Simple question... Who is it more sensible to believe?

Discussion in '9/11' started by SamSkwamch, Jun 11, 2016.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see. I looked up "twooferidiot" and you'll never guess, it's just not anywhere. That's gotta be so super accurate.

    Yeah I know, thousands of charlatans, you on the other hand, despite that you're nobody with an obnoxious handle, know better. These guys? All fake, probably CGI.

    [video=youtube;ANYMXwFK0C8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANYMXwFK0C8[/video]

    Yeah I know all about the government's "evidence", it's just as convincing as you are.

    Nope, I don't own any evidence, it does however speak for itself.

    What is your point exactly? Are you actually expecting to convince me of anything?
     
  2. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No I am correcting you.

    You do not have evidence because there is none to be had which supports your theories. Twoofer is descriptive and accurate OCT is not.

    Simply mistrust of government is not a valid basis for any idea or theory.

    You do not know the governments evidence because it is overwhelming and proves you wrong. You can present no evidence to refute it and you know it
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In other words, you're trolling because you're doing no such thing. You have never posted anything that can be considered a "correction" of anything posted here that I'm aware of. Your personal opinion (including your juvenile "twoofer" labeling) means nothing to anyone but yourself. When you have something legitimate other than your personal opinion and it actually attempts to correct any of the facts posted here, then it might actually be considered a "correction" (if that's what it accomplishes of course). And if and when you do, I may respond appropriately as I see fit. Until then, we have nothing further to discuss.
     
  4. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you use terms like OCT which is a juvenile manufactured lie you have no right to complain about other persons ridiculing twoofers.

    Twoofers is also descriptive because lame thinking conspiracy theorists invented the term truther to make it seem the truth is on their side when it is not.'
    You are also lying straight through your fingers I corrected you with facts and you know it.

    You have never posted a shred of evidence to support any of your claims and the burden is on you to do so. When one makes assertions without evidence simple logic that they have no evidence is a correction and you hate it even though you KNOW IT.

    So cough up some evidence youngster or suffer being corrected and exposed as the only real troll.

    The description of troll applies to you not me
     
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    2,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the government's "evidence" is so strong and solid, why were some members of the 911 Commission wanting to charge certain pentagon witnesses with perjury for changing the details and story? Why did Senator Mark Dayton on 8/1/2004 say that NORAD lied? Why did SSDI records not show some folks dead who were supposed to be dead?

    The official conspiracy theory falls apart under even the most superficial examination.
     
  6. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    sources? ...
     
  7. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,492
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    everything you said about him he does in the JFK section as well always embarrassing himself there everyday.lol

    - - - Updated - - -

    dont bother,pesky facts is something he is not interested in.

    - - - Updated - - -

    you took him and the other 9/11 apologists to school major big time there.:thumbsup:
     
  8. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They did not do those things sorry you lose.

    You have no evidence to refute the investigation in support of any twoofer theory

    - - - Updated - - -

    No he he did not.

    As always your twoofers fell flat on their face and produced nothing but BS
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm quite familiar with his posting style, always a contrarian and never supports his claims with anything meaningful. A poster boy for a typical forum troll. It's a complete waste of time engaging him in any discussion. I've made that mistake a couple of times.
     
  10. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    2,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Soup

    This is not a competition, where one side wins and another loses.

    This is a discussion of things we know and some things we don't know about the events of 11 September. It is not a "Joe wins" and "Harry loses".

    Senator Dayton did indeed call NORAD a liar. That after he had done his due diligence and read the Commission report.

    Any person honest with himself would come to the same conclusion. At the very least, something is very fishy, if you know what I mean.
     
  11. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,500
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Citation needed

    - - - Updated - - -

    You are one to talk.

    Your entire premise is you believe.

    You have never posted a single fact or piece of evidence to support your IDIOTIC theories.

    No twoofer has and that word is an honest description of fools who buy into the inside job cover up wacko fantasies.

    Thew burden is on you kid and you HAVE NEVER produced evidence,
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh and he validates all my points each time he posts. Good thing this thread is titled:

    Simple question... Who is it more sensible to believe?

