http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/11/16/what_do_9_11_truthers_believe.html link so as not to violate TOS ... pretty damn good summation of the irrational and lunatic fringe ... the impossibility of such a conspiracy evades the truther ... I enjoy my life without the paranoia that the gubmint is out to get me ... I still have my guns and have yet to see or experience any attempt to take them from me ... I'm retired now and took the penalty on my 401 but don't give a **** because most of my money was safe in government bonds and t bills ... Thanks Uncle Sam!!! ... ooh .. maybe I'm part of the big conspiracy ... ... like one here who likes to constantly spam a video and another who creates threads dedicated to the non field opinions of clueless gray beard academics, I inject common sense ... I would die for a troofer to even remotely address the silence ...
The proof that the official version of what happened is baloney is crushing. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...orted-9-11-terrorists.456423/#post-1066183060 This page was written by paid sophists*. http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2012/11/16/what_do_9_11_truthers_believe.html * http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm https://openheartedrebel.com/2012/0...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/
But the NIST said this: https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation So you have to go back to 2012 to find something stupid? psik
I didn't quote NIST ... just somebody with enough common sense to not believe in truther fairy tales ...
The "pancake" collapse re-visited, now there's one guy with "enough common sense to not believe in fairy tales" and another who swears by it. Those "clueless gray beard academics" who actually do the research and publish peer reviewed technical papers viewed by hundreds of thousands of colleagues don't hold a candle to 2 anonymous dudes who still believe the towers "pancaked". You're right about one thing though, this does deserve its own thread because you never know, it could still be the pancake theory despite the evidence. Didn't you forget something?
The first quote is from the link you supplied. I searched for the NIST quote that I knew about to demonstrate that you were linking to BS. I thought that was obvious.
I have never seen the "controlled demolition" types explain how all the explosives were brought in and rigged without anybody noticing. It is utterly absurd.
The burden of proof always rests with the claimant. The US government has never scientifically/forensically/legitimately explained how 3 buildings were destroyed in the fashion they were destroyed on 9/11 by planes/damage/fire or a combination. Science has proven that the US government's official explanation (in the case of WTC7) and official non-explanation (in the case of the twin towers) is seriously scientifically/logically flawed and therefore impossible (in the case of WTC7) and simply non-existent (in the case of the twin towers). It is utterly absurd.
I was unaware that trutherism is still a thing. OK, truthers' minds don't work well at all. And I will leave it at that.
So conversely you're saying liarism is a "thing" and that only liars' minds "work well". Yeah I see that all over the place.
how many views does it take for you to get paid Scott? much have you made for the thousands of times you have flooded and spammed numerous forums with The New Pearl Harbor? ... I admire you Scott as an entrepreneur ... well done sir ...
I have never seen the "airplanes did it" types explain how the north tower came down in less than 30 seconds while taking the conservation of momentum into account. OH NO! That would mean knowing the distributions of steel and concrete. No, no not Physics!
So provide some links to these "all physicists". And they said what about the Conservation of Momentum?
Nope, because not one of you truthers have offered anything that actual science supports. This belongs in the conspiracy thread forum.
Yeah, people too dumb to comprehend the Conservation of Momentum can just throw around the words "truther" and "science" but can't find the physicists they claim denigrate "truthers". So blather on while saying nothing.
Exactly. If you claim it was a controlled demolition you need to show evidence and explain how demolitions could be installed in huge towers in the center of the largest city in the U.S.A. without anyone noticing.
I was going to post this in my last post but I didn't have time to look for it. The New Pearl Harbor ~ full (3:26:50 time mark) added ten minutes later. ---------------------------------------- https://www.google.es/search?q=9/11...6_3aAhXHchQKHT20AY8Q_AUICygC&biw=1024&bih=677
I have no idea what YOU regard as "real" in relation to physicists. Since you obviously have your cranium in your anal orifice I am not worried about it. What I do find interesting is that so many real physicists are saying NOTHING! I have yet to hear of any real physicists trying to refute David Chandler. So much silence is highly suspect about such a simple physics problem.
What truthers believe? A more accurate question would be "what do truthers NOT believe?" Simple answer: they do not believe the official story because they know it cannot be true.
It's not about the above although it may be part of it. If the claim is that it was a controlled demolition, proof is required by the claimant, period. Again, the official claim is that planes/damage/fire or a combination, rendered with with some specificity, destroyed 3 towers on 9/11 in the manner seen by eyewitnesses and video. However, no official proof has ever been given that makes any sense on a legitimate scientific/forensic/logical basis. The ONLY mechanism known and proven to be able to cause such an event is controlled demolition. So if it wasn't a controlled demolition, proof is absolutely required for any other claimed possible cause.
