Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[PixyMisa]

to add to this..there is also the fact that in order for the building to fall as fast as it did it would have to be progressively weakened in advance of the falling debris to remove any resistance by the building itself...like a demolition

No.

 

[thesyntaxera]

No.

oh thats right, it was the massive girth of the building that shattered the rest of the building so quickly as to be near free fall speeds.

so how did that sulphur get there is my question...

and why was there a temperature based reaction that exceeded the heat producible by any of these events?

 

[thesyntaxera]

Has anyone reviewed the 2nd video of the 1st impact? The one that captures the impact and a second explosion 9 seconds later that visibly shakes the camera?

Did you think anything of it...or should I assume no...?

 

[richardm]

I am adamant yes

Which is amazing, because four weeks ago you said

I am electing to play devils advocate

But you're not playing devil's advocate at all, are you? You really believe this stuff. So not only are you a creduloid idiot, you're a liar as well. Oh dear!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

to add to this..there is also the fact that in order for the building to fall as fast as it did it would have to be progressively weakened in advance of the falling debris to remove any resistance by the building itself...like a demolition

I thought we had already been over this. And over, and over...

You have absolutely no basis for claiming that the buildings should have fallen faster than they did. No evidence, no source with relevant expertise, nothing.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Which is amazing, because four weeks ago you said



But you're not playing devil's advocate at all, are you? You really believe this stuff. So not only are you a creduloid idiot, you're a liar as well. Oh dear!

Richard the only thing you have illuminated here is your lack of critical thinking...your apparent wish to be percieved as an A-hole, and a total lack of interpersonal ettiquette.......you all freak out, and then wonder why I am rude in return, and then claim I am exactly like everyone else who makes these claims just because I argue the other point of view... when I have been saying all along that I don't buy the David Icke illuminati driven world government that you all seem to think is the heart of every conspiracy theory to emanate from this event...It is reasonable to think a cover up took place because there is every indication that one has, and it is reasonable to think that the investigation sucked...because it did, and it is reasonable to think that the towers came down in a manner not described by the official report because the three explanations are mutually contradictory...

You have taken my comments out of context to call me a liar...like the tactless, witless, master of the innane that you are...

what I said was:

I am electing to play devils advocate, due in part to the fact that no one has done any real debunking in this thread...so I thought I would supply some info to be debunked...sound fun? ok...

I am adamant yes, but only because there are so many glaring holes that you seem to think are invalid if you can write them off with right brain logic

You all talk as if your narrow minded ramblings represent fact and truth, when you fail to realize that your narrowminded ramblings are no better at proving anything than a CT argument is. You all talk as if each of the CT claims has been refuted...using such language as "flogged to death"....

Flogged to death by what? Your immaculate words? Your arguments...? You have resisted any requests for physical evidence that proves the official story as is...you have failed to show anything other than planes hitting buildings...multiple holes and inconsistancies have been noted in hundred of news print media outlets...these have been written off under the auspices of unreliable news media, unreliable analysis, invalid analysis..etc Multiple eyewitness and first hand accounts from official sources are written off because YOU can't verifiy them personally, excluding the possibility that they may be true in favor of the radical skepticism that keeps your arguments afloat...in this case you are paranoid of anything that hasn't come from an official mouthpiece, and failed to note how many people changed thier perception of the events after they were placed on an official payroll, such as the Van Romero character...you use character assassination on anyone who raises a dissenting opinion...you are the skeptics that rely on the cheap shot to win an argument rather than explain fact, because winning the argument in your eyes is like gaining a victory for the worldview that you use like a mantra...it proves nothing, and still you continue...believe whatever you want....your going to anyway...but please just explain the following:

How you can believe 3 mutually contradictory explanations for collapse?

Why can't we see one picture of a plane anywhere near the pentagon..it must have been caught from every angle imaginable..

Why despite the protests of a Commissioner, 9/11 families, and numerous new yorkers a more comprehensive investigation wasn't done?

