighters provide that fire was the cause of the collapse?"
Huh? When did I claim that? It's obvious the firefighters saw the damage to the building, along with the fire, and determined the building was going to collapse. And the only proof they needed for that was seeing it with their own eyes. Why else would they think the building would be collapsing. They weren't nutter 9/11 conspiracy theorists like you, who think there was something else involved.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4598)
3 years ago
"And yet, you're somehow smarter than them. Hilarious."
I have no doubt that every member of the research team at UAF knows more about structural engineering than any one of them do, and it doesn't take much to be smarter than you, since you've already established yourself as an idiot more than once.
"So yes, the North Tower landed ON WTC7."
No, it didn't. That would mean the whole North Tower landed on building 7, which is absurd.
"Learn to read."
More comical irony from Special Ed, who has about six Reading Deficiency Alerts under his belt already. Also, learn to speak English properly. The North Tower didn't land on WTC7. Some debris from it hit WTC7.
"Wow. How can you be this clue less?"
Comical Irony Alert: Part VII
"It was an anecdote that Roberts told, so it's his anecdote."
No, it wasn't dipshit, he merely quoted someone else. The person who told an anecdote, i.e., "a short amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person", was Carlos Hathcock, therefore it's his anecdote. You and a fool are alike.
"If I talked about what someone else had said to me, it would be my anecdote, not theirs."
Not if it's strictly a quotation. A quotation is someone else's words, not your own, obviously, and if their words constitute an anecdote, it's their anecdote, obviously.
"Once again, learn English."
Comical Irony Alert: Part VIII
"It's making sense now why you're such a conspiracy nutter."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, mooncalf.
"So let's see. If the temperature was different, it's not the same. If the experiment was done on a Saturday and not a Thursday, it's not the same. If it was a different guy doing the shooting, it's not the same. If it was a different altitude, it's not the same. All that makes it not the same, but does it change the fact that the shot couldn't be made? Maybe, but those factors would have to be proven. You just can't claim any factor invalidates the test just because you think those factors are important."
Again, you're a moron. You could use that same "argument" to defend the notion that shooting the broad side of a barn from five feet away is duplicating the shot, when it clearly doesn't even come close to duplicating the shot. Hitting your target when shooting an open tower is a lot easier than hitting it when shooting right-handed out of a window to the right at a ~45-degree angle with a wall and pipes not allowing you to move very far to the left in order to give yourself a less awkward shooting position. An expert (Marine and police sniper) has said that those factors would prevent he himself from being able to make the shot, and that's more than enough to establish that "those factors are important". Since you brought up things which are allowed in court, expert opinions are one of them.
"It's a simple concept. Try to keep up."
Comical Irony Alert: Part IX
"Of course there is. He never came out publicly and said Oswald couldn't have done it."
That doesn't suggest anything whatsoever.
"There could be various reasons for that. Maybe he didn't want the attention. Or maybe he was joking when he said that to Roberts. Or maybe he was stretching the truth and realized he was in a tough spot after the book came out. Or maybe he never said, it and didn't want to cause trouble for Roberts."
Maybe your firefighters were joking or stretching the truth too (dumbass). Consider your grasping at straws "tactic" dismissed out of hand.
"Any of that could've happened, so to say it's iron-clad proof that Oswald couldn't make the shot is just ridiculous."
Don't need "iron-clad proof". All any reasonable person needs is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and when the people who are the best in the world at something can't do what an inept person supposedly did, that's plenty of proof that they didn't do it. Also:
The Marines were not the only ones who attempted to duplicate the shots. According to Victor Ostrovsky, an Israeli Mossad agent, the Mossad also tried to reenact the shooting using the
available data. Using their best marksmen and finest equipment, they also found it couldn't be
done by one man, using that position, in the time allowed
"And he was also trying to sell a controversial book."
Your genetic fallacy is dismissed. Also, unlike you, I've owned and fired guns since I was seven years old, and I know what factors make hitting your target easier or more difficult.
