I am not into the truther movement but I have a question

[daws101]

so if you had a steel grill over a wood fire with a twenty mph wind in would soften and fail....lol

Yep. Provided it's a bigass bonfire, the kind where if the wind suddenly shifts directions, you lose your eyebrows. And the steel grill needs to be down low in the fire, and you've got to have more wood loaded on top of the steel grill. I know it will happen, because I did it. Quite accidentally. I was just trying to burn some big hunks of a dead tree quickly.

so how do you explain the wood burning stove ???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZCqB-S5kjQ]Defra approved Bohemia X 30 Woodburning stove for smoke control areas by Pevex Enterprises Ltd - YouTube[/ame]

bahahahahahahahahahaha! wood buring stoves are for the most part cast iron.
more inportantly they don't hold enough fuel to heat them to weaking point. to do that you would have to bury the stove in wood and make sure it had enough air to get the fire hot enough.

 

[daws101]

They critical support structure, in order for the collapse to be initiated seemingly at once, all of a sudden going from stable to violent collapse mode, and continue to descend downward, at or near FF speeds in the symmetrical manner witnessed, all of these support points below the collapsing upper parts had to lose their resistance simultaneously.

WTC 7 had all the characteristics of a CD, complete with the crimp in the middle of the roof, then fell symmetrically down achieving 2.25 seconds of free fall that NIST initially denied. The towers fell straight down much the same way through the path of most resistance, just short of free fall acceleration. Totally wrong? How so? What ya got?






Someone cherry picked independent phycisits? Who?
For what purpose, what is to gain but ostracization and ridicule? Care to elaborate? NIST structural engineers were the ones cherry picked, government paid engineers that depend on the government for a paycheck and obviously can be reasoned, don't bite the hand that feeds them if they want job security..The independent physicists, scientist architects, engineers that spoke out on the ludicrous NIST report are independent, and not cherry picked by anyone especially the government. However there are many ex CIA FBI and government employees including military that have not caved in to pressure or intimidation and have spoken out on behalf of their nation and people.


If you would have done the slightest bit of actual looking, you would have known that I'm referring to is straight from their report, and not "wild" claims.


Another base less opinion with nothing offered to back it up. Wrong. Clearly you haven't kept up after what 11 years now?There is independent analysis of incendiary compounds found at WTC. You haven't gotten it through your head that the most nonsensical of conspiracy theory is the one you hold onto as being rational, and believable, this without seemingly reading the NIST report nor doing any serious research, or study concerning the counter claims, the evidence, and the more scientific, and rational hypothesis. The 9-11 attacks are not an easy thing to try to connect the dots, however the more people take the time to learn what the complaints about the OCT are, the more they will at least have a basic understanding of why it is filled with contradictions and in some cases like the WTC, and to an extent the Pentagon, impossibilities. It seems clear you haven't done much study past maybe say, Popular Mechanics regarding the most catastrophic event on your nation in your lifetime.

Would you deem it fair to compare a Cessna or Piper to a Boeing 757? There are many hirise buildings that were not built to withstand the forces that the WTC buildings were, yet burned in inferno like fires for much longer times and did not experience global, total collapses near free fall acceleration. An honest analysis is required to realize this.The government told you what they thought happened with no proof to back up their assertions, you believe their conspiracy theory simply on their word, much like the WMD's and mushroom clouds that were all BS. Don't you think it's past time to critically think for yourself and quit depending on propaganda and lies?



Really? what do you suppose all the fuss is about then? You may continue to deny what was the first and most noticeable aspect of the "collapses" that is your choice, but many people are not so willing to look past such an obvious thing, hell even anchorman reporting on it live as it happened said it appeared to them like CD. BTW, I wasn't referencing Silverstein's comment about pulling the fire teams, if you had been paying attention I was talking about his conversation with his insurance company that was reportedly about asking permission to CD his building. There's a link in a recent post.

I think I'm looking at Dunning-Kruger effect in action here. That is, a couple of people too incompetent to ever understand how incompetent they are.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes

A good self reflective observation on your part. I appreciate your self honesty. If by chance you were referring to me, perhaps you will take the time to better express your disagreements with the facts that are presented, having no solid basis for your denial of them other then responding with unsubstantiated opinions that show your ignorance of the topic is getting boring.

hey mamooth.. if you had'nt noticed sister Jone's posts get longer the more he rationalizes ....keep in mind Jones and people like him (other twoofers) have no actual evidence to back up their bullshit.

