WTC 911 if not demolition and not the NIST or OS debunkers, what then? , page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 26-11-2011 @ 07:01 PM by impressme

reply to post by Six Sigma

Can you please follow this up with the following:

-Names of the journals where the papers were published
-Dates
-Pages they appeared in?

Thank you!

I don’t need to, if you want to read all the scientific papers they are on this website, I should'nt have to hold your hand and do your homework for you.

www.ae911truth.org...

edit on 26-11-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 26-11-2011 @ 07:30 PM by Six Sigma

Originally posted by impressme
I don’t need to, if you want to read all the scientific papers they are on this website, I should'nt have to hold your hand and do your homework for you.

I was quite pleasant with my post while being polite. This is the response I got?

You made this claim impressme:

Since these 911 debunkers have no problems in giving their opinions against the real science including ridiculing many of the scientists who have writing scientific technical papers of demolition and the enormous energy that was recorded on the onset of the WTC collapse, towers 1 & 2, I would like to hear from you debunkers why you reject this science?

You made a claim without backing it up. I'm not asking you to do homework for me, I'm asking you to source peer reviewed articles. I went to AE 9/11 Truth. There are exactly: ZERO (0) scientific papers that I have been able to locate on that website that have been published.

Perhaps I missed one?

reply posted on 26-11-2011 @ 08:41 PM by impressme

reply to post by Six Sigma

Since these 911 debunkers have no problems in giving their opinions against the real science including ridiculing many of the scientists who have writing scientific technical papers of demolition and the enormous energy that was recorded on the onset of the WTC collapse, towers 1 & 2, I would like to hear from you debunkers why you reject this science?

Where does it say in my paragraph “peer reviewed”?

reply posted on 26-11-2011 @ 08:45 PM by impressme

reply to post by Six Sigma

Interesting how some debunkers cannot challenge the science, so all they can do is create nonsense out of thin air as you just demonstrated and twist words around to try make the meanings different.

reply posted on 26-11-2011 @ 09:48 PM by Majic

Begging The Question

reply to post by impressme

Your posts in this thread.

This forum is for discussion of 9/11 Conspiracies, not the members who post here, and is already plagued with flaming, derailments, serial trolling and related problems. In response to overwhelming demand from the membership, we become less tolerant of any form of them with each passing day.

While it is fair and reasonable to debate and challenge fellow members on the issues, and within the constraints of topical discussion, it is never appropriate in any ATS forum to target or "call out" other members for straw man arguments such as those upon which this thread is based.

Accordingly, this thread is not suitable for the 9/11 Conspiracies forum and is therefore closed.

Should anyone disagree with this action, please don't hesitate to send me a message and I'll be happy to talk about it, but please be aware that any argument in favor of this sort of discussion is a non-starter in the 9/11 forum.

Also, as always, should anyone note any posts anywhere in this forum, or anywhere on ATS, for that matter, that run afoul of the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use, please ALERT us to them. We always appreciate whatever help we can get.

Thanks.