Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Aug 29, 2011.
confirming biased official fantasy kooks is pretty straight forward.
"Ozians". I'm still curious as to what people from Australia have to do with this.
Maybe he's referring to the cast of the HBO series Oz?
I preferred The Wire myself.
We have clarified that, you aint from Australia.
Quote cleanup aisle 3.
Its not as nutty as the building fell down therefore it could not have been explosives craziness the official story mobsters use.
LOL!! Good one!
Can you point out where anyone has ever said that?
I bet you can't, because it's not an argument. It's more 9/11 Denier typical, constant, strawman bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You can't argue against the real facts, so you make up facts, and argue against those.
Here's the facts about that:
NIST claimed triumphantly that after their investigation, they'll tell you what they DIDN'T find, and that's evidence of explosives. This is misleading; it implies that they looked for explosives and didn't find any, so could rule such theory out scientifically, which is what scientists would be expected to do anyway, when in reality, they didn't bother looking for or doing tests to find out about explosives or accelerants, and ruled it out not scientifically, but arbitrarily, which is not scientific.
NIST claimed they wouldn't bother looking, because RDX was the only possibility they claimed there was, which is false, RDX is being used as a straw man, and nobody heard a bang at WTC7, which is false as witnesses did report a boom there, and also they said such tests, "would not necessarily have been conclusive."
Not necessarily? This means they COULD theoretically be conclusive, so you OUGHT to look. As you can see, the NIST copout and excuses here PROVE they did not conduct their investigation scientifically and therefore all its findings (mainly just based on arbitrarily programmed computer "simulations") are suspect.
Imagine a biologist visits a newly discovered island and he wants to catelog the wildlife there and write a report about the wildlife that is there.. He wants to know about worms in particular.. But he does NOT turn over ANY rocks to look underneath.. He does NOT dig in the ground to see if there's worms in it. He says, it MIGHT be inconclusive, he might not necessarily find worms so why bother looking, instead he simply concludes having not looked in the ground because there's a chance it won't be conclusive, he declares that there's definatily no worms on that island.
Perfect science right!
What "real facts"?
its not a matter of "said".
nist admitted freefall and freefall is demolition.
I showed you all the graph many times yet you continue to pretend there are not facts that directly dispute.
Separate names with a comma.