What caused a Eutectic reaction for the first time ever in a building fire, something that would require temp's in extreme excess of what this disaster is capable of producing, and something that is a hallmark of explosives...Remember the FEMA team looked for a cause in the buildings themselves and found nothing worthwhile...so this is still a mystery...


What physical evidence is there to prove as FACT the official story? By it's own admission it is a hypothesis.

Why don't you recognize that the official version is a conspiracy theory of similar magnitude to the ones you decry, and that our government has taken part in all kinds of conspiracies for years, not to mention one in particular that detailed the planning of a staged terrorist attack to gain the very outcome that this has garnered ala northwoods...while also disregarding what we know as fact about that day, that cheney ran his own command and control shadow government to coordinate the governments response...

Your ultimate comeback has been.."well...it would take thousands of people to pull this off..." as if this one comment will some how debunk the whole idea when in reality it would take just a few well placed people to throw a few well placed wrenches to stop the machinery of the government at any time...

You prize your pseudo logic until someone uses it to create a CT claim, then it's the most wretched form of disinformation...quit contradicting yourselves...

 

[thesyntaxera]

I thought we had already been over this. And over, and over...

You have absolutely no basis for claiming that the buildings should have fallen faster than they did. No evidence, no source with relevant expertise, nothing.

I never said that they fell faster than they did....I said that they fall at nearly free fall speeds which they do...get it straight man.

 

[richardm]

You have taken my comments out of context to call me a liar...

You are not playing devil's advocate here are you? You really believe the "Official Story Is Not True" line. So either you were lying in your original claim, or you are an idiot who doesn't know what "playing devil's advocate" means. Which is it?

I make a real effort to be nice to people here, even when I strongly disagree with them. But I am making a special effort not to bother in your case because you're a deliberate liar who pretends not to believe something when you really do, and who keeps trotting out the same debunked claims again and again and again - just like a True Believer should! Plus, you're boring. And it's Tuesday, when my tolerance is traditionally at a low ebb. So while I'm showing off my lack of personal etiquette and exercising my A-Hole credentials:

percieved
ettiquette
[FONT=&quot]innane
[FONT=&quot]inconsistancies
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]verifiy
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]thier
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Learn to spell!

Also, you smell funny and have poor dress sense.

Apologies to the other thread denizens for this. I think it was the 6,000+ word cut-and-paste and the size=5 post that tipped me over the edge. I won't do it again, I promise.
[/FONT]

 

[Belz...]

to add to this..there is also the fact that in order for the building to fall as fast as it did it would have to be progressively weakened in advance of the falling debris to remove any resistance by the building itself...like a demolition

And might I ask how you reach this conclusion ?

Explained? You call what you guys do explaining? The points that I mention are directly taken from the documents that you so prize...there is no explaining needed. I am adamant yes, but only because there are so many glaring holes that you seem to think are invalid if you can write them off with right brain logic.

Syntax, this IS beign close-minded. You're not pointing out what part of our argument is flawed, you're just repeating the same assertions over and over and claiming that ours are false to start with. The REASON for you beign adamant is NOT our lack of proof or logic, but rather the fact that you decided, in advance, that you would hold this conclusion, and convince US or else.

That's not the way investigations work, Syntax. You'd do a very poor detective.

Sort of...more like there are visible "squib" jets, there is a pyroclastic flow of hot dust and debris that usually accompanies volcano's, this flow has to be a certain temperature in order to behave this way,

So, what now ? A volcanoe destroyed the WTC ?

not exactly. it ignites by heating air with glow plugs until it reaches it's flash point, and then injecting the fuel into thje mix....

Wanna do an experiment ? Buy a liter... sorry... a gallon of diesel fuel from your local vendor... and then put a match to it. If you survive, tell us about your conclusions.

Go buy a small can of diesel and throw a match into it....my bet is that it probably won't flash like gas.

Your BET? So basically you know HOW diesel engines work... and you think that diesel CANNOT flash just because those types of engines don't NEED to use a sparkplug ? This is like saying that water-soluble paint won't go away with oil.

uh...no....I am suggesting that there may have been some explosives present, and that there might have been sensitive materials that needed obscuring.

