Sea Skimmer wrote:They can discuss anything they want. Discussion is not peer reviewed calculations or proof or research. I did watch the video, I noticed it claims a nuclear weapon brought down the towers, which I mean, you could come up with more pathetic answers but it would be really hard; at least the thermite nonsense wouldn't leave radioactive fallout that would be detectable globally to this very day, and I also see it has no figures, and only one poor long distance shot of the debris themselves focused on an edge of the pile. You do an excellent job showing how absurdly stupid you are by linking to a clip like that?
That is the reporters of 20 20 (one of the most professional media groups around) and their scientific contacts you are dissing. Anyway, that video has 3 parts, and only the 1st clip on dustification was really relevant to what was being discussed. Dragging the other 2 clips into the discussion like you did is all fine and well, but seriously, your whole line of reasoning has been watered down to an argument by stereotype: Associate the enemy with someone who seems crazy (despite the fact that they were a sideshow to the clip in question), and you don't even need to consider their arguments, because they clearly have no idea what their talking about!
Prove it. Not by dropping names or linking to videos. Show real peer reviewed work. You also still need to show the Chief of the New York City Fire Department didn't know what he was looking at in person and that everyone's numbers on the plane impacts are wrong.
I've already given you AT LEAST two such papers. That would be the NIST final report on WTC 7, and jim hoffmans on the energy requirements for driving the expansion of the WTCs pyroclastic flow of pulverised material (which would kill two birds with one stone at this point). Go ahead, look it up. Whats stopping you?
I've already proven that the pancake collapse is an impossibility, that the WTCs were designed to resist the impact of those planes (and that those impacts should have had no effect on their structural integrity, thus leaving the job of destroying them to THE FIRES ALONE), that there are ample connections to those responsible for rigging the towers for controlled demolition, that the fireproofing was not damaged by the impacts (which, BTW, heres the link to: http://www.journalof911studies
. com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf, as requested), that column 79 could not have been displaced the full 5.5 inchs, I've disproved all the claims you made about building 7 as well, and a dozen other things as well. But oh no, its me whos on thin ice, and its me who has to do something drastic to prevent this hopeless farce of a thread (more like a kangaroo court) from being closed. You two have as much sense as a box of rocks, you lie through your big fat asses, and trying to get an admission that all those things I mentioned have, in fact, transpired, is like pulling fucking teeth.
I see you have no intention of doing so in favour of moving onto different topics because you know your beat and spreading a bunch of bullshit nobody believes. Nobody gives a fuck what you want to assert or what names of other idiots you might want to drop. Do you even understand the concept of peer reviewed work? Do you realize how absurdly stupid you look linking to videos that prove they are nonsensical in the very title of the upload?
Whatever dude, if you're frightened away from anything that isn't gift wrapped for you in a politically correct or government approved package, then be that way. But do not, under any circumstances, suggest that because a treatment on a subject came from an opposing party, that it must therefore be lies or doctored*. I don't want to see that shit from you again, sea skimmer, and if I do, it will only prove that you are guilty of the same behaviour you constantly attribute to 911 truthers.
*Its one thing to say that, it is quite another to actually prove how they lied. Since you aren't getting around to doing that, I'll assume that your statement was just a puerile attempt to flip the board of chess over to avoid the inevitable coup de gra. Its time you change your attitude, or excuse yourself from this argument. I've provided alll the documentation realistically required, and you either ignore all their conclusions, or reject them on grounds as shallow as their political orientation.
Its become clear to me how the denizens of stardestroyer.net conflate the strength of their emotions with the strength of their argument. Yelling louder and cursing more does not make your story any more credible than it is: This is display behaviour for the benefit of onlookers, to distract them from your genuinely laughable and fraudulent position.