9-11 Truth makes HUGE flop at Los Angeles Peace March
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Space aether must exist
Next: Pre-Colonial and Colonial Perspectives on Science and Technology in South Asia, Heidelberg, Sept. 23-24, 2010
From: Iarnrod on 16 Apr 2010 20:12 On Apr 16, 5:36 pm, Strabo <str...(a)flashlight.net> wrote: > spudnik wrote: > > your quoted analysis still seems to be along the lines > > of the "government's pancake theory," which is really > > quite ridicculous. yes, it was a catastrphic collapse > > of the integrity of WTCs 1 and 2 and 7, but > > the latter had to be somehow due to secondary effects. for instance, > > none of the Truthers has ever explained the anpmaly > > of the molten metal, weeks after the event. so, > > til you can address that, yout theory of "Cheeny > > in the basement setting explosives at his leisure," > > has got to be put on hold ... even though it is plausible > > as a bunker-like place to stay! > > They need only present evidence that the official explanation is > insufficient. And they have. Case closed. > The real issue is why some people are compelled to defend the > indefensible. Yes. Why do you? > For the moment, many of the 9/11 questions have no adequate answers. Name one that does not. You can't and you won't. > In this case the honest position is neutral. Wrong. The evidence is in and the case is clear.
From: knews4u2chew on 16 Apr 2010 23:47 On Apr 16, 5:12 pm, Ioonyrodspweslies <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 16, 5:36 pm, Strabo <str...(a)flashlight.net> wrote: > > > spudnik wrote: > > > your quoted analysis still seems to be along the lines > > > of the "government's pancake theory," which is really > > > quite ridicculous. yes, it was a catastrphic collapse > > > of the integrity of WTCs 1 and 2 and 7, but > > > the latter had to be somehow due to secondary effects. for instance, > > > none of the Truthers has ever explained the anpmaly > > > of the molten metal, weeks after the event. so, > > > til you can address that, yout theory of "Cheeny > > > in the basement setting explosives at his leisure," > > > has got to be put on hold ... even though it is plausible > > > as a bunker-like place to stay! > > > They need only present evidence that the official explanation is > > insufficient. > > And they have. Case closed. > The case will never be closed just like JFK, RFK, MLK, OK city..... > > The real issue is why some people are compelled to defend the > > indefensible. > > Yes. Why do you? > Why do you? Because you're pathological. Same as the "perpetraitors" of 9-11. > > For the moment, many of the 9/11 questions have no adequate answers. > > Name one that does not. You can't and you won't. > Every question anyone gives you CLAIM is "proven or disproven or some such" WITHOUT ONE CITE. > > In this case the honest position is neutral. > > Wrong. The evidence is in and the case is clear. Troll...endless Troll..... Thanks for picking up the slack guys.... LoonyrodSPEWSlies is relentless in his twists and turns about. Pathological or synthetic? I simple can't believe "she" could be human and so blind. Spew away TrollRod
From: Iarnrod on 17 Apr 2010 19:00 On Apr 17, 2:44 pm, * Hates US * wrote: > So you believe every lie Bush and Cheney told about 9/11. Can you name one? Nah, didn't think so! BWAHAAHAAHAHAAAA!!!!
From: Iarnrod on 17 Apr 2010 19:24 On Apr 17, 5:15 pm, * Hates US * wrote: <the usual lies> I really have to admire how you never let the fact that you've been proven to be wrong stand in the way of your delusions.
From: Iarnrod on 17 Apr 2010 19:24
On Apr 17, 5:17 pm, * Hates US * wrote: <the usual lies> I really have to admire how you never let the fact that you've been proven to be wrong stand in the way of your delusions. |