Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There appears to be no debating the NIST report even though thousands of highly qualified experts have called it in to serious question and even former NIST head fire investigator has called for a fact drive reinvestigation ..any attempt to do so results in the thread being moved to conspiracy theories where debwunker can post inane insults and loony tunes videos and avoid all facts
dont you think this topic should be able to be discussed based on science and fact in a clean debate or do you agree with George?
OK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.Conspiracies are speculative in nature. What I posted is based on known evidence.there is no conspiracy in debating the scientific validity of the NIST reportIt's a conspiracy theory, that's why it goes in the CT department.
The conspiracy is that the NIST report is wrong on purpose. This is a conspiracy that YOU believe in. Yes debating it belongs in the CT category.
This is all peer revue material. Anyone can publish where the findings have been incorrect.
If you have some I would be interested in seeing them.
1. I wasn't talking to you.
2. A conspiracy can have the truth and facts supporting it and still be a conspiracy.
3. I don't think you understand the discussion.
ummm..... NEWSFLASH Hollie !!! this is the CDZ so no snarky comments and ad homsI made no claim that no planes hit the towers and either have any of 2000 architects, engineers for 9/11 truthSorry but the NIST report talks about what happened in New York and you have claimed things like NO planes hit the towers, that thermite was seeded in the buildings and used to bring them down and that no one hijacked any planes.
Im guessing that the other conspiracy theory thread you cut and paste to wasn't enough of an embarrassment for you Alex Jones groupies?
9/11 twoofers. What a sad joke you conspiracy theorists are.
why are you here Emo? This is the CDZ. Take your hysterics and exit the door whence you came throughYoure not a structural engineer.and now an alex jones strawman .. anyone interested in a reasoned discourse should find this as offensive as I..but she certainly makes my case for me Hollie and her kind have no respect for the rules of the board or reasoned debate and simply want to trollI made no claim that no planes hit the towers and either have any of 2000 architects, engineers for 9/11 truthSorry but the NIST report talks about what happened in New York and you have claimed things like NO planes hit the towers, that thermite was seeded in the buildings and used to bring them down and that no one hijacked any planes.
Im guessing that the other conspiracy theory thread you cut and paste to wasn't enough of an embarrassment for you Alex Jones groupies?
9/11 twoofers. What a sad joke you conspiracy theorists are.
Theres nothing to debate except you take strangers at their word because its gotsta bee daaz cunspeerazy........isnt at all debatable.
Do 4 years of physics at RPI in Troy and then come back and lets talk about it. Until then? Youre just hero worshipping crossed with having a penchant to believe every single conspiracy theory that exists.
Its not a discussion, its a head blasting a brick wall over...and over.....and over....and over.....and over.....and over.....and.over....
OK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.Conspiracies are speculative in nature. What I posted is based on known evidence.there is no conspiracy in debating the scientific validity of the NIST reportIt's a conspiracy theory, that's why it goes in the CT department.
The conspiracy is that the NIST report is wrong on purpose. This is a conspiracy that YOU believe in. Yes debating it belongs in the CT category.
This is all peer revue material. Anyone can publish where the findings have been incorrect.
If you have some I would be interested in seeing them.
1. I wasn't talking to you.
2. A conspiracy can have the truth and facts supporting it and still be a conspiracy.
3. I don't think you understand the discussion.
what are they supposed to be called? Big Gov't, civil liberties forfeiting, drones? Is that better?You continually call people debwunkers and then expect a clean debate? That is not how you start a clean debate.
Further, you are asking for facts but don’t provide any. The only thing I see so far is an appeal to authority. Bring more.
I don't see anyone debating the facts.OK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.Conspiracies are speculative in nature. What I posted is based on known evidence.there is no conspiracy in debating the scientific validity of the NIST report
The conspiracy is that the NIST report is wrong on purpose. This is a conspiracy that YOU believe in. Yes debating it belongs in the CT category.
This is all peer revue material. Anyone can publish where the findings have been incorrect.
