Building 7 was the most obvious example of the 3 that fell

Deep questions are easy. Deep answers are hard.

 

I simply asked how having an honest debate is possible. You throw out insults in response. You see my dilemma?

 

Quite well. But you seem to have found a way to cope that works for you. Despite any and all obstacles, you get to feel happy that you are more knowledgeable than most folks, and morally superior too. Life is good for you.

I don't think there IS anything you actually want to discuss, is there?

 

Oh, there is but, as I've tried to express here, literally dozens of times, is that, it ISN'T possible with shills running interference.

When it comes to 9/11? Yeah, I AM more knowledgeable than "most" folks are. I've studied it for a decade.

 

Actually, you're not...if you're claiming "fraud" then you have no idea about what you're posting.

 

Actually, I do.

I don't blndly accept what I'm fed when confronted with evidence that butts up against the "official" BS. If you're claiming everything was exactly as told "officially", then YOU have no idea what you believe.

 

Why is it, you can't be specific with your claim. Here let me show you how it's done:

No thermite/thermate was used or ever detected.
No controlled demolitioin every took place.
The planes that crashed into the WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville, were commercial airliners filled with real passengers.
No high energy weapon was used to take down the WTC.
No one gave the command to demolish WTC 7
The WTC was not empty.
Real people jumped and lost their lives.


More????

 

Okay...I'll play the shill game. Here's how IT goes.

Cite your source. Your turn.

 

The way it works is YOU give PROOF first,Fraud......12 years now,still nothing.

 

Yes it was hit by a 110 story building that fell on it and took out supports of about 20 floors in a northern corner.

There was no demolition done that day on purpose. No evidence of this. Unless you have some.

No I have read tons on building 7 and the conspiracy nuts sound just like that.

Well yes, by definition you are.

Every detail? You mean evidence?????



Anyone who starts with "Did you know another building fell on 9-11 that wasn't hit by a plane?" I know they are a fraud because of course a building fell on it, it burned all day and virtually everyone knows it by now. There was no conspiracy of secrets.....

 

Which nutter claim, do you feel, is the most credible? Why is it you can't name one? Lack the brains to support it evidence, proof and data?

 

Also, "Believe everything in the 9/11 commission or the NIST reports" is just a strawman anyway.

I don't believe everything because I think it's impossible for someone to know everything. I have taken the time to research the cornerstones of the government's version, and the time to research the truthers version of the day. I can say that the Truthers version is always contradicting, always wrong, and never supported by evidence. In turn, it makes the truthers version wrong. They cannot connect ANYTHING together. They have no idea how flight 93 ties in, they have no idea why they'd hit the Pentagon, they just have no idea. It's garbage all of it. I might not believe everything and anything, but it's the most accurate version we have, supported by government and non government entities. The science has been reproduced and found to be fundamentally accurate.

 

Because it is the truther way to just throw (*)(*)(*)(*) at a wall and hopes something sticks. Its gotta suck living in a paranoid state of confusion all the time, I almost feel bad for him....then he writes another irrational and illogical post and all is good.

 

I love how the just, out of hand, dismiss all eyewitness accounts of the plane crashing into the Pentagon or WTC...and then latch on to someone who only saw the explosion from the plane as the basis for their "No Planes" claim.

Occam's Razor is just something the think, gives you a close shave.

 

Of course you do. That's why you link to 'no planes, no victims' websites and refuse to recuse yourself from it. That's why you endorsed Alex Jones (extreme right wing) and David Ickes 'lizard people' asshattery and blindly you swallowed Letsroll.com as. 'Fountain of free flowing truth'. (Your words)

When the foolishness of your claims is pointed out to you, you squeal 'shills!' And run away.

You make excuses. You never present evidence.

 

Well said sir, well said.

 

Which OCTer theory do you find the most credible? The date? What's the matter? Don't want to play the shill game? That's what I thought.

 

WTF?

When ya think ya seen the bottom someone always comes up with a new low.

[video=youtube;3R2CplpEMDQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R2CplpEMDQ[/video]


I laughed so hard I had coffee coming out of my nose.

 

there are so many to choose from I dont know where to start.


ok ok how about this one?


So many to choose from you have to realize this is really difficult to narrow it down like this but here goes, one of my favvs is the pentagon light pole mower.




Flt 77 was one bad ass mower!

Whats your fav nutter claim?

 

huh?

Oh no, if you apply Occam's Razor then you would blow it all to hell. What do I win?



Logically that is.




They saw Wile-E-Bin-Laden of course!

​

 

You win moron of the month.

Oh Snap!....do Twoofers just love being proved wrong, or what?

 

so you base your "proof" on what some dip wit dweeb said?

You might want to rethink calling people names until you know who the hell you are dealing with.

So how about telling us why real planes immediately explode into flames when they hit a pole or a tree?




and the wings get completely sheered off?




Oh wait, thats right, the "terrorists", those sneaky wabbits, specially designed flt 77 for mowing down light poles.






So I see you really do believe nutter claims after all?

 

Koko posts '

Ahh,the irony.

 

So, Twoofer...you think comparing trees and telephone poles to hollow galvanized aluminum poles are the same thing? Again, explain away the eyewitness testimony.

 

LoL you're wasting your time there, Koko is so gone it's not even funny. Despite claiming to be a lawyer, he once linked to a building falling over as proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy. However, the building toppling over was actually an animation made for a TV show. He, honestly, didn't even know the difference. In doing his "research", he couldn't even tell that an animated clip was different than real life. Not only was he not able to tell, he didn't even bother to look into it. It's like he googles "building toppling over" and then posted the first thing he saw.

Arguing with Koko is madness, nothing good ever comes from it, because it is pure nonsense. He will handwaive away everything, and it doesn't matter what your source is, he'll bog it down with garbage. All his arguments contain of is a mish-mash of .gifs, grainy pictures, and (*)(*)(*)(*)ty youtube videos. Koko and 7forever are the only people I have on ignore.