So... the evil government is just hiding the fact that the attacks made the stockpiled explosives blow ?

 

[Belz...]

Has anyone reviewed the 2nd video of the 1st impact? The one that captures the impact and a second explosion 9 seconds later that visibly shakes the camera?

Oh NO! Shockwaves from explosions take time to reach the camera! What ever shall we do ?

Why can't we see one picture of a plane anywhere near the pentagon..it must have been caught from every angle imaginable..

Can't see a missile, either.

Why despite the protests of a Commissioner, 9/11 families, and numerous new yorkers a more comprehensive investigation wasn't done?

You're starting to talk like a JFK CTer.

What caused a Eutectic reaction for the first time ever in a building fire, something that would require temp's in extreme excess of what this disaster is capable of producing, and something that is a hallmark of explosives...Remember the FEMA team looked for a cause in the buildings themselves and found nothing worthwhile...so this is still a mystery...

NOW you're starting to talk like a theist. "If we don't know what created the universe... it MUST be God."

Why don't you recognize that the official version is a conspiracy theory of similar magnitude to the ones you decry,

It is. But when did terrorists ever try to hide the fact that they attack the enemy ?

...and that our government has taken part in all kinds of conspiracies for years, not to mention one in particular that detailed the planning of a staged terrorist attack to gain the very outcome that this has garnered ala northwoods...while also disregarding what we know as fact about that day, that cheney ran his own command and control shadow government to coordinate the governments response...

Slow down, Syntax. What in the blue HELL are you talking about ?

Your ultimate comeback has been.."well...it would take thousands of people to pull this off..." as if this one comment will some how debunk the whole idea when in reality it would take just a few well placed people to throw a few well placed wrenches to stop the machinery of the government at any time...

Well, in order to pull THIS one off, they'd have to plan the hijack of four planes and a whole lot of other things. They couldn't do it with a handful of people. And what do you do with these people then ? Eliminate them ? Otherwise they may talk: bad for you!

 

[kookbreaker]

Except that there were visible hot spots 23 days afterward. Thats quite an achievement for a hydrocarbon fire that should by rights, have been nearly extinguished by the debris.

By what right do you claim 'by all rights'? Its obvious you now zilch about heat and fires. The debris can easily produce an oven effect very easily.

Ever heard of Centralia?

 

[kookbreaker]

I never said that they fell faster than they did....I said that they fall at nearly free fall speeds which they do...get it straight man.

Not even close.

 

[delphi_ote]

Nobody else thought that was a cool band name? Damn!

 

[Belz...]

Nobody else thought that was a cool band name? Damn!

Hey, Delphi. I thought so. But I prefered the opening act!

 

[CurtC]

I just got an email review of the book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin. The reviewer, Richard Morrock, says:

Most writers on a subject do what is called research on the material, which means reading books, conducting interviews, and tracking down documents. This consumes far too much time and effort for conspiracy buffs like Griffin. His approach consists of asking disturbing questions, ignoring the actual evidence, speculating about the possible answers, assuming the worst-case scenario, and then drawing up his indictment of the administration based on his assumptions, even where they are in flagrant contradiction to widely-known facts.

...

One of the points Griffin raises is why the South Tower collapsed half an hour before the North Tower, although it was struck 15 minutes later. From this alleged discrepancy in the official story, Griffin concludes that the government had planted explosives in the WTC the previous weekend, using a power blackout as cover, and had dynamited the buildings.

So Syntax, are you David Griffin?

 

[Belz...]

"One of the points Griffin raises is why the South Tower collapsed half an hour before the North Tower, although it was struck 15 minutes later. From this alleged discrepancy in the official story, Griffin concludes that the government had planted explosives in the WTC the previous weekend, using a power blackout as cover, and had dynamited the buildings."

Which is funny. CTers use this kind of "discrepancy" to prove their point, completely forgetting that, IF someone really HAD decided to bomb the WTC, they'd have toppled the tower that got hit first, FIRST, and second tower LAST.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I never said that they fell faster than they did....I said that they fall at nearly free fall speeds which they do...get it straight man.