 

[Mr. Jones]

hey mamooth.. if you had'nt noticed sister Jone's posts get longer the more he rationalizes ....keep in mind Jones and people like him (other twoofers) have no actual evidence to back up their bullshit.

BS, there's proof and evidence to support that proof, the problem with dolts like you is you DON'T know how to look at anything that counters your dogma, with any rational mindset. It is you and the believers of the OCT that can't back up shit, and don't have any solid proof that it was 19 Jihadists led by a cave dwelling dialysis patient that really were responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

 

[daws101]

hey mamooth.. if you had'nt noticed sister Jone's posts get longer the more he rationalizes ....keep in mind Jones and people like him (other twoofers) have no actual evidence to back up their bullshit.

BS, there's proof and evidence to support that proof, the problem with dolts like you is you DON'T know how to look at anything that counters your dogma, with any rational mindset. It is you and the believers of the OCT that can't back up shit, and don't have any solid proof that it was 19 Jihadists led by a cave dwelling dialysis patient that really were responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

thanks for the example of your argument by anomaly...
there is "no how to look" at evidence either it confirms your pov or it does not.
in your case you have none (evidence)
it's a hoot to watch you go batshit
all the actual evidence says they did.
all you have for proof is speculation.
where is your hard evidence proving another and larger conspiracy?
you have none

 

[Mr. Jones]

hey mamooth.. if you had'nt noticed sister Jone's posts get longer the more he rationalizes ....keep in mind Jones and people like him (other twoofers) have no actual evidence to back up their bullshit.

BS, there's proof and evidence to support that proof, the problem with dolts like you is you DON'T know how to look at anything that counters your dogma, with any rational mindset. It is you and the believers of the OCT that can't back up shit, and don't have any solid proof that it was 19 Jihadists led by a cave dwelling dialysis patient that really were responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

thanks for the example of your argument by anomaly...
there is "no how to look" at evidence either it confirms your pov or it does not.
in your case you have none (evidence)
it's a hoot to watch you go batshit
all the actual evidence says they did.
all you have for proof is speculation.
where is your hard evidence proving another and larger conspiracy?
you have none

Proof by Lack of Evidence

This one is big in the conspiracy theory world: The lack of evidence that would support their "official conspiracy theory" is proof that it is true. Thus, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy is, in and of itself, evidence of the conspiracy. This is further rationalized because the lack of proof and evidence comes from an "official" authority.

Bombo: "The planes that hit the WTC were hijacked a group of radical Muslim terrorists who used fake ID's but their real passports, seized control of three flights in the U.S. Armed only with box-cutters the hijackers then carried out an audacious plot that had been meticulously planned and directed from a cave in Afghanistan. With only limited pilot training and absolutely no experience flying large passenger jets, the intrepid hijackers managed to elude the air defense systems of the most advanced nation on earth. Finally arriving at their target destination they slammed the airliners into the World Trade Center twin towers, a symbolic act of defiance that triggered the War on Terror and the invasion of Afghanistan. Without any precedent in history, World Trade Center towers one and two then collapsed While World Trade Center tower 7 collapsed without even having been struck by an airliner. "
Starling: "But there's no evidence of that."
Bombo: "Exactly, but the government told us this is so That's how we know it for a fact."

There are certainly things in the world that are true but for which no evidence exists, but these are in the minority. If you want to be right more often than not, stick with what we can actually learn. If instead your standard is that anything that can't be disproven must therefore be true, like Russell's Teapot, you're one step away from delusional paranoia.

I changed a few things around in the above paragraph to be sure, to show you how your
thinking can be turned around on you. However, the OCT, and the NIST report have been shown to be bunk, and have a high probability to be unsubstantiated, and therefore, untrue.

The conspiracy theory you hold as true, is based on unsound scientific evidence, fudged data, hidden data, opinions, and guesses, but because they originate from authoritative people and agencies, you deem them credible, Authority has a reputation for being corrupt and inflexible, and this stereotype has been leveraged by some who assert that their own lack of authority somehow makes them a better authority.
The idea that not knowing what you're talking about somehow makes you more reliable is incorrect. More likely, your lack of expertise simply makes you wrong.