"Did you hear they removed the word 'gullible' from the dictionary because no one was looking it up?"
More comical irony from the dullard who thought that someone shooting from an open tower was duplicating Oswald's alleged shooting performance.
reply
share
KinkyInk (1694)
3 years ago
"I have no doubt that every member of the research team at UAF knows more about structural engineering than any one of them do"
They were there. They saw the evidence and predicted the building would collapse. They all did. And the building collapsed. They were right.
Good god, are you clueless. They were right, but somehow, you're trying to say they were wrong. Somehow, they were too ignorant to know the building would collapse, even though they predicted it would collapse, and it did.
Wow. Reality is not your strong point, is it?
"No, it didn't. That would mean the whole North Tower landed on building 7, which is absurd."
Wow. You really can't parse English, can you? No, that's not what it would mean. The towers collapsed on a large footprint. EVERYTHING within that footprint is considered to have been collapsed on by the towers.
It's obvious you're losing the debate when you're arguing syntax like this.
"No, it wasn't dipshit, he merely quoted someone else."
No, he claimed to quote someone else. If I say, "I ran into George the other day and he told me he 'was getting a divorce,'" That would be my anecdote. If George told that story, it would be his anecdote.
Once again, simple concept. The fact that you can't grasp it explains why you fall for inane conspiracy theories.
" A quotation is someone else's words, not your own, obviously, and if their words constitute an anecdote, it's their anecdote, obviously."
It's only someone else's words if they're on record saying it. If it's only your word that they said it, then it's your anecdote.
Do I have to draw this in crayon for you?
reply
share
KinkyInk (1694)
3 years ago
"You could use that same "argument" to defend the notion that shooting the broad side of a barn from five feet away is duplicating the shot."
Yes, that claim could be made. But it would be easily proven that that criteria excludes that test from proving the shot could be made. Unlike pipes, windows, and angles, which would have to be presented as evidence and tested with witnesses before it's claimed they show the shot to be impossible.
Again, not a difficult concept. You just choose to ignore it because those factors agree with your predetermined opinion.
"Maybe your firefighters were joking or stretching the truth too"
Yes, dozens and dozens of firefighters are lying about a conspiracy that killed hundreds of their fellow firefighters. Because they all plan on making a ton of money by selling book.
Wow, your low brow thinking has no bounds. Typical conspiracy nutter think though.
"All any reasonable person needs is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and when the people who are the best in the world at something can't do what an inept person supposedly did, that's plenty of proof that they didn't do it."
Unfortunately for you, there are people who have reproduced the shot. On video. You refuse to accept that. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the facts.
"Also, unlike you, I've owned and fired guns since I was seven years old, and I know what factors make hitting your target easier or more difficult."
Yeah, every guy on the internet claims to be packing a ten-incher. I believe you.
By the way, did I mention I was a structural engineer, and also a demolition expert? Not only that, I served in Special Forces. And not only THAT, I was there that day in Dallas, and I actually watched Lee Harvey shoot JFK from that window! I swear it's all true!
LOL! Do I win?
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4598)
3 years ago
"Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you're going to claim something didn't happen, then the burden is on you to prove it couldn't happen."
Yes, it does work that way. You can't conclusively prove that something can't happen, moron, i.e., you can't prove a negative. You're making the positive assertion that Oswald made those shots, therefore the burden of proof to show that those shots can be made is on you.
"Sorry, but 'more difficult' doesn't mean impossible."
Reading Deficiency Alert: Part VII. Again, they didn't say it was impossible in those quotes. Plenty of things are technically possible but aren't likely enough to be worth considering, such as me winning the Powerball lottery every single week for the next fifty years.
"Again, please learn English."
Comical Irony Alert: Part X
"As much as you want it to be true, those factors don't necessarily mean Oswald couldn't have made the shot."
See above, nincompoop.