I'm really beginning to wonder why I bother.

You claim that the actual speed of the buildings' collapse is so fast that it is inconsistent with the official story. Right?

You also have absolutely no credible support for this claim. Right? No relevant expert, no experimental evidence, nothing. It's just a claim you pulled out of thin air.

So you're just making completely empty claims. Over and over again.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I'm really beginning to wonder why I bother.

You claim that the actual speed of the buildings' collapse is so fast that it is inconsistent with the official story. Right?

You also have absolutely no credible support for this claim. Right? No relevant expert, no experimental evidence, nothing. It's just a claim you pulled out of thin air.

So you're just making completely empty claims. Over and over again.

No thats not what I am claiming...I am saying that when they are timed they fall at nearly free fall speeds...to quote the Steve Jones paper:

Speed: How fast did the building fall? (Students and I measure less than 6.6 seconds; time it!)

empty claims my arse.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Which is it?

Whichever you choose to label me, Dick.

I make a real effort to be nice to people here, even when I strongly disagree with them.

I bet.

But I am making a special effort not to bother in your case because you're a deliberate liar who pretends not to believe something when you really do, and who keeps trotting out the same debunked claims again and again and again - just like a True Believer should! Plus, you're boring. And it's Tuesday, when my tolerance is traditionally at a low ebb. So while I'm showing off my lack of personal etiquette and exercising my A-Hole credentials:

They haven't been debunked, as I already explained. You can't even answer the simple questions I put forward....

As far as being boring...and all that liar nonsense...could you be any more juvenile? Answer the questions or don't....but please don't evolve some sort of emotional attachment to this thread and act like you are on a crusade against injustice just because you can't seem to "win" the debate....which is what you are attempting correct? To be right? Because thats what's important..

as far as spelling...no one else in this thread or on this forum, nor you I am guessing have ever mispelled in typing haste I am sure....

 

[delphi_ote]

You're just jealous you don't look as cool as this guy:

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No thats not what I am claiming...I am saying that when they are timed they fall at nearly free fall speeds...

This has to be deliberate, you were capable of reading a minute ago.

You have no evidence for the claim that the buildings would not fall at "near" free fall speeds if the official story were true.

empty claims my arse.

Empty claims indeed.

Look, one last try before I write you off completely.

Suppose we agreed the buildings fell in whatever time you want them to have fallen. Suppose we don't care. What would it prove?

You keep claiming that the buildings could only have fallen at "near" free fall speeds if they were demolished with pre-placed charges. However you have absolutely no evidence that the buildings could not fall at "near" free fall speeds without pre-placed charges. That particular claim is one you and your fellow kooks have just helped yourselves to, without bothering with evidence.

 

[thesyntaxera]

This has to be deliberate, you were capable of reading a minute ago.

You have no evidence for the claim that the buildings would not fall at "near" free fall speeds if the official story were true.



Empty claims indeed.

Look, one last try before I write you off completely.

Suppose we agreed the buildings fell in whatever time you want them to have fallen. Suppose we don't care. What would it prove?

You keep claiming that the buildings could only have fallen at "near" free fall speeds if they were demolished with pre-placed charges. However you have absolutely no evidence that the buildings could not fall at "near" free fall speeds without pre-placed charges. That particular claim is one you and your fellow kooks have just helped yourselves to, without bothering with evidence.

Write off whatever you want...you have been written off already as it is. I can't believe the best answer to any of the questions I have asked is that I am a kook who is trying to prove a conspiracy...

If the building falls at 6.6 seconds as stated in the Jones paper, then it is falling with virtually no resistance. If there is no resistance, than there is no building underneath of it in a sense. The building falls to pieces and you don't think this is relevant...your stated reason is that there is nothing to indicate that this doesn't fall in line with the official report....if it does than the official report is mistaken...there were 80 floors of steel reinforced resistance, not to mention 80+ layers of concrete all bound together...these things just don't fly apart at the seams just because a plane weakens steel in one section of the building...you know this, but because your so in love with the washed and pressed version of events this doesn't penetrate...