It's a hoot to watch you make an ass out of yourself.
Where's your actual evidence that confirms your dogmatic beliefs?
All you have for proof is speculation, and hypothesis from authority, based on BS data that doesn't make sense, that you have failed to rationally be able to confirm. You don't even try..
The evidence I present resoundingly refutes the sources of your beliefs, it has been presented, linked and can be verified
Where is your hard evidence of this vast Jihadist 9-11, OCT theory?. That can melt massive steel structures with jet fuel and Allah?
You have none.
There is "no how to look" at evidence that confirms your pov.
If there is the by all means, post it so it can be refuted. I dare ya *****..

 

[daws101]

BS, there's proof and evidence to support that proof, the problem with dolts like you is you DON'T know how to look at anything that counters your dogma, with any rational mindset. It is you and the believers of the OCT that can't back up shit, and don't have any solid proof that it was 19 Jihadists led by a cave dwelling dialysis patient that really were responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

thanks for the example of your argument by anomaly...
there is "no how to look" at evidence either it confirms your pov or it does not.
in your case you have none (evidence)
it's a hoot to watch you go batshit
all the actual evidence says they did.
all you have for proof is speculation.
where is your hard evidence proving another and larger conspiracy?
you have none

Proof by Lack of Evidence

This one is big in the conspiracy theory world: The lack of evidence that would support their "official conspiracy theory" is proof that it is true. Thus, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy is, in and of itself, evidence of the conspiracy. This is further rationalized because the lack of proof and evidence comes from an "official" authority.

Bombo: "The planes that hit the WTC were hijacked a group of radical Muslim terrorists who used fake ID's but their real passports, seized control of three flights in the U.S. Armed only with box-cutters the hijackers then carried out an audacious plot that had been meticulously planned and directed from a cave in Afghanistan. With only limited pilot training and absolutely no experience flying large passenger jets, the intrepid hijackers managed to elude the air defense systems of the most advanced nation on earth. Finally arriving at their target destination they slammed the airliners into the World Trade Center twin towers, a symbolic act of defiance that triggered the War on Terror and the invasion of Afghanistan. Without any precedent in history, World Trade Center towers one and two then collapsed While World Trade Center tower 7 collapsed without even having been struck by an airliner. "
Starling: "But there's no evidence of that."
Bombo: "Exactly, but the government told us this is so That's how we know it for a fact."

There are certainly things in the world that are true but for which no evidence exists, but these are in the minority. If you want to be right more often than not, stick with what we can actually learn. If instead your standard is that anything that can't be disproven must therefore be true, like Russell's Teapot, you're one step away from delusional paranoia.

I changed a few things around in the above paragraph to be sure, to show you how your
thinking can be turned around on you. However, the OCT, and the NIST report have been shown to be bunk, and have a high probability to be unsubstantiated, and therefore, untrue.

The conspiracy theory you hold as true, is based on unsound scientific evidence, fudged data, hidden data, opinions, and guesses, but because they originate from authoritative people and agencies, you deem them credible, Authority has a reputation for being corrupt and inflexible, and this stereotype has been leveraged by some who assert that their own lack of authority somehow makes them a better authority.
The idea that not knowing what you're talking about somehow makes you more reliable is incorrect. More likely, your lack of expertise simply makes you wrong.

It's a hoot to watch you make an ass out of yourself.
Where's your actual evidence that confirms your dogmatic beliefs?
All you have for proof is speculation, and hypothesis from authority, based on BS data that doesn't make sense, that you have failed to rationally be able to confirm. You don't even try..
The evidence I present resoundingly refutes the sources of your beliefs, it has been presented, linked and can be verified
Where is your hard evidence of this vast Jihadist 9-11, OCT theory?. That can melt massive steel structures with jet fuel and Allah?
You have none.
There is "no how to look" at evidence that confirms your pov.
If there is the by all means, post it so it can be refuted. I dare ya *****..

got a link ?