"It sure does."
No, it doesn't. See above, nimrod.
"Again, simple English."
Comical Irony Alert: Part XI
"They are not laymen."
Yes, they are, unless you can show that any of them have a degree in structural engineering.
"Huh? When did I claim that?"
I didn't say you claimed that, idiot. You said:
"but then believes the word of one person who makes a claim with absolutely no proof at all."
And I was pointing out the irony of you believing that the firemen quotes prove that the bulding collaped due to fire, despite them providing no proof of that at all.
"Why else would they think the building would be collapsing."
Because they just saw two other similar buildings that were on fire collapse. Those shouldn't have collapsed either. The entire thing was a load of horseshit, and you were duped by it all.
"They weren't nutter 9/11 conspiracy theorists like you, who think there was something else involved."
Which means they were credulous dumbasses who didn't know that a building fire doesn't have anywhere near enough quantity of heat to collapse a steel-framed skyscraper.
In any case, this is getting tedious. You originally said:
"I used to believe there was something wrong with the official story until I saw one of the documentaries that duplicated the shots."
None of the documentaries duplicated the shots, which means you were duped, and your reason for changing your mind wasn't even valid to begin with. And since you're still holding onto your new belief despite the invalidity of the reason that brought you to it in the first place, you're now in a state of cognitive dissonance.
reply
share
KinkyInk (1694)
3 years ago
"Yes, it does work that way. You can't conclusively prove that something can't happen, moron, i.e., you can't prove a negative."
Proving something can't happen isn't proving a negative. And yes, you can conclusively prove that something can't happen. For example, if Kennedy was farther away from Oswald than the maximum range of the rifle he was proven to use, it could be proven that Oswald couldn't have made the shot. The evidence would be clear and undeniable. Easy peasy.
Theoretically, it could be proven that the pipes, window, and angle would make the shot more difficult. But that scientific test hasn't been performed yet, and if it was, it would only show that Oswald would've had to have been very lucky to have pulled off the feat. But that's not impossible.
And by the way, "You can't prove a negative" is a logical fallacy. You can prove a negative. Logicians do it frequently. Look it up.
"Plenty of things are technically possible but aren't likely enough to be worth considering"
True, but you want us to just accept that the pipes, window, and angle place this situation in that category. With no actual experiment to back up that claim. (Except for something someone might have mentioned.)
Sorry, I'm not that gullible.
reply
share
KinkyInk (1694)
3 years ago
"Yes, they are, unless you can show that any of them have a degree in structural engineering."
So a firefighter has to have a degree in structural engineering in order to know a building is going to collapse? What kind of logic is that?
And by the way, reality is not on your side here. They predicted the building would collapse, and it actually did. Huh, and not a single engineering degree among them. How is that possible? LOL!
"And I was pointing out the irony of you believing that the firemen quotes prove that the bulding collaped due to fire"
You seem to be attempting to pin me into this 'collapsed by fire' idea. I haven't made that claim, and neither did the firefighters. Damage done by the collapse was mentioned, so it's entirely possible they factored that in also.
And once again, they were right.
"Those shouldn't have collapsed either. The entire thing was a load of horseshit, and you were duped by it all."
And there we have it. Mr. 'I'm not making any claims' reveals his true conspiracy colors.
And WTC7 shouldn't have collapsed? The firefighters saw the damage, saw the fire, used their instruments to measure the building, and determined it was going to collapse, and then it did. And now you're saying it shouldn't have collapsed, when it actually did? Seriously? And now the NYFD isn't as smart as you because of it?
Now that's funny.
"None of the documentaries duplicated the shots"
Of course they did. You just refuse to accept it. Just like you refuse to accept that the NYFD knew the building was going to collapse.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4598)
3 years ago
Your first paragraph: already addressed, therefore dismissed.
Your second paragraph: Comical Irony Alert, plus, already addressed, therefore dismissed.