If you have some I would be interested in seeing them.
1. I wasn't talking to you.
2. A conspiracy can have the truth and facts supporting it and still be a conspiracy.
3. I don't think you understand the discussion.
Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.
I don't see anyone debating the facts.OK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.Conspiracies are speculative in nature. What I posted is based on known evidence.The conspiracy is that the NIST report is wrong on purpose. This is a conspiracy that YOU believe in. Yes debating it belongs in the CT category.
This is all peer revue material. Anyone can publish where the findings have been incorrect.
If you have some I would be interested in seeing them.
1. I wasn't talking to you.
2. A conspiracy can have the truth and facts supporting it and still be a conspiracy.
3. I don't think you understand the discussion.
Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.
yes. A lot of knee-jerk, reaction attacks but no sober discussion of the info presented.I don't see anyone debating the facts.OK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.Conspiracies are speculative in nature. What I posted is based on known evidence.The conspiracy is that the NIST report is wrong on purpose. This is a conspiracy that YOU believe in. Yes debating it belongs in the CT category.
This is all peer revue material. Anyone can publish where the findings have been incorrect.
If you have some I would be interested in seeing them.
1. I wasn't talking to you.
2. A conspiracy can have the truth and facts supporting it and still be a conspiracy.
3. I don't think you understand the discussion.
Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.
yes. A lot of knee-jerk, reaction attacks but no sober discussion of the info presented.I don't see anyone debating the facts.OK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.Conspiracies are speculative in nature. What I posted is based on known evidence.
This is all peer revue material. Anyone can publish where the findings have been incorrect.
If you have some I would be interested in seeing them.
1. I wasn't talking to you.
2. A conspiracy can have the truth and facts supporting it and still be a conspiracy.
3. I don't think you understand the discussion.
Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.
Ironically, some of it from people who make a career out of bashing the gov't. Wonder why they buy what the gov't is selling THIS TIME?
what are they supposed to be called? Big Gov't, civil liberties forfeiting, drones? Is that better?You continually call people debwunkers and then expect a clean debate? That is not how you start a clean debate.
Further, you are asking for facts but don’t provide any. The only thing I see so far is an appeal to authority. Bring more.
As to the OP. Thank you for starting this thread w/ the info contained therein. The hysterics it generates among debunkers speaks volumes.
I don't see anyone debating the facts.OK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.Conspiracies are speculative in nature. What I posted is based on known evidence.The conspiracy is that the NIST report is wrong on purpose. This is a conspiracy that YOU believe in. Yes debating it belongs in the CT category.
This is all peer revue material. Anyone can publish where the findings have been incorrect.
If you have some I would be interested in seeing them.
1. I wasn't talking to you.
2. A conspiracy can have the truth and facts supporting it and still be a conspiracy.
3. I don't think you understand the discussion.
Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.
There appears to be no debating the NIST report even though thousands of highly qualified experts have called it in to serious question and even former NIST head fire investigator has called for a fact drive reinvestigation ..any attempt to do so results in the thread being moved to conspiracy theories where debwunker can post inane insults and loony tunes videos and avoid all facts
dont you think this topic should be able to be discussed based on science and fact in a clean debate or do you agree with George?
Thousands? Really?
Why do you suppose the Mods keep moving this to the Conspiracy section?
The second video is from WAHRHEITSBEWEGUNG911, and all of their videos are about the 9-11 conspiracy.
Seems to me that the Mods are moving your threads to the correct forum.
there are no conspiracies in good scienceOK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.Conspiracies are speculative in nature. What I posted is based on known evidence.there is no conspiracy in debating the scientific validity of the NIST report
The conspiracy is that the NIST report is wrong on purpose. This is a conspiracy that YOU believe in. Yes debating it belongs in the CT category.
This is all peer revue material. Anyone can publish where the findings have been incorrect.
If you have some I would be interested in seeing them.