 

[Mr. Jones]

thanks for the example of your argument by anomaly...
there is "no how to look" at evidence either it confirms your pov or it does not.
in your case you have none (evidence)
it's a hoot to watch you go batshit
all the actual evidence says they did.
all you have for proof is speculation.
where is your hard evidence proving another and larger conspiracy?
you have none

Proof by Lack of Evidence

This one is big in the conspiracy theory world: The lack of evidence that would support their "official conspiracy theory" is proof that it is true. Thus, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy is, in and of itself, evidence of the conspiracy. This is further rationalized because the lack of proof and evidence comes from an "official" authority.

Bombo: "The planes that hit the WTC were hijacked a group of radical Muslim terrorists who used fake ID's but their real passports, seized control of three flights in the U.S. Armed only with box-cutters the hijackers then carried out an audacious plot that had been meticulously planned and directed from a cave in Afghanistan. With only limited pilot training and absolutely no experience flying large passenger jets, the intrepid hijackers managed to elude the air defense systems of the most advanced nation on earth. Finally arriving at their target destination they slammed the airliners into the World Trade Center twin towers, a symbolic act of defiance that triggered the War on Terror and the invasion of Afghanistan. Without any precedent in history, World Trade Center towers one and two then collapsed While World Trade Center tower 7 collapsed without even having been struck by an airliner. "
Starling: "But there's no evidence of that."
Bombo: "Exactly, but the government told us this is so That's how we know it for a fact."

There are certainly things in the world that are true but for which no evidence exists, but these are in the minority. If you want to be right more often than not, stick with what we can actually learn. If instead your standard is that anything that can't be disproven must therefore be true, like Russell's Teapot, you're one step away from delusional paranoia.

I changed a few things around in the above paragraph to be sure, to show you how your
thinking can be turned around on you. However, the OCT, and the NIST report have been shown to be bunk, and have a high probability to be unsubstantiated, and therefore, untrue.

The conspiracy theory you hold as true, is based on unsound scientific evidence, fudged data, hidden data, opinions, and guesses, but because they originate from authoritative people and agencies, you deem them credible, Authority has a reputation for being corrupt and inflexible, and this stereotype has been leveraged by some who assert that their own lack of authority somehow makes them a better authority.
The idea that not knowing what you're talking about somehow makes you more reliable is incorrect. More likely, your lack of expertise simply makes you wrong.

It's a hoot to watch you make an ass out of yourself.
Where's your actual evidence that confirms your dogmatic beliefs?
All you have for proof is speculation, and hypothesis from authority, based on BS data that doesn't make sense, that you have failed to rationally be able to confirm. You don't even try..
The evidence I present resoundingly refutes the sources of your beliefs, it has been presented, linked and can be verified
Where is your hard evidence of this vast Jihadist 9-11, OCT theory?. That can melt massive steel structures with jet fuel and Allah?
You have none.
There is "no how to look" at evidence that confirms your pov.
If there is the by all means, post it so it can be refuted. I dare ya *****..

got a link ?

To what? This?
http://www.nextag.com/serv/main/buy...search=wood+stoves+sale&m=7669591185132873380

 

[eots]

Yep. Provided it's a bigass bonfire, the kind where if the wind suddenly shifts directions, you lose your eyebrows. And the steel grill needs to be down low in the fire, and you've got to have more wood loaded on top of the steel grill. I know it will happen, because I did it. Quite accidentally. I was just trying to burn some big hunks of a dead tree quickly.

so how do you explain the wood burning stove ???

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZCqB-S5kjQ]Defra approved Bohemia X 30 Woodburning stove for smoke control areas by Pevex Enterprises Ltd - YouTube[/ame]

bahahahahahahahahahaha! wood buring stoves are for the most part cast iron.
more inportantly they don't hold enough fuel to heat them to weaking point. to do that you would have to bury the stove in wood and make sure it had enough air to get the fire hot enough.

**** you are stupid...


high carbon steel with melting temperature ranging from 1425-1540°C (2600-2800°F)

Cast iron tends to be brittle, except for malleable cast irons. With a relatively low melting point usually ranging from 1,150 to 1,200 °C (2,102 to 2,192 °F), which is about 300 °C (572 °F) lower than the melting point of pure iron.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

"although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings"

OpEdNews - Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

Mammoth and dawgshit troll gets their ass handed to them on a platter.Dawgshit loves his ass beating she gets and his handlers keep paying him well for his humiliation he suffers.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Try an experiment..light a fire with whatever you have handy and put a piece of steel channel directly over it, go ahead and put 100lbs of weight on top of it too, and come back when it "weakens" and is overcome by the heat.