Your third paragraph: Comical Irony Alert
"Wow. You really can't parse English, can you? No, that's not what it would mean. The towers collapsed on a large footprint. EVERYTHING within that footprint is considered to have been collapsed on by the towers."
No, moron. That's like if an 18-wheeler drives by you, his tire explodes and pieces of it hit your car, and you say, "An 18-wheeler landed on my car". That paints a very different picture than what really happened, i.e., some pieces from the 18-wheeler hit your car. Also: Comical Irony Alert.
"It's obvious you're losing the debate when you're arguing syntax like this."
Comical Irony Alert: Part XXIX
"No, he claimed to quote someone else."
Quoting someone and claiming to quote someone aren't mutually exclusive, dumbass, so consider the "no" part of your sentence dismissed out of hand.
"If I say, "I ran into George the other day and he told me he 'was getting a divorce,'" That would be my anecdote. If George told that story, it would be his anecdote. "
George did tell the story in your scenario, moron. If you add orginal content to it it would be your anecdote which includes someone else's anecdote.
"Once again, simple concept. The fact that you can't grasp it explains why you fall for inane conspiracy theories."
More comical irony from a well-established idiot who has thus far established that he can neither read nor speak English properly, and can't figure out whose words belong to whom. It's no wonder you're easily duped by far-fetched narratives from the "trustworthy" (lol) government.
"It's only someone else's words if they're on record saying it. If it's only your word that they said it, then it's your anecdote."
That's not the way it works, idiot.
"Do I have to draw this in crayon for you?"
Comical Irony Alert: Part XXXI
"Yes, that claim could be made. But it would be easily proven that that criteria excludes that test from proving the shot could be made."
False. Outside of mathematical proofs, nothing can actually be conclusively proven. That's why the concept of standards of proof exist, such as "beyond a reasonable doubt". And if shooting experts such as Carlos Hathcock, members of his team at Quantico, Craig Roberts, and Mossad snipers, all testified in court that Oswald's alleged shooting performance was implausible, and the opposing side couldn't show that it could be duplicated, that would be more than enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't do what they said he did.
"Unlike pipes, windows, and angles, which would have to be presented as evidence and tested with witnesses before it's claimed they show the shot to be impossible."
Show me in the Craig Roberts or Carlos Hathcock quotes where the word "impossible" appears. I've already told you several times that they didn't say "impossible" in those quotes, but it still hasn't penetrated your drop-forged forehead yet. Also, Reading Deficieny Alert: Part XIV.
"Yes, dozens and dozens of firefighters are lying about a conspiracy that killed hundreds of their fellow firefighters. Because they all plan on making a ton of money by selling book."
Well that flew over your head, numbnuts. I didn't suggest they were lying or stretching the truth, because I don't have any evidence that that's the case. My statement was sarcastic, to illustrate the absurdity of you suggesting that someone is lying or stretching the truth without without a shred of supporting evidence. You're quite possibly the dumbest guy I've encountered online since the IMDb forums closed.
"Wow, your low brow thinking has no bounds. Typical conspiracy nutter think though."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and also, Comical Irony Alert: Part XXXIII
"Unfortunately for you, there are people who have reproduced the shot. On video."
Your bald-faced lie is dismissed.
"You refuse to accept that. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the facts."
Because it never happened, and I've already told you why. There's a drastic and blatantly obvious difference between shooting from an open tower where you're free to aim in any direction without obstructions, and shooting out of a window at a ~45-degree angle while competing for space with a wall and pipes to the left of the window.
"Yeah, every guy on the internet claims to be packing a ten-incher. I believe you."
LOL at you (again). As if owning and shooting guns is even remotely unusual in Maine.
"Proving something can't happen isn't proving a negative."
Yes, it absolutely is, and you fail English 101 forever.
"And yes, you can conclusively prove that something can't happen."
