9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

a reply to: Informer1958

Can you cite what science is real "science". And after 15 years, what is "real science" going to replace.

Then state what conspiracists' WTC collapse theory is more credible than the NIST conclusions. Explosives? Thermite? Nukes? missiles? The hack Dr Wood and Dustification?

You don't have proof to support one conspiracists theory, but you know the NIST conclusions are wrong?

Each conspiracists' theory is very unique and would create different evidence and signatures. To say they are all more credible than the NIST conclusions, and there is evidence to support each, is beyond logic and rationality.

So rational and civil thinking to you is fantasy and disinformation? And you wonder why you get no respect?


So? the official narrative cites buildings suffered damage and collapsed and a section of the pentagon suffered damage and collapsed.

Individuals saw something hit the pentagon

You said it's all lies? So the listed items are lies.


Prove it's all lies. You already contradicted yourself.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

If you want to read the most comprehensive scientific investigation of 9/11, then read Dr. Judy Wood' book "Where Did The Towers Go", it all there.

a reply to: Informer1958

You never could explain why the super thermite wouldn't burn completely. Interestingly, you think that you somehow won an argument. Your alternate universe must be an interesting place to live.

a reply to: pteridine

You never could explain why the super thermite wouldn't burn completely.

Neither could you.

Interestingly, you think that you somehow won an argument. Your alternate universe must be an interesting place to live.

More condescending remarks, Yeah, that should make you very credible.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

You never could explain why the super thermite wouldn't burn completely.

Neither could you.

Interestingly, you think that you somehow won an argument. Your alternate universe must be an interesting place to live.

More condescending remarks, Yeah, that should make you very credible.

I did explain it many times. Here it is again:
"The super thermite wouldn't burn completely because it was paint. It was not thermite. All the evidence in Jones' paper proves that it wasn't thermite."

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

You never could explain why the super thermite wouldn't burn completely.

Neither could you.

Interestingly, you think that you somehow won an argument. Your alternate universe must be an interesting place to live.

More condescending remarks, Yeah, that should make you very credible.

I did explain it many times. Here it is again:
"The super thermite wouldn't burn completely because it was paint. It was not thermite. All the evidence in Jones' paper proves that it wasn't thermite."

I linked the paper for the poster but they appear not to have read it.

I also linked the paper proving it was not thermite, but again no indication they have read it.

a reply to: pteridine

I offered to debate the Jones paper with you and you declined.

Already proved you are dishonest, so why don't you stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

mn

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

I did explain it many times. Here it is again:
"The super thermite wouldn't burn completely because it was paint. It was not thermite. All the evidence in Jones' paper proves that it wasn't thermite."

You are still being dishonest.

Jones was able to separate the paint from the NA-non thermite and you know that. Now look who is being dishonest again.

The paint was what he claimed was thermite. Red paint. Primer paint. He estimated 10-100 tons of it was in the dust, unreacted.

Nm

a reply to: Informer1958

Noooooo....you claim the facts are "opinions" Jones research was beyond flawed, which is why no one outside the truth movement takes him seriously.

Nm

Nm

a reply to: Informer1958

The Nation of Islam supports you.

Jones publisher

Bentham Open is a publisher based in the United Arab Emirates and managed by personell in Pakistan leading to speculation that it is biased on 9/11 topics; further other Bentham Open publications have been accused by academics of 'spamming' researchers with offers to publish or edit the journal, even where those researchers have no background in the field of study

Wikipedia

nm

a reply to: Informer1958

Said no source!

Gave you the source earlier today, and the same image, I'm not your babysitter spoon feeding you info, do your own homework.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

The Nation of Islam supports you.

What do you mean?

I mean just that. The Nation of Islam supports your efforts to spread the lies of the Truth Movement, you are doing their good work. Box Boy and WaterBoy are the Nation of Islams good buddies, or you didn't know that?

You are doing good work for The Nation of Islam, carry on!

a reply to: Informer1958

However A&E still supports it.

The Nation of Islam thank you for the great work you are doing for them on the forum!

Be prepared to receive further guidance and enlightenment from the man of God himself, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan.

He is ALWAYS on time, right and exact, leading us to Divine Truth.

NM

NM