100 Professors have problems with the "official" BS report

http://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911


The BS report is shredded via the link. Someone wanted proof of the "official" BS story being bogus??? Here you go. Enjoy.

 

Oh good ... more professors that believe 'space beams' destroyed the towers.

100 professors? That's not even a majority on an average sized college campus. (If you were working on an appeal to authority, that's a fail.)

Where is their evidence and when will they present it?

 

I saw lots of opinion, citing of already disproven claims, citing of Griffen's book (as Mr. Fetzer called it, "one doofus citing another"), but I couldn't seem to find any proof.

RWF, would you be so kind as to point out the proof for me? I seemed to have missed it.

 

Anyone who sees the proof that the government planned and carried out the attacks will find fault with the report. The proof is crushing.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746

Any thinking person who still thinks terrorists did it simply hasn't seen the proof.

 

So show us the proof. Not speculations .... Evidence.

 

Hey Scott, how's it going?

Why do you keep posting that link to the ass beating you took on another forum?

It's an entertaining read but doesn't do much to help your case?

But since you're back, what do you think of Fetzer's video fakery theory? Do you think he is a disinfo agent?

 

The idea that no planes hit the towers is absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV4rvTxcMSY

One way to discredit a truth movement is to support it with wrong arguments. There are a lot of bogus truthers out there mixing the true stuff with absurd stuff to cause confusion in the movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67AzgIpxwco

This guy seems to be one of them.

 

Why do you continue to run from the failure that is your own theory? I've posted the facts that prove it couldn't have happened the way you claim, yet you refuse to address these flaws in your theory. Why should anyone trust someone who won't back up what they claim is true?

 

What do you think of David Ray Griffen and the faked phone calls using voice morphing when
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16924

the inventor of the technology even says couldn't be done that way?
https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/voicemorphing

Do you think Griffen is a disinfo agent as well?

 

The information in that link is really useful if you mix it with a bunch of falled leaves and let it decompose, then spread it in your garden. None of the people doing the analysis have a clue what they are doing. Best example, for the sake of brevity, is that they show the position of the aircraft as it hits the Pentagon with the wings hitting the facade at about the same level on both sides, and the vertical stabilizer hitting exactly above the point where the nose impacted.

A vast majority of witnesses describe the plane as having been in a slight bank to the left just before impact. This would move the vertical stabilzer to the left of the unbroken window that seems to get twoofer panties in a knot.

The wings of a 757 do not lie exactly flat . They are turned up. (Positive dihedral.) The left wing made a clear mark exactly parallel to the ground, taking off the external limestone sheathing and breaking out windows. To the right, you can, if you look, see that there are pieces of sheathing broken loose from the wall in a stair-step pattern. This corresponds with the angle at which the right wing would have hit.

Seriously, these are childish clowns who post such blather and call it an investigation.

 

It is amazing to me that so much proof is so easily found in the "official" BS story, but none can ever be found in anything contrary to it. Perhaps proof is dependent on honest attempts to look at it and accept it when confronted with it, or the inability of the individual to be objective.

 

Very true. Evidence is easily found and verified in the accepted narrative.

In the cult of '9/11 Truth' - not so much. Religious fervor tends to blind the truther sheep from the truth when they are confronted with it.

 

This should be ANYONE'S biggest clue that the official story is true and the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) conspiracy theories are just made up unsubstantiated crap.

Nope. The only people who refuse to look at evidence would be the truthers. Truthers have no evidence (by your own admission) to back up their crap, so one has to rely solely on the credibility, honesty and integrity of your average truther. One has a better chance of finding truth in the worst edition of the National Enquirer.

 

The "USDA" version of the narrative? Or the "common sense" version of said narrative?

 

The "official" BS story is predicated on "Mad" magazine, isn't it? Vigorous opposition to open discussion warrants concern, IMO.
Mad magazine and the National Enquirer are certainly relative to that discussion, wouldn't you agree?

 

Nope. That is just a petty insult by someone who knows his own BS doesn't hold water.

Is that why you always run from open discussion? I posted a lie DRG told that can only be taken one way. You re-interpreted what he said into another lie. You can't defend either lie so you run away. How is that open discussion?

So you are agreeing with me that the likes of Mad magazine and the National Enquirer are equal to those who are opposed to open discussion which one can clearly see is the truthers. Yes. We agree. Maybe when you stop running and address the issues with your own theories or the theories of those you worship then people won't make the comparison above.

 

I'm happy that people take the time to make a comparison at all to begin with. Anything that gets people looking for the truth is a great start.

 

The evidence and studies from independent entities worldwide.

Not the opinions of '9/11 Truth' cultists and their followers.

 

This "professor" is pretty appropriate since the truthers more resemble a religion than anything scientific.

FTA:

 

"Entities"? No doubt. Paid, unpaid and just plain ignorant.

I'll take the "cultist" approach any day versus the lemming approach...thank you very much. Lemmings require no individual thought.

 

Lemmings is another perfect word for 'truthers'. Thanks for the recommendation.

Cultist or lemming, 'truthers' avoid evidence and truth. Witness the embracing of the contradictory statements of DRG, simply because he is a religious leader. Ignorant truthers would follow him right over a cliff.

 

Ignorant lemmings are many on the "official" side of things as well then huh? Seems a high percentage of lemmings HAVE followed the "official" version of events "right off a cliff". Hence, the current state of the "JFK like" mentality that exists in lemming land today.

 

The lemmings are the truther cultists. Evidence and reality are their weakness.

Not surprised, confusion and contradiction are rampant among followers of David the Grifter.

 

Very good...another win for your side and truth successfully averted, and the water muddied. Congratulations.

 

On the contrary, the truth remains the truth, despite what the 9/11 Truth cultists/ lemmings tried to obscure. It's crystal clear.