You still have no proof verifying the official accounts outside the fact that planes hit the buildings..

You still didn't answer my questions...and you obviously can't...so I think were done.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Which is funny. CTers use this kind of "discrepancy" to prove their point, completely forgetting that, IF someone really HAD decided to bomb the WTC, they'd have toppled the tower that got hit first, FIRST, and second tower LAST.

They bring it up because it's valid. If someone had bombed them how are we to know how they would do it, and by what rational process they undertook to decide this.

Perhaps they wanted to confuse the situation....who knows...it's pointless to guess...maybe somebody got confused at the controls...why is there a need for a conspirator to be flawless in planning? People make mistakes.

that is niether here nor there....so why even bring it up...

 

[thesyntaxera]

I just got an email review of the book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin. The reviewer, Richard Morrock, says:

So Syntax, are you David Griffin?

Maybe...but i doubt it...I am curious...since you guys still haven't answered...what are these widely known facts that Morrock is talking about? That there were planes there? Okay, attacking the fringe theories of missles and the like is one thing...so what about everything else? What does the ole infallible Morrock have to say?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Write off whatever you want...you have been written off already as it is. I can't believe the best answer to any of the questions I have asked is that I am a kook who is trying to prove a conspiracy...

Nobody else believes that to be the case either, so you are in good company.

If the building falls at 6.6 seconds as stated in the Jones paper, then it is falling with virtually no resistance. If there is no resistance, than there is no building underneath of it in a sense. The building falls to pieces and you don't think this is relevant...your stated reason is that there is nothing to indicate that this doesn't fall in line with the official report....if it does than the official report is mistaken...there were 80 floors of steel reinforced resistance, not to mention 80+ layers of concrete all bound together...these things just don't fly apart at the seams just because a plane weakens steel in one section of the building...you know this, but because your so in love with the washed and pressed version of events this doesn't penetrate...

But you don't know how long it "should" have taken, do you? You have no idea how long it's "supposed" to take for a chunk of skyscraper to smash its way through the rest of the structure. You haven't got any physics to back this claim up, just a guess by ignorant laypeople that it should have taken longer.

If Joe Sixpack could model these kinds of events in his head, we wouldn't need engineers. However he can't, so we do.

You still have no proof verifying the official accounts outside the fact that planes hit the buildings..

Except that the relevant experts, both in the USA and internationally, agree on the official story and disagree with the various kook ideas you prefer. So either the laws of physics were specially suspended just for 9/11, or every structural engineer in the world has been got at by evil conspirators, or you're just plain wrong.

You still didn't answer my questions...and you obviously can't...so I think were done.

What questions are you referring to? You haven't addressed any questions to me in some time.

 

[Belz...]

If the building falls at 6.6 seconds as stated in the Jones paper, then it is falling with virtually no resistance. If there is no resistance, than there is no building underneath of it in a sense. The building falls to pieces and you don't think this is relevant...

How did you arrive at the conclusion that, had explosives NOT been used, the building would have fallen any slower ? The only "evidence" you have so far is the assertion that the buildings "seemed" to collapse as though in a controlled demolition.

They bring it up because it's valid. If someone had bombed them how are we to know how they would do it, and by what rational process they undertook to decide this.

Perhaps they wanted to confuse the situation....who knows...it's pointless to guess...maybe somebody got confused at the controls...why is there a need for a conspirator to be flawless in planning? People make mistakes.

Indeed they do, but the level of competence you people assign to the alleged conspirators in hiding their involvement appears to be pretty damn high. Why would we assume that, otherwise, they are blundering idiots who can't demolish a building in a way that doesn't seem suspicious ?

 

[thesyntaxera]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that, had explosives NOT been used, the building would have fallen any slower ? The only "evidence" you have so far is the assertion that the buildings "seemed" to collapse as though in a controlled demolition.

Very easily...like i said..there are 80+ floors of interlaced steel and concrete supported by an ever widening central section of 40+ columns...It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning...further more there isn't a single official explanation that looks at this...the explanation is that there was some insubstantial fire, and that the planes impact weakened the structure in those key areas...if anything the top stories could have crumbled and fell to the ground...but there is nothing that says the bottom 80 had to fall as well.

Indeed they do, but the level of competence you people assign to the alleged conspirators in hiding their involvement appears to be pretty damn high. Why would we assume that, otherwise, they are blundering idiots who can't demolish a building in a way that doesn't seem suspicious ?

I never said they were competent at all....are who are "you people"??? The level of competence you put in the government researchers, and analyst is astounding as well...

 

[kookbreaker]

If the building falls at 6.6 seconds as stated in the Jones paper, then it is falling with virtually no resistance.

Keep in mind that such measurements are taken from the very visible portion of the collapse until they are no longer visible, not the actual point where the roof hits the ground. That makes such measurements suspect, at best.

It should also be noted that there was evidence of collapse more than half-a minute before the collapse shown in the WTC video. FEMA report chapter 5.5.4.

WTC7 had parts of two World Trade Centers fall on it and burned for 7 hours. Its visible collapse.

Structural Engineers around the world are not surprised by this collapse. Why are you?

 

[kookbreaker]

I never said they were competent at all....are who are "you people"??? The level of competence you put in the government researchers, and analyst is astounding as well...

Yet, it is funny how skilled structural engineers around the world, even in countries not friendly to the United States have pretty much agreed with the collapse models described by the government researchers.

Oh, but you must know better than all of them, right?

 

[Belz...]

Very easily...like i said..there are 80+ floors of interlaced steel and concrete supported by an ever widening central section of 40+ columns...It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning

So, what you are saying is that you are just guessing ?

...further more there isn't a single official explanation that looks at this...the explanation is that there was some insubstantial fire, and that the planes impact weakened the structure in those key areas...if anything the top stories could have crumbled and fell to the ground...but there is nothing that says the bottom 80 had to fall as well.

That's ridiculous. The sheer mass of the top block would be, IMHO, more than enough to shatter the underlying floors in rapid succession. You GUESS that they couldn't, I GUESS that they could. Only evidence could break this deadlock, but all you've provided is opinions, either yours or otherwise.

I never said they were competent at all....are who are "you people"??? The level of competence you put in the government researchers, and analyst is astounding as well...

I don't do anything. All I'm saying is that experts and researchers are certainly more knowledgeable in their specialty than laypeople.

So what do you say about competence ? If they were smart enough to plan such a thing, and if, for some reason, the order in which the WTC toppled is suspicious, wouldn't you expect them NOT to make such a basic, stupid mistake ? Or, perhaps, the order of the collapse ISN'T suspicious.

 

[CurtC]

It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning...[bolding mine]

Do you actually have evidence that there is no way, or are you sticking with your Joe Sixpack assertion? The evidence we've seen seems to indicate that it can happen that way. You do realize that you have the burden of coming up with evidence, right?

if anything the top stories could have crumbled and fell to the ground...but there is nothing that says the bottom 80 had to fall as well.

So if the top 30-story section of a building falls and slams down onto the 75th floor, you think the 75th floor is just going to stop its fall?

 

[Hellbound]

It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning...

Yes, but it takes a complex, in-depth understanding of force, gravity, and material properties to realize why the "simple" understanding is incomplete.

This is why we prefer the opinions and explanations of experts (such as the vast majority of structural engineers), rather than lay people or those whose expertise is in a differing area.

 

[Belz...]

It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning

And by the way, it only takes a simple understanding of physics to know that, obviously, the world is flat: otherwise you'd notice a "curve" at the horizon, and people on the other "side" of the world would fall off.

Then again, "simple" understandings are rarely sufficient.

