prove controlled demolition truthers

yeh well

Phd Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the “conspiracy theory label impedes cognitive function".

"anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly"

Her comments are well within her expertise and your post proves she is correct.

 

I see. So, ridicule was the only objective here. That helps explain a good bit as well.

 

Koko always throws out quotes from truthr psychologists,as if they mean anything...

 

how'd I know you'd say that?
besides dumb ass I'm not anti conspiracy...there was a conspiracy it had something to do with hijackers and jet liners...
there is no objective testable eyewitness or physical evidence to prove otherwise...

 

that's typical twoofer behavior ,what's really telling is his non response to post#24...

 

Throw in some more ridicule, then stir? Again and again.

 

stating fact is not ridicule....besides you'd get no attention at if not for ridicule.
grow a pair or pull up your skirts and run away..(the last two sentences were ridicule to point out the difference between actually ridicule and your wimp inspired version of it.)

 

I'm here. What would you like to address (outside of the ridicule)? Anything?

 

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -Carl Sagan."

is it then to be considered a not extraordinary claim, that
skyscrapers hit by hijacked airliners should suffer complete
destruction in a manner indistinguishable from Controlled Demolition?

 

Whining again?..You're a truther...ridicule comes with the 'job'

 

Oh,it was distiguishablethere STILL was nothing controlled about the collapses

 

That's your job? Ridiculing truthers? Well, if that does it for you, who am I to question it.

 

Pay attention that in this case the "extraordinary claim" is that there was a "Controlled Demolition" not that great planes used as missiles made two skyscrapers collapse ...

 

What's controlled in this?

Take a look at this video. From the perspective of the person recording it, it's evident that the flames are literally "eating" the internal structure of the tower, and the action of the fire is not symmetric [due to the angle and the point of impact of the plane ...].

The result is that the tower falls [while the attention of the person is on an helicopter flying around the other tower].

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mz0_x7313I

 

No,It's not my job,but you ought to expect it and not whine so much

 

Non Sequitur.

Enjoy your day.

 

Not even.

 

you've said nothing that's not ripe for ridicule...!

 

Not even, what?

- - - Updated - - -

Strange comment, considering the bulk of the responses supporting the Kean omission version of the story consist of nothing other than ridicule.

 

it would be if that were true ..it's not
1. the destruction was far from completeefinition of complete (adj)

Bing Dictionary
com·plete
[ kəm pléet ]


1.whole: having every necessary part or everything that is wanted
2.finished: having reached the normal or expected end
3.absolute: being the greatest degree of something.
the 911 attacks don't meet that criteria..
2.the collapses resemble a CD in only the most superficial way.

 

Can anybody provide any real evidence
as to exactly how much of either tower still remained
standing after the "collapse"?

 

Geez, the scrambling persists.

 

sure it is dear....
my take is any one who disagrees with your fantasy is ridiculing you.

 

Not even a non sequitur

 

left standing is not the measure of total destruction....
it is however a fine example of loss of functionality.