    I'm sure most will find it a difficult choice, verifiable credentialed experts who publish peer reviewed scientific papers, videos and other articles, or an anonymous internet troll (AIT) who has never even attempted to show why all these people are wrong and especially why they're wrong to question the Official Conspiracy Theory, one denied to exist by the AIT. The primary objective of all these people, including many 9/11 family members is to demand a real investigation not a piece of political quackery masquerading as an investigation. I suppose that's a problem for said AIT as well. We're almost a month away from the 15th Anniversary of an American massacre and still no real investigation. Still tens of thousands of documents/pieces of evidence classified under false pretenses.

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda
     
  13. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,040
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    That underlines the fact that the extended period leading to an " investigation" by NIST was to cherry pick individuals who would only make certain decisions.

    Another fact is that A&E 9/11 is misled by an individual who refuses to consider the only structural core which can be evidenced, making the entire group look like idiots.

    R. Gage absolutely fails and refuses to be accountable to the fact that a steel framed core is NEVER seen in 9/11 images or video but continues to insist there was COMPLETELY supporting the basis of the NIST fraudulent structural analysis.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To whom?

    NIST's fraudulent analysis stands on its own with or without Gage. Research into NIST's fraud is an ongoing collaborative effort being conducted by multiple qualified experts in many disciplines, Gage is only one of those. I don't believe any one of these experts agree with you.
     
  15. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    27,729
    Likes Received:
    8,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
  17. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It is called SUSPECTING. It becomes a matter of probability and defining the issue more precisely. Belief is stupid by definition. My definition!

    The 9/11 events in NYC are physics problems involving hundreds of thousands of tons of mass. Any conspiracies are irrelevant until the physics is solved.

    psik
     
  18. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,040
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    To anyone that actually knows concrete and steel that also uses evidence rather than group think as predicted by hitler and goebel.

    You might easily discern the NIST fraud, but others who know less of technical issues will rely on the peer review concept.

    Not one of those experts can produce any evidence of the steel framed core, and they all ignore the fact Guiliani took the WTC documents.

    Therefore not one of them agrees with the core description as presented by Leslie E. Robertson or August a Domel, a structural engineer certified in 12 states but mine is the same with a lot more detail.

    All "experts" are logically, seriously in question. Evidence from 9/11 must be used at face value when it fits with the core description of Robertson and Domel.
     
  19. ChristopherABrown

    ChristopherABrown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,040
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    And of course the physics in the difference of modeling events with a concrete core is critically different than that of a steel framed core.
     
  20. robini123

    robini123 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,565
    Likes Received:
    802
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What matters is what evidence is there and does the evidence support any claim made? If there are 2,554 Architect and Engineers who do not believe the story, how is that relevant without knowing the number of Architect and Engineers who believe the story is true?
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That makes no sense and equals just about no one.

    Those who know less also are very likely the same ones who know little about the "peer review concept".

    It's irrelevant to exposing the NIST scam, it was exposed in intricate technical detail that has nothing or little to do with your theory. See this thread:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    and explain if you can how it changes any of the many issues uncovered with regard to the NIST fraud.

    So you're saying you're even more qualified than Robertson?

    Sorry but that makes no sense, they all corroborate each other more or less.

    If you say so, it's irrelevant to me with regard to the fact that the OCT is impossible.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,313
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly and the evidence does not support NIST's claims (the OCT).

    And whom might those be who are qualified and have actually researched NIST's claims? What's much more relevant is that the evidence does not scientifically support NIST's claims (the official party line), not how many believe the OCT vs how many don't.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html
     
  23. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    7,229
    Likes Received:
    2,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One person who knew very much about steel, and worked for Underwriters Laboratory was Kevin Ryan. He pointed out the truth early on in the process, and for stating the truth in public, he was fired by UL. Does that tell you anything?
     
  24. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    sauce?
     
  25. usda_select

    usda_select Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I'm unaware of how much more clearly you could state it:

    Here is one person's bio from the site in the OP:


    Title: Engineer Consultant
    Degree: BSEE
    City: Fishkill
    State: NY
    Country: US
    Occupation status: Degreed
    Biography:
    BSEE, 10+ yrs in Design/Development/Test Engineering in Semiconductor Industry


    Semiconductors...

    Here is another....

    Title: Engineering

    Degree: B.S., Chemical Engineering

    City: Seattle

    State: WA

    Country: US

    Occupation status: Degreed

    Chemical engineering.

    It would be like having a quarterback signing off on the intricacies of being a hockey goalie with their standing coming from being an athlete.
     

Share This Page