9/11 was an inside job.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: neutronflux

I didn't say you were. I asked if you were referring to me. Were you?

Quote were I generally accused any person of lying without laying out evidence in this thread.

a reply to: neutronflux

I believe the word you keep looking for, again & again, is "where." You're welcome.

And I didn't say you accused anyone of lying. I don't think you know what 'slander' means. Look it up.

ETA: Also look up the word 'libel,' I think it will clear up some confusion for you.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

So, who are guilt and what is your evidence?

a reply to: neutronflux

My evidence for what?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then you believe the offical account, and there is no conspiracy to cover up?

a reply to: neutronflux

No, I have reasonable doubt.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Of what? And what is the evidence?

a reply to: neutronflux

Oh, FFS.

Do jurors have to produce evidence and prosecute an alternative theory if they acquit a Defendant?

No. Neither do I.

Are jurors guilty of 'slander,' if they don't find a witness credible?

No. And neither am I.

This line of debate is too tedious to keep me interested any longer.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do jurors have to produce evidence and prosecute an alternative theory if they acquit a Defendant?

But you were late for the prosecutions case.
You only heard Johnny Cocrans defense.

That's the problem with all the conspiracy believers.
They stop after they read some conspiracy site.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: neutronflux

Oh, FFS.

Do jurors have to produce evidence and prosecute an alternative theory if they acquit a Defendant?

No. Neither do I.

Are jurors guilty of 'slander,' if they don't find a witness credible?

No. And neither am I.

This line of debate is too tedious to keep me interested any longer.

If a witness is found not credible, it's determined by proof in a court of law.

What is your evidence of who doing what in the terms of the offical account.

a reply to: CajunMetal

If you were savy enough and obviously you are not you would have look at the construction differences of the truther fire examples.

The buildings are of different construction and to different standards and the classic examples used such as the Windsor Tower had steel failing even when not damaged before the fire, the only reason the building(s) stayed up due to reinforced concrete cores, waffle slabs and other differences from the Towers and WTC7.

Go look find out read about it then you would be embarassed to use those pictures to claim that on 9/11 the buildings should not have collapsed, you see working in construction in a technical role testing & working along side architects/engineers helps to understand these things.

We owe it to the thousands of people killed that we fight for the truth to come to light. May they rest in peace.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: CajunMetal

If you were savy enough and obviously you are not you would have look at the construction differences of the truther fire examples.

The buildings are of different construction and to different standards and the classic examples used such as the Windsor Tower had steel failing even when not damaged before the fire, the only reason the building(s) stayed up due to reinforced concrete cores, waffle slabs and other differences from the Towers and WTC7.

Go look find out read about it then you would be embarassed to use those pictures to claim that on 9/11 the buildings should not have collapsed, you see working in construction in a technical role testing & working along side architects/engineers helps to understand these things.

Got it. Jet fuel melts steal. Thanks Tim Allen!

Yeah, but the jokes on them. They worship the wrong god.

a reply to: CajunMetal

Only conspiracy nuts claim jet fuel melts steel have a look at a steel strength v temperature graph and educate yourself a little.

If you were going to blow up your own building what is the first thing you would do?

9/11 fails the first test of police. It had massive policy insurance claim and stock manipulation probability.

In other words, their 'misfortune' did make a lot of money at the end of the day. For someone, or a few.


Sure you might not believe the second line, but most people that live in/near New York are actually the epicenter of the truth movement, this in itself is a huge clue, more people in New York/New Jersey believe it was false than even those keen outside the country. This is actually easy to observe itself if you travel and go talk to people there.

a reply to: craterman

The joke is on God if we're what he's dealing with.

a reply to: DisinfoEqualsTerrorism

I think most conspiracists are based out of San Francisco where the founder of architects and engineers practiced architecture.

Dr Wood was in South Carolina during 9/11 and when she started to exploit 9/11 for book sales. Sorry, ment questioned?


Steven thermite Jones is a Senior Missionary in New Jersey.

Like to make more claims you cannot substantiate to create a false implication?

a reply to: neutronflux

Hmmm. It's sort of convenient that every single one of the people who figured out ways to secretly destroy skyscrapers was elsewhere in the country at the time. As a result, no-one has ever suspected them. Perhaps they should all be arrested and questioned.

a reply to: DisinfoEqualsTerrorism

Griffin that wrote the new pear harbor is a life long resident of California?