I've done exactly that. When the fire gets hot enough, the steel weakens and collapses under the weight it's holding. The key is getting the fire hot enough. A simple wood bonfire isn't hot enough, but a big wood bonfire with a 20 mph wind constantly fanning it is hot enough.

Why on earth are you basing your whole arguement on denying something that can be so easily demonstrated? The fact that you deny steel softens under heat makes it difficult to believe you possess even the slightest knowledge of metalworking.

I've manipulated steel and metals with torches myself, and I can tell you, the massive beams and columns of the WTC would not under normal office fire temps have let go simultaneously at all the critical support points having the same heat and intensity. It is impossible to pinpoint the needed energy at all those points for the same time, as fire moves and steel dissipates the heat and moves it away from the source spreading throughout the connecting steel structure.

That is why you can't find another building with even more intense infernos collapsing at or near free fall speeds anywhere. That is why the questioning of the fire only scenario has undergone so much scrutiny.

Sure you morons can take a coat hanger or smaller piece of steel and bend it, but it wont turn into noodles and let go instantly either. It is a gradual process and with the massive steel beams and columns used in skyscrapers, if this would happen, it would take its time in weakening and the collapses would have been much slower, and staggered.

exactly,they can only fail miserably in their posts like that one troll who only proved our case for us posting a video of a building that only partially collpased with PARTS of it falling down but the entire structure itself remaining standing. He ran off after suffering that humiliation. these guys are so much in denial they ignore those facts that the collapse would have been much slower.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

They critical support structure, in order for the collapse to be initiated seemingly at once, all of a sudden going from stable to violent collapse mode, and continue to descend downward, at or near FF speeds in the symmetrical manner witnessed, all of these support points below the collapsing upper parts had to lose their resistance simultaneously.

WTC 7 had all the characteristics of a CD, complete with the crimp in the middle of the roof, then fell symmetrically down achieving 2.25 seconds of free fall that NIST initially denied. The towers fell straight down much the same way through the path of most resistance, just short of free fall acceleration. Totally wrong? How so? What ya got?






Someone cherry picked independent phycisits? Who?
For what purpose, what is to gain but ostracization and ridicule? Care to elaborate? NIST structural engineers were the ones cherry picked, government paid engineers that depend on the government for a paycheck and obviously can be reasoned, don't bite the hand that feeds them if they want job security..The independent physicists, scientist architects, engineers that spoke out on the ludicrous NIST report are independent, and not cherry picked by anyone especially the government. However there are many ex CIA FBI and government employees including military that have not caved in to pressure or intimidation and have spoken out on behalf of their nation and people.


If you would have done the slightest bit of actual looking, you would have known that I'm referring to is straight from their report, and not "wild" claims.


Another base less opinion with nothing offered to back it up. Wrong. Clearly you haven't kept up after what 11 years now?There is independent analysis of incendiary compounds found at WTC. You haven't gotten it through your head that the most nonsensical of conspiracy theory is the one you hold onto as being rational, and believable, this without seemingly reading the NIST report nor doing any serious research, or study concerning the counter claims, the evidence, and the more scientific, and rational hypothesis. The 9-11 attacks are not an easy thing to try to connect the dots, however the more people take the time to learn what the complaints about the OCT are, the more they will at least have a basic understanding of why it is filled with contradictions and in some cases like the WTC, and to an extent the Pentagon, impossibilities. It seems clear you haven't done much study past maybe say, Popular Mechanics regarding the most catastrophic event on your nation in your lifetime.

Would you deem it fair to compare a Cessna or Piper to a Boeing 757? There are many hirise buildings that were not built to withstand the forces that the WTC buildings were, yet burned in inferno like fires for much longer times and did not experience global, total collapses near free fall acceleration. An honest analysis is required to realize this.The government told you what they thought happened with no proof to back up their assertions, you believe their conspiracy theory simply on their word, much like the WMD's and mushroom clouds that were all BS. Don't you think it's past time to critically think for yourself and quit depending on propaganda and lies?



