"24 hard facts about 9/11 that cannot be debunked"

[jaydeehess]

I am going to guess that "proper context" re: no planes, is a reference to substituted and/or altered aircraft.

Could be that we are about to embark on a trip down the PfT rabbit hole.

 

[Mark F]

The wildest conspiracy theory of 9-11 is no less credible than the official version.

Take your pick. Any one of them will do.

Energy beams from space is pretty wild, and far less credible than the commonly accepted narrative.

Swapped planes is both wild and far less credible than the commonly accepted narrative.

Da Joos did it is both wild and far less credible than the commonly accepted narrative.

Missiles painted to look like commercial airlines is both wild and far less credible than the commonly accepted narrative.

I can do this all day

Do you think a lit cigarette lying on the floor could have caused building 7 to sustain the damage the official version claims?

Obviously not. The damage caused to 7 WTC stemmed from having thousands of tons of burning debris fall on it from a collapsing adjacent 110-story office tower. That is an order-of-magnitude more than a lit cigarette.

What about a lit book of matches?

See above

A piece of paper on fire? 2 pieces of paper? 27 pieces of paper on a hot day and a magnifying glass lying nearby?

Ditto.

Where does credibility come into play?

Whose credibility?

 

[jaydeehess]

Energy beams from space is pretty wild, and far less credible than the commonly accepted narrative.

Swapped planes is both wild and far less credible than the commonly accepted narrative.

Da Joos did it is both wild and far less credible than the commonly accepted narrative.

Missiles painted to look like commercial airlines is both wild and far less credible than the commonly accepted narrative.

I can do this all day

Nukes
Holograms
Shootdown of Flt 93
Over V_d aircraft

yeah there's a lot more.

 

[rwguinn]

In its' proper context ..... yes.

What context would that be?

That would be Time Line 932A, Code Name "Ferdinand T. Oilet"

 

[Oystein]

How do you account for the raging dispute then? I assume you've read the reports, both official and otherwise? But then you'd have to have done in order to make your statement on what constitutes "rational dispute". Yes?

As with any good religion, the most raging disputes are among the various denominations of the "9/11 Truth Movement", where No-Planers, Yes-Planers, Nukers, Thermitians, 28-Pagers and those who believe in the magic powers of the goddess Erin accuse one another of being planted agents and paid shills. Damn the People's Front of Judea!

 

[Mark F]

As with any good religion, the most raging disputes are among the various denominations of the "9/11 Truth Movement", where No-Planers, Yes-Planers, Nukers, Thermitians, 28-Pagers and those who believe in the magic powers of the goddess Erin accuse one another of being planted agents and paid shills. Damn the People's Front of Judea!

I think you mean the Judean People's Front. The only people we hate more than the bloody Romans are the Judean People's Front.

Splitters!

 

[Axxman300]

*stumbles into thread, sees new low-hanging fruit, resists temptation*

 

[beachnut]

Post and run...

The wildest conspiracy theory of 9-11 is no less credible than the official version.

No planes? DEW did it? Thermite? A nuke did it?

Really, the real plot of using planes as weapons to kill 3,000 is like the fantasy 9/11 truth presents with no evidence.

The evidence prove it was four planes. The collapse of the towers, due to fire. Your statement failed, the statement based on ignoring evidence.

Did you figure out 9/11? Where did you go? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAo8-YmVlN8

If you need help, talk to Roger Ramjet, he can help you figure out fantasy vs reality.

 

[skyeagle409]

At what point will you be willing to believe "a fire" is a credible explanation for what happened?

I'd reached that point a long time ago because I know that structural steel under load will fail if directly exposed to the full effects of fire.