1. I wasn't talking to you.
2. A conspiracy can have the truth and facts supporting it and still be a conspiracy.
3. I don't think you understand the discussion.
Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.
the myth that secrets can not be kept is not science, NIST is not scienceI know for absolute fact planes hit the towers on 9/11. How? I saw them on live tv. Watch enough tv, film, and video and you can easily spot the differences. CGI looks like CGI, live tv looks a certain way, recorded tv looks another way, film looks like film, etc. People's reactions too confirm reality or fabrication. Body language, tone of voice, where the eyes are looking.
There's no way they faked 9/11 or it was anything other than planes and terrorists.
People disputing it are like religious lunatics refuting science or perpetuating young-earth hypotheses. They take some initial eye-witness account (which historically are almost always wrong) then run with it, facts be damned.
You could never keep a deliberate government-backed act to do 9/11 secret. Someone's always willing to be martyred to get the truth out and would come foward with irrefutable evidence.
The "evidence" of conspiracy types isn't any kind of evidence unless you broaded the definition to include eyetwitness testimony and hearsay.
there are no conspiracies in good scienceOK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.Conspiracies are speculative in nature. What I posted is based on known evidence.The conspiracy is that the NIST report is wrong on purpose. This is a conspiracy that YOU believe in. Yes debating it belongs in the CT category.
This is all peer revue material. Anyone can publish where the findings have been incorrect.
If you have some I would be interested in seeing them.
1. I wasn't talking to you.
2. A conspiracy can have the truth and facts supporting it and still be a conspiracy.
3. I don't think you understand the discussion.
Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.
The official NIST theory of the WTC 7 collapse does not scientifically explain a single observation of the building's collapse. The controlled demolition theory explains every observable including the eight story free fall period,there are no conspiracies in good scienceOK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.Conspiracies are speculative in nature. What I posted is based on known evidence.
This is all peer revue material. Anyone can publish where the findings have been incorrect.
If you have some I would be interested in seeing them.
1. I wasn't talking to you.
2. A conspiracy can have the truth and facts supporting it and still be a conspiracy.
3. I don't think you understand the discussion.
Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.
Look man, you asked a question in the OP, I gave you the answer. I can't help it if you don't like it. It's still the answer.
Conspiracy theorists like to make these melodramatic claims, period. As is typical with conspiracy theories there's a lack of hard evidence to support the conspiracy theory. Could that be why they're called conspiracy theories?The official NIST theory of the WTC 7 collapse does not scientifically explain a single observation of the building's collapse. The controlled demolition theory explains every observable including the eight story free fall period,there are no conspiracies in good scienceOK, but it should not be in the conspiracy theory forum because the information is fact based.1. I wasn't talking to you.
2. A conspiracy can have the truth and facts supporting it and still be a conspiracy.
3. I don't think you understand the discussion.
Whether it's fact or not is debatable, but It is ALL about the conspiracy that the attack was something other than what we are told. Hence a conspiracy theory.
Look man, you asked a question in the OP, I gave you the answer. I can't help it if you don't like it. It's still the answer.
NIST is science. Conspiracy theories are called conspiracy theories for a reason.the myth that secrets can not be kept is not science, NIST is not scienceI know for absolute fact planes hit the towers on 9/11. How? I saw them on live tv. Watch enough tv, film, and video and you can easily spot the differences. CGI looks like CGI, live tv looks a certain way, recorded tv looks another way, film looks like film, etc. People's reactions too confirm reality or fabrication. Body language, tone of voice, where the eyes are looking.
There's no way they faked 9/11 or it was anything other than planes and terrorists.
People disputing it are like religious lunatics refuting science or perpetuating young-earth hypotheses. They take some initial eye-witness account (which historically are almost always wrong) then run with it, facts be damned.
You could never keep a deliberate government-backed act to do 9/11 secret. Someone's always willing to be martyred to get the truth out and would come foward with irrefutable evidence.
The "evidence" of conspiracy types isn't any kind of evidence unless you broaded the definition to include eyetwitness testimony and hearsay.
