Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by Jeff Riff
Ive no idea what you really want here, you want proof, proof of what? Scientific reports of why the towers fell, which has been done. Is that proof?
Or just do you just accept what you want to believe?
The proof that planes hit the towers? Multiple witnesses, caught live on TV, is that proof for you?
The fact that there are Muslim extremists out there who despise the west and have made no bones about destroying us, is that proof?
To clarify - pseudo-science reports how the towers fell and nothing more.
Could you please define what you consider to be science proof? We need your conception, because those of us, with solid backgrounds in science and
building construction, have been explaining what is necessary for valid science proof. All our opposition engages in is mimicry of the "official"
reports of no valid science proof.
Are you certain you understand what it takes to validate anything in science? Because if you and others did, you would not be mimicking the
"official" reports. One pertinent factor, which is always quite obvious in lack of science knowledge, is mimicry of the "official" reports.
People, engaging in it, refuse to explain the science used to write those reports, and instead begin engaging in red herring and ad hominem when
requested to do so. The reports are all pseudo-science, and fully unrecognized as such by those mimicking them.
People simply cite the reports and nothing more. That proves only that people have no science knowledge of their own to share concerning the
"official" reports.