Really? what do you suppose all the fuss is about then? You may continue to deny what was the first and most noticeable aspect of the "collapses" that is your choice, but many people are not so willing to look past such an obvious thing, hell even anchorman reporting on it live as it happened said it appeared to them like CD. BTW, I wasn't referencing Silverstein's comment about pulling the fire teams, if you had been paying attention I was talking about his conversation with his insurance company that was reportedly about asking permission to CD his building. There's a link in a recent post.

I think I'm looking at Dunning-Kruger effect in action here. That is, a couple of people too incompetent to ever understand how incompetent they are.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes

A good self reflective observation on your part. I appreciate your self honesty. If by chance you were referring to me, perhaps you will take the time to better express your disagreements with the facts that are presented, having no solid basis for your denial of them other then responding with unsubstantiated opinions that show your ignorance of the topic is getting boring.

the newest troll to invade this section.Like dawgshit and that other troll I was addressing, this guys gets his ass handed to him on a platter as well.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

BS, there's proof and evidence to support that proof, the problem with dolts like you is you DON'T know how to look at anything that counters your dogma, with any rational mindset. It is you and the believers of the OCT that can't back up shit, and don't have any solid proof that it was 19 Jihadists led by a cave dwelling dialysis patient that really were responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

thanks for the example of your argument by anomaly...
there is "no how to look" at evidence either it confirms your pov or it does not.
in your case you have none (evidence)
it's a hoot to watch you go batshit
all the actual evidence says they did.
all you have for proof is speculation.
where is your hard evidence proving another and larger conspiracy?
you have none

Proof by Lack of Evidence

This one is big in the conspiracy theory world: The lack of evidence that would support their "official conspiracy theory" is proof that it is true. Thus, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy is, in and of itself, evidence of the conspiracy. This is further rationalized because the lack of proof and evidence comes from an "official" authority.

Bombo: "The planes that hit the WTC were hijacked a group of radical Muslim terrorists who used fake ID's but their real passports, seized control of three flights in the U.S. Armed only with box-cutters the hijackers then carried out an audacious plot that had been meticulously planned and directed from a cave in Afghanistan. With only limited pilot training and absolutely no experience flying large passenger jets, the intrepid hijackers managed to elude the air defense systems of the most advanced nation on earth. Finally arriving at their target destination they slammed the airliners into the World Trade Center twin towers, a symbolic act of defiance that triggered the War on Terror and the invasion of Afghanistan. Without any precedent in history, World Trade Center towers one and two then collapsed While World Trade Center tower 7 collapsed without even having been struck by an airliner. "
Starling: "But there's no evidence of that."
Bombo: "Exactly, but the government told us this is so That's how we know it for a fact."

There are certainly things in the world that are true but for which no evidence exists, but these are in the minority. If you want to be right more often than not, stick with what we can actually learn. If instead your standard is that anything that can't be disproven must therefore be true, like Russell's Teapot, you're one step away from delusional paranoia.

I changed a few things around in the above paragraph to be sure, to show you how your
thinking can be turned around on you. However, the OCT, and the NIST report have been shown to be bunk, and have a high probability to be unsubstantiated, and therefore, untrue.

The conspiracy theory you hold as true, is based on unsound scientific evidence, fudged data, hidden data, opinions, and guesses, but because they originate from authoritative people and agencies, you deem them credible, Authority has a reputation for being corrupt and inflexible, and this stereotype has been leveraged by some who assert that their own lack of authority somehow makes them a better authority.
The idea that not knowing what you're talking about somehow makes you more reliable is incorrect. More likely, your lack of expertise simply makes you wrong.

It's a hoot to watch you make an ass out of yourself.
Where's your actual evidence that confirms your dogmatic beliefs?
All you have for proof is speculation, and hypothesis from authority, based on BS data that doesn't make sense, that you have failed to rationally be able to confirm. You don't even try..
The evidence I present resoundingly refutes the sources of your beliefs, it has been presented, linked and can be verified
Where is your hard evidence of this vast Jihadist 9-11, OCT theory?. That can melt massive steel structures with jet fuel and Allah?
You have none.
There is "no how to look" at evidence that confirms your pov.
If there is the by all means, post it so it can be refuted. I dare ya *****..

they can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey trolls they are.all of that stuff you mention isnt neccessary Jones.all you got to show them is this video.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...911-conspiracy-theory-in-under-5-minutes.html

and like clockwork,they run off like the trolls they are refusing to try and counter these facts.

 

[daws101]

Proof by Lack of Evidence

This one is big in the conspiracy theory world: The lack of evidence that would support their "official conspiracy theory" is proof that it is true. Thus, the lack of evidence for the conspiracy is, in and of itself, evidence of the conspiracy. This is further rationalized because the lack of proof and evidence comes from an "official" authority.

Bombo: "The planes that hit the WTC were hijacked a group of radical Muslim terrorists who used fake ID's but their real passports, seized control of three flights in the U.S. Armed only with box-cutters the hijackers then carried out an audacious plot that had been meticulously planned and directed from a cave in Afghanistan. With only limited pilot training and absolutely no experience flying large passenger jets, the intrepid hijackers managed to elude the air defense systems of the most advanced nation on earth. Finally arriving at their target destination they slammed the airliners into the World Trade Center twin towers, a symbolic act of defiance that triggered the War on Terror and the invasion of Afghanistan. Without any precedent in history, World Trade Center towers one and two then collapsed While World Trade Center tower 7 collapsed without even having been struck by an airliner. "
Starling: "But there's no evidence of that."
Bombo: "Exactly, but the government told us this is so That's how we know it for a fact."

There are certainly things in the world that are true but for which no evidence exists, but these are in the minority. If you want to be right more often than not, stick with what we can actually learn. If instead your standard is that anything that can't be disproven must therefore be true, like Russell's Teapot, you're one step away from delusional paranoia.

I changed a few things around in the above paragraph to be sure, to show you how your
thinking can be turned around on you. However, the OCT, and the NIST report have been shown to be bunk, and have a high probability to be unsubstantiated, and therefore, untrue.

The conspiracy theory you hold as true, is based on unsound scientific evidence, fudged data, hidden data, opinions, and guesses, but because they originate from authoritative people and agencies, you deem them credible, Authority has a reputation for being corrupt and inflexible, and this stereotype has been leveraged by some who assert that their own lack of authority somehow makes them a better authority.
The idea that not knowing what you're talking about somehow makes you more reliable is incorrect. More likely, your lack of expertise simply makes you wrong.

It's a hoot to watch you make an ass out of yourself.
Where's your actual evidence that confirms your dogmatic beliefs?
All you have for proof is speculation, and hypothesis from authority, based on BS data that doesn't make sense, that you have failed to rationally be able to confirm. You don't even try..
The evidence I present resoundingly refutes the sources of your beliefs, it has been presented, linked and can be verified
Where is your hard evidence of this vast Jihadist 9-11, OCT theory?. That can melt massive steel structures with jet fuel and Allah?
You have none.
There is "no how to look" at evidence that confirms your pov.
If there is the by all means, post it so it can be refuted. I dare ya *****..

got a link ?

To what? This?
Wood Stoves Sale - Home & Garden - Compare Prices, Reviews and Buy at Nextag - Price - Review

really? so you're not gonna credit whomever you plagerized?


but still it's just I know you are but what am I bullshit.
BTW I don't need to try reality is self explanatory...unlike your delusion that swims in denial of fact and inflating bullshit or just making shit up as in this statement :"The evidence I present resoundingly refutes the sources of your beliefs, it has been presented, linked and can be verified"- sister jones..

lol.....since your "evidence" is made up of rumor, argument by anomaly,pseudoscience, willful ignorance, lies, false premises, zero quantifiable proof cognitive bias, fear stupidity.
the only link it has is to sites that spew the same shit you do.
there is no EVIDENTIARY linkage to other real and supposed conspiracies.
it refutes nothing.
the only thing verifiable about is that it is not credible and has been proven to by erroneous.
it presentation is on par with two 6 year olds playing with daddy's handi cam.

 

[daws101]

so how do you explain the wood burning stove ???

Defra approved Bohemia X 30 Woodburning stove for smoke control areas by Pevex Enterprises Ltd - YouTube

bahahahahahahahahahaha! wood buring stoves are for the most part cast iron.
more inportantly they don't hold enough fuel to heat them to weaking point. to do that you would have to bury the stove in wood and make sure it had enough air to get the fire hot enough.

**** you are stupid...


high carbon steel with melting temperature ranging from 1425-1540°C (2600-2800°F)

Cast iron tends to be brittle, except for malleable cast irons. With a relatively low melting point usually ranging from 1,150 to 1,200 °C (2,102 to 2,192 °F), which is about 300 °C (572 °F) lower than the melting point of pure iron.

your point ....that's right you have none.....and it's no proof that wtc7 was a cd...

 

[LA RAM FAN]

two farts in a row from your Dawgshit. Your handlers sure sent you here quickly to get your ass handed to you on a platter.

 

[mamooth]

WTC 7 had all the characteristics of a CD, complete with the crimp in the middle of the roof,

You mean except for that slow buckling at the bottom that was nothing like a CD? Or the 37 seconds of partial crumbling that preceeded the full collapse, also nothing like a CD?

then fell symmetrically

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

down achieving 2.25 seconds of free fall

Things being pulled down by gravity do tend to move at free fall speed.

that NIST initially denied.

Anything you say about NIST is assumed to be a rather creative flight of fancy, unless you can show original sources with full context.

The towers fell straight down much the same way through the path of most resistance, just short of free fall acceleration. Totally wrong? How so? What ya got?

I have the fact that gravity pulls straight down, as opposed to your peculiar world where gravity is apparently supposed to pull things sideways.

Your ignorance would be curable, if you were willing to learn. You're not. Therefore, you're comic relief.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Still doing the circle jerk?

 

[eots]

Still doing the circle jerk?

why do you ask...are you cursing for a circle jerk ?...try the YMCA

 

[eots]

WTC 7 had all the characteristics of a CD, complete with the crimp in the middle of the roof,

You mean except for that slow buckling at the bottom that was nothing like a CD? Or the 37 seconds of partial crumbling that preceeded the full collapse, also nothing like a CD?

buckling at the bottom ???...37 secs of crumbling proceeding the collapse
have you told NIST about this ?? as it is not in their report

then fell symmetrically

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder used the exact term to describe the nature of the wtc 7 collapse...but then you would not know that as you have not even read it

Things being pulled down by gravity do tend to move at free fall speed.

only when there is Zero resistance Numbskull

Anything you say about NIST is assumed to be a rather creative flight of fancy, unless you can show original sources with full context.

Why dont you read the report jackass..how can you support the official theory when you do not even know what it is ??

The towers fell straight down much the same way through the path of most resistance, just short of free fall acceleration. Totally wrong? How so? What ya got?

I have the fact that gravity pulls straight down, as opposed to your peculiar world where gravity is apparently supposed to pull things sideways.
Your ignorance would be curable, if you were willing to learn. You're not. Therefore, you're comic relief.

still struggling with the concept of resistance I see..it should be comical...but really its just sad and disturbing

 

[Mr. Jones]

got a link ?

To what? This?
Wood Stoves Sale - Home & Garden - Compare Prices, Reviews and Buy at Nextag - Price - Review

really? so you're not gonna credit whomever you plagerized?


but still it's just I know you are but what am I bullshit.
BTW I don't need to try reality is self explanatory...unlike your delusion that swims in denial of fact and inflating bullshit or just making shit up as in this statement :"The evidence I present resoundingly refutes the sources of your beliefs, it has been presented, linked and can be verified"- sister jones..

lol.....since your "evidence" is made up of rumor, argument by anomaly,pseudoscience, willful ignorance, lies, false premises, zero quantifiable proof cognitive bias, fear stupidity.
the only link it has is to sites that spew the same shit you do.
there is no EVIDENTIARY linkage to other real and supposed conspiracies.
it refutes nothing.
the only thing verifiable about is that it is not credible and has been proven to by erroneous.
it presentation is on par with two 6 year olds playing with daddy's handi cam.

Once again you describe the OCT and all the descriptions required to believe in it. Why don't you provide a source that backs up how you arrived at your decision to be so ******* ignorant? You never do therefore all you have is your opinion which your posting history shows isn't worth a shit.