No, you can't, and strictly speaking, you can't even conclusively prove anything, which is why standards of proof exist.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4598)
3 years ago
"For example, if Kennedy was farther away from Oswald than the maximum range of the rifle he was proven to use, it could be proven that Oswald couldn't have made the shot. The evidence would be clear and undeniable. Easy peasy."
False. First, you can't even prove what rifle he used, nor can you even prove that he used a rifle of any kind that day. For that matter, you can't even prove that he ever existed, obviously, since nothing can be literally proven outside of math which works within its own set of rules. And it can't be proven that it's impossible for a bullet to travel farther than expected.
"Theoretically, it could be proven that the pipes, window, and angle would make the shot more difficult."
It's blatantly obvious that it makes it more difficult. You have to follow a moving target with your aim, and include a bit of lead, more or less lead depending on how fast the target is moving. If your own freedom of movement is restricted by a window opening at a ~45 degree angle, plus a wall and pipes interfering with how far to the left you can move, then it's obviously going to make it more difficult to follow the target with your aim. If it had been a stationary target it wouldn't have made much difference, aside from taking longer to get on target, which wouldn't matter because with stationary targets there are no time constraints. A Marine and police sniper gave his assessment of it, and LOL at you, a registered idiot who has admittedly never fired a rifle, thinking you're qualified to dispute that assessment.
"And by the way, "You can't prove a negative" is a logical fallacy. You can prove a negative. Logicians do it frequently. Look it up."
Again, you can't prove anything in the real world, but even if we use a looser sense of the term "prove", you can't prove a negative because there's no way to explore every single possibility in the univese, especially since every possibility isn't even known. For example, if you were to try to prove that such and such doesn't exist (which would be trying to prove a negative), you'd have to be able to observe all places at once to see that, at the time of your observation, it didn't exist anywhere in reality, which is obviously something that humans can't do. And even if you could observe all places at once and didn't detect it, that still leaves the possibility that it exists but wasn't observable to your senses or instruments. To [loosely] prove that something does exist or that something can be done (which would be proving a positive), you just have to observe it existing or being done.
"True, but you want us to just accept that the pipes, window, and angle place this situation in that category. With no actual experiment to back up that claim. (Except for something someone might have mentioned.)"
It doesn't matter that idiots like you, who have never even fired a gun before, can't grasp the problems with the alleged shooting scenario. People who know what they're talking about when it comes to shooting can easily grasp the problems. You believe the official narrative so go ahead and demonstrate that the official narrative is even possible for a human. Until you do that, there's no good reason to believe the extraordinary claims of the official narrative.
"Sorry, I'm not that gullible."
More comical irony from the simpleton who believes that Oswald was apparently the best sniper in the world, despite being known to be a poor shot.
"They predicted the building would collapse, and it actually did."
Again, buffoon, they predicted it because two other similar buildings had recently collapsed ostensibly because of fire. None of them collapsed due to fire, because that type of fire doesn't have nearly enough quantity of heat to collapse a steel-frame skyscraper.
"You seem to be attempting to pin me into this 'collapsed by fire' idea. I haven't made that claim, and neither did the firefighters. Damage done by the collapse was mentioned, so it's entirely possible they factored that in also."
The official NIST-approved narrative is that it collaped due to fire. I guess that makes you and them "conspiracy theorists" according to your own idea of what a conspiracy theorist is.
"And there we have it. Mr. 'I'm not making any claims' reveals his true conspiracy colors."
I never said I'm not making any claims, dumbass. I'm obviously making the claim that fire can't cause a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse. I said that I haven't put forth any theories regarding what actually caused their collapse, because I have no idea what actually caused their collapse.
"Of course they did."
Your bald-faced lie is dismissed. None of the documentaries duplicated the shots, which means you were duped, and your reason for changing your mind wasn't even valid to begin with. And since you're still holding onto your new belief despite the invalidity of the reason that brought you to it in the first place, you're now in a state of cognitive dissonance.
reply
share