 

[PixyMisa]

It only takes a simple understanding of force and gravity to figure out that there is no way a building can become completely disabled throughout the entire support structure and just crumble to pieces because 10 floors are burning

The entire structure doesn't need to fail for part of the building to collapse. But part of the building collapsing can cause the entire structure to fail.

...further more there isn't a single official explanation that looks at this...the explanation is that there was some insubstantial fire, and that the planes impact weakened the structure in those key areas...if anything the top stories could have crumbled and fell to the ground...but there is nothing that says the bottom 80 had to fall as well.

The top stories did crumble and fall to the ground - through the rest of the building. With that much weight coming down on them, the remaining floors might as well have been made of tissue paper.

 

[study-the-facts]

thesyntaxera: as a fellow 911 truth researcher, I had to say bravo to you for your attempts at opening the eyes of this ridiculous group of know-it-alls. But I've learned in other forums that past a certain point, it becomes fruitless to continue responding to their uneducated replies.

As I wrote in one other thread in this forum:

Most of you egotistical know-nothings will never bother to put in the time necessary to uncover the truth of 911 - you'll simply sit at your typewriters and fire off your vapid responses, hoping to impress your equally clueless comrades.

To those of you who have ANY ability to see beyond your precious preconceived notions and actually study this subject, here's the latest article about Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones, a proponant of the WTC demolition theory. He's formed a group of 50 other scholars, all who agree with his assertions:
h t t p :/ / deseretnews.c o m /dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00. h t m l (remove spaces).

If even one of you pulls your over-sized head out of your posterior long enough to read this article (and the site it links to) it will be worth signing up to this forum just to post this reply.

That's it for me. Best of success in your pursuit of the facts, thesyntaxera.

 

[PixyMisa]

I can see that you're going to be a big success on these forums.

So what is it in Jones' latest paper that makes it less completely worthless than the previous one?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think I'll open a window. It smells like socks in here.

 

[Belz...]

thesyntaxera: as a fellow 911 truth researcher, I had to say bravo to you for your attempts at opening the eyes of this ridiculous group of know-it-alls. But I've learned in other forums that past a certain point, it becomes fruitless to continue responding to their uneducated replies.

Funny how people who are convinced of their own ideas accuse others of doing the same.

"When you're sure, question everything." - The Book of Cataclysm

Most of you egotistical know-nothings will never bother to put in the time necessary to uncover the truth of 911 - you'll simply sit at your typewriters and fire off your vapid responses, hoping to impress your equally clueless comrades.

Yeah. Insults. That'll work.

To those of you who have ANY ability to see beyond your precious preconceived notions and actually study this subject, here's the latest article about Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones, a proponant of the WTC demolition theory. He's formed a group of 50 other scholars, all who agree with his assertions:
h t t p :/ / deseretnews.c o m /dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00. h t m l (remove spaces).

All specialists in architecture, demolition, fire and explosives, I take it.

If even one of you pulls your over-sized head out of your posterior long enough to read this article (and the site it links to) it will be worth signing up to this forum just to post this reply.

That's it for me. Best of success in your pursuit of the facts, thesyntaxera.

Actually, all you guys are doing is chasing your own tails. That's not truth-searching.

 

[CurtC]

To those of you who have ANY ability to see beyond your precious preconceived notions and actually study this subject, here's the latest article about Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones, a proponant of the WTC demolition theory. He's formed a group of 50 other scholars, all who agree with his assertions:
h t t p :/ / deseretnews.c o m /dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00. h t m l (remove spaces).

Here's a direct link to your article: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html

But it's just a newspaper article, and one from Utah.

As an aside, it's telling that this Fetzer guy also believes in grand conspiracies in the JFK assassination, including the idea that the Zapruder film was doctored/faked. I guess critical thinking skills aren't his strong points.

I read some on the group's web page, and it looks like the same discredited arguments we've seen already. So Mr Facts, I'll ask you what we've been patiently asking of Syntax - what things in your opinion make the best case against the standard model? We just want a few, which Syntax had a problem with, he would post either none or 100.

 

[Belz...]

... It's pretty windy in here.

Seems like the woo have left the area.

bump.