• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Unbelievable.

abaddon said:
The huge assumption in all of that is that nobody else but them know that other buildings collapsed on the day in question. In other words, they are the sole source for this, and nobody else knows about other building collapses. How they think this is new to anyone is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I still maintain, as I mentioned earlier (before the massive thread derail by this old-school Truther who clearly needs to spend more time browsing through the threads in this section), that many of them were themselves surprised by this, and because they know everything, clearly that means that other people would be surprised to know this.
 
LSSBB said:
Because the poster promotes uncritical thinking, promulgating a "jump to conclusions" mindset that uses flimsy reasoning and "dot-connecting" conjectures to go full bore into accusations of nefarious behavior, with no basis in reality.
Click to expand...
And, I would add, it's a symptom of how badly our education systems are failing our children.

That should make people angry.
 
ozeco41 said:
Whilst I understand the offensiveness of these liars advertising in this way I think Spanx is on target.

No reasonable, rational, honest person will be fooled by these CT's. They will simply reinforce the common understanding that they are at best deluded fools and, at somewhat worse, deliberate liars.

For that significant part of the community demography that is unaware of 9/11 conspiracy the overwhelming majority response will be "What are these nut jobs on about??"" OR similar :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How is it a lie to say a third tower fell on 9/11? If you said the building was pulled, then there would be some controversy.
 
AJM8125 said:
To whoever accepts or approved of these adverts, I strongly suggest they visit http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64 and search tags "Richard Gage" and or "ae911truth" to understand just exactly what kind of scumbag you've aligned yourselves with.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

AJM_zpsc9cd1aaf.jpg


Anyone who thinks AJM8125 hasn't heard of 7 WTC or has no reason to object to the Rethink911 advertising:

  • Can not read the OP they are responding to;
  • Can not follow instructions;
  • Is seriously misguided as to AE911Truth and their claims;
  • Does not want to learn.

A little help... here are the tag searches AJM8125 recommends. Learn something.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=richard+gage
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=ae911truth
 
cloggy said:
Sounds to me the knowledge of a third building collapsing came as a shock...:covereyes
Click to expand...

To whom? Most people were already aware of that. The only people who seems that it is a shock to are Truthers.
 
Maybe cloggy is projecting, after reading this:

Mark F said:
As I enjoy pointing out to Truthers it was actually 10 buildings that were destroyed in NYC that day, not 3 - even though only 2 were hit by airplanes.

Almost none of them know that.
Click to expand...
 
cloggy said:
I'm sorry, but what is the poster denying?
Click to expand...

It's denying the fact that this is information that was already known and widely available.

cloggy said:
The official conspiracy theory that was fed to the media on day 1?
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as an 'official story' let alone an 'official conspiracy theory', whatever that is supposed to mean.
 
Last edited:
MaGZ said:
How is it a lie to say a third tower fell on 9/11?...
Click to expand...
Your claim, you prove it. If you don't want to respond to what I said there is no compulsion BUT when you quote someone it is normal accepted practice to refer to what they said. Not some invented fantasy of your own.
MaGZ said:
...If you said the building was pulled, then there would be some controversy.
Click to expand...
If I said the Brooklyn bridge was made of spaghetti it could raise a smile or two...but I didn't say that either so what is the purpose of your pointless hypothesising.

This internet game is actually quite simple in principle - you either make a claim of your own and support it OR your comment on someone else's claim.
 
'Collapsed in free fall' is a definite lie of ommision. It took over 16 seconds to collapse. During that time span there was a short period of a couple seconds duration in which some areas of the north facade were measured to have an acceleration of 'g' or greater.

'Over two thousand experts' is a further lie as only a small number of those included in that number ate truly expert in directly related fields. The lead man of the group is himself not an expert in a directly related field. These so called experts readily accepted a simplistic and wholly untechnical, unscientific 'study' of fire spread in WTC7 produced by a carpenter, yet no actual technical and scientific study of this subject has ever been attempted by anyone in the group with real credentials to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom