100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Poll on who believes the official 9/11 account. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
What demographic was used from which part of the country for the random sample? What was the margin of error? These are some things that make it a legitimate survey. Why don't you ask CNN and the new New York Times/CBS News poll people. The parts where "truthers" try and deny the laws of physics is what gets me laughing. Peccy the truthers don't deny the laws of physics. Where do you get that idea? You will have to be more specific. What I don't buy is the computer simulations and the false information programmed into them in order to finally, after trial and error, get the calculations they needed to claim that it is possible for a giant high rise to be toppled by a normal fire or a plane. What I don't buy is how a parking lot full of cars were all rusted out with many that had their engine blocks melted and the parking lot was blocks away from the buildings. I watched the videos and I did not see that much fire. It was all dust. If there was that much heat and fire then why was there paper flying all over the place that was not even touched by fire? only about 4 floors were on fire.. that left about 100 other floors that did not burn... i think they might of had some paper on the other 100 floors... maybe.... and that would actually be about 200 floors, 100 per building Exactly, so how did all that fire reach a parking lot a few blocks away and virtually melt the engine blocks of cars? And what caused the cars to rust so quickly? ... Oxidation. So why would a building on fire collapsing cause all that oxidation, melt engine blocks, and rust out hundreds of cars? No, you don't know because you don't really spend much time studying the information that is out there. How dare you call them my "fantasies." What world are you living in anyway? These are not "fantasies." "A reported 1400 vehicles were damaged on 9/11. [Reference] These vehicles had peculiar patterns of damage and some were as far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River). Vehicles had missing door handles for example, windows blown out, window frames deformed, melted engine blocks, steel-belted tires with only the steel belts left, and vehicle front ends destroyed with little or no effect on the back end of the vehicles. What could have caused such extraordinary damage? Portions of cars burned while paper nearby did not." You want to see some pictures of toasted (and rusted) cars at ground zero? http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted I have put up pictures of these before and my threads have gotten deleted. Nobody likes a mystery I guess. They just want to live in their own fantasy world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the mystery is because we have no other SIMILAR incident to compare it to, to determine what is or isnt a likely outcome,,,
just alot of speculation, some by experts who also dont all agree |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What demographic was used from which part of the country for the random sample? What was the margin of error? These are some things that make it a legitimate survey. Why don't you ask CNN and the new New York Times/CBS News poll people. The parts where "truthers" try and deny the laws of physics is what gets me laughing. Peccy the truthers don't deny the laws of physics. Where do you get that idea? You will have to be more specific. What I don't buy is the computer simulations and the false information programmed into them in order to finally, after trial and error, get the calculations they needed to claim that it is possible for a giant high rise to be toppled by a normal fire or a plane. What I don't buy is how a parking lot full of cars were all rusted out with many that had their engine blocks melted and the parking lot was blocks away from the buildings. I watched the videos and I did not see that much fire. It was all dust. If there was that much heat and fire then why was there paper flying all over the place that was not even touched by fire? only about 4 floors were on fire.. that left about 100 other floors that did not burn... i think they might of had some paper on the other 100 floors... maybe.... and that would actually be about 200 floors, 100 per building Exactly, so how did all that fire reach a parking lot a few blocks away and virtually melt the engine blocks of cars? And what caused the cars to rust so quickly? ... Oxidation. So why would a building on fire collapsing cause all that oxidation, melt engine blocks, and rust out hundreds of cars? No, you don't know because you don't really spend much time studying the information that is out there. How dare you call them my "fantasies." What world are you living in anyway? These are not "fantasies." "A reported 1400 vehicles were damaged on 9/11. [Reference] These vehicles had peculiar patterns of damage and some were as far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River). Vehicles had missing door handles for example, windows blown out, window frames deformed, melted engine blocks, steel-belted tires with only the steel belts left, and vehicle front ends destroyed with little or no effect on the back end of the vehicles. What could have caused such extraordinary damage? Portions of cars burned while paper nearby did not." You want to see some pictures of toasted (and rusted) cars at ground zero? http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted I have put up pictures of these before and my threads have gotten deleted. Nobody likes a mystery I guess. They just want to live in their own fantasy world. Wonder where they got the Energy for that one for! Definitely not from this Earth! Would take a Multiple of what the whole Globe could generate in power! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are probably hitting on the truth with your sarcasm conrad. The technology and energy for that weapon probably did not come from us ignorant humans here on earth. It's very likely alien technology.
Did you see the history channel the other night? A program all about area 51 and some very credible witnesses to aliens and alien technology. It won't be long now before the government comes clean and tells us all about the aliens. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If there was nothing to hide, then why all the top secret classified stuff all the time?
We are basically supposedly the most powerful country in the world and yet we are still classifying everything for fear our lowly enemies will get the better of us? Oh brother. That does not make any sense. Ever seen a flying object you could not identify? (UFO) Many people have. More than half the population. If our military has all these "secrets" and all these experimental air craft, what is the point of keeping them secret? Some of our current known military aircraft look very much like alien space craft and are no longer secret. But in the 1060's they denied the existence of the whisper/silent black helicopters and yet these were seen around the areas of many cattle mutilations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(The truther movement is growing.) A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks: "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? Telling the truth 16% Hiding something 53% Mostly lying 28% Not sure 3%" The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job. A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population. what was the 'official' government explanation? I believe they were aware of the plan with the planes, I believe the planes hit as was broadcast on the day, I believe the buildings collapsed from the jet fuel and heat of the explosion as well as less than undestructable construction, I also believe one of the buildings had precautionary measures in it to blow manually in the event of a catastrophe, and that building was manually blown Too many things can go wrong when you have three-hundred-odd Tons of Explosives laying around! Besides that,a Structure needs to be considerably weakened throughout to be taken down with Explosives! Also,a dumb thing to do in case of Fire! so you are saying that the emergency command post for NYC couldn't have had holes drilled into the structural columns and explosives planted just in case they needed to blow it up? good god, man.... no, IM saying there was an architectural decision made, BASED upon knowledge of a potential attempt, to have the ability to blow the building manually |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, IM saying there was an architectural decision made, BASED upon knowledge of a potential attempt, to have the ability to blow the building manually That is beyond ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(The truther movement is growing.) A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks: "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? Telling the truth 16% Hiding something 53% Mostly lying 28% Not sure 3%" The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job. A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population. what was the 'official' government explanation? I believe they were aware of the plan with the planes, I believe the planes hit as was broadcast on the day, I believe the buildings collapsed from the jet fuel and heat of the explosion as well as less than undestructable construction, I also believe one of the buildings had precautionary measures in it to blow manually in the event of a catastrophe, and that building was manually blown Too many things can go wrong when you have three-hundred-odd Tons of Explosives laying around! Besides that,a Structure needs to be considerably weakened throughout to be taken down with Explosives! Also,a dumb thing to do in case of Fire! so you are saying that the emergency command post for NYC couldn't have had holes drilled into the structural columns and explosives planted just in case they needed to blow it up? good god, man.... no, IM saying there was an architectural decision made, BASED upon knowledge of a potential attempt, to have the ability to blow the building manually potential attempt at what? you can't climb a ladder over 6' high without a harness or you will have OSHA up your a$$.. you are saying that they or any other safety regulatory body allowed people to occupy building that had explosives planted in them? you cannot be serious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(The truther movement is growing.) A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks: "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? Telling the truth 16% Hiding something 53% Mostly lying 28% Not sure 3%" The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job. A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population. what was the 'official' government explanation? I believe they were aware of the plan with the planes, I believe the planes hit as was broadcast on the day, I believe the buildings collapsed from the jet fuel and heat of the explosion as well as less than undestructable construction, I also believe one of the buildings had precautionary measures in it to blow manually in the event of a catastrophe, and that building was manually blown Too many things can go wrong when you have three-hundred-odd Tons of Explosives laying around! Besides that,a Structure needs to be considerably weakened throughout to be taken down with Explosives! Also,a dumb thing to do in case of Fire! so you are saying that the emergency command post for NYC couldn't have had holes drilled into the structural columns and explosives planted just in case they needed to blow it up? good god, man.... no, IM saying there was an architectural decision made, BASED upon knowledge of a potential attempt, to have the ability to blow the building manually potential attempt at what? you can't climb a ladder over 6' high without a harness or you will have OSHA up your a$$.. you are saying that they or any other safety regulatory body allowed people to occupy building that had explosives planted in them? you cannot be serious. no, the collapsed building I am referring to was not OCCUPIED,, there were a few buildings which collapsed besides the towers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(The truther movement is growing.) A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks: "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? Telling the truth 16% Hiding something 53% Mostly lying 28% Not sure 3%" The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job. A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population. what was the 'official' government explanation? I believe they were aware of the plan with the planes, I believe the planes hit as was broadcast on the day, I believe the buildings collapsed from the jet fuel and heat of the explosion as well as less than undestructable construction, I also believe one of the buildings had precautionary measures in it to blow manually in the event of a catastrophe, and that building was manually blown Too many things can go wrong when you have three-hundred-odd Tons of Explosives laying around! Besides that,a Structure needs to be considerably weakened throughout to be taken down with Explosives! Also,a dumb thing to do in case of Fire! so you are saying that the emergency command post for NYC couldn't have had holes drilled into the structural columns and explosives planted just in case they needed to blow it up? good god, man.... no, IM saying there was an architectural decision made, BASED upon knowledge of a potential attempt, to have the ability to blow the building manually potential attempt at what? you can't climb a ladder over 6' high without a harness or you will have OSHA up your a$$.. you are saying that they or any other safety regulatory body allowed people to occupy building that had explosives planted in them? you cannot be serious. no, the collapsed building I am referring to was not OCCUPIED,, there were a few buildings which collapsed besides the towers I know what you are talking about. You said that you believe WTC 7 had explosives planted within before the attacks in case of emergency so they could blow it up. If there were no people inside the building what on earth was the purpose for blowing it up? It kind of ties into why in the hell would they crash a plane in the middle of nowhere PA? What purpose does it serve? The towers fell.. The pentagon was hit.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(The truther movement is growing.) A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks: "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? Telling the truth 16% Hiding something 53% Mostly lying 28% Not sure 3%" The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job. A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population. what was the 'official' government explanation? I believe they were aware of the plan with the planes, I believe the planes hit as was broadcast on the day, I believe the buildings collapsed from the jet fuel and heat of the explosion as well as less than undestructable construction, I also believe one of the buildings had precautionary measures in it to blow manually in the event of a catastrophe, and that building was manually blown Too many things can go wrong when you have three-hundred-odd Tons of Explosives laying around! Besides that,a Structure needs to be considerably weakened throughout to be taken down with Explosives! Also,a dumb thing to do in case of Fire! so you are saying that the emergency command post for NYC couldn't have had holes drilled into the structural columns and explosives planted just in case they needed to blow it up? good god, man.... no, IM saying there was an architectural decision made, BASED upon knowledge of a potential attempt, to have the ability to blow the building manually potential attempt at what? you can't climb a ladder over 6' high without a harness or you will have OSHA up your a$$.. you are saying that they or any other safety regulatory body allowed people to occupy building that had explosives planted in them? you cannot be serious. no, the collapsed building I am referring to was not OCCUPIED,, there were a few buildings which collapsed besides the towers I know what you are talking about. You said that you believe WTC 7 had explosives planted within before the attacks in case of emergency so they could blow it up. If there were no people inside the building what on earth was the purpose for blowing it up? It kind of ties into why in the hell would they crash a plane in the middle of nowhere PA? What purpose does it serve? The towers fell.. The pentagon was hit.. kind of pointless, since no explosives were found... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 05/12/12 04:12 PM
|
|
(The truther movement is growing.) A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks. According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks: "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying? Telling the truth 16% Hiding something 53% Mostly lying 28% Not sure 3%" The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job. A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population. what was the 'official' government explanation? I believe they were aware of the plan with the planes, I believe the planes hit as was broadcast on the day, I believe the buildings collapsed from the jet fuel and heat of the explosion as well as less than undestructable construction, I also believe one of the buildings had precautionary measures in it to blow manually in the event of a catastrophe, and that building was manually blown Too many things can go wrong when you have three-hundred-odd Tons of Explosives laying around! Besides that,a Structure needs to be considerably weakened throughout to be taken down with Explosives! Also,a dumb thing to do in case of Fire! so you are saying that the emergency command post for NYC couldn't have had holes drilled into the structural columns and explosives planted just in case they needed to blow it up? good god, man.... no, IM saying there was an architectural decision made, BASED upon knowledge of a potential attempt, to have the ability to blow the building manually potential attempt at what? you can't climb a ladder over 6' high without a harness or you will have OSHA up your a$$.. you are saying that they or any other safety regulatory body allowed people to occupy building that had explosives planted in them? you cannot be serious. no, the collapsed building I am referring to was not OCCUPIED,, there were a few buildings which collapsed besides the towers I know what you are talking about. You said that you believe WTC 7 had explosives planted within before the attacks in case of emergency so they could blow it up. If there were no people inside the building what on earth was the purpose for blowing it up? It kind of ties into why in the hell would they crash a plane in the middle of nowhere PA? What purpose does it serve? The towers fell.. The pentagon was hit.. you have misread I never named a specific building because I dont remember which building it was that was 'pulled' after the planes hit,,, IM not an architectural expert, maybe the decision to blow up a building was an attempt to CONTAIN damage,, like when firefighters actually do fight fire WITH fire the pa crash was EN ROUTE to DC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony, no disrespect, but you should learn a little more about the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kind of pointless, since no explosives were found.. The explosives must have disintegrated along with the buildings.  Or maybe there wasn't any explosives. Maybe the building was demolished with a high energy beam weapon from space. Mightmoe, I have told you before that no one actually looked for any explosives. How could they have found them? The point I have been trying to make is that WTC7 could not have totally collapsed suddenly all at once as a result of a fire. That is impossible, and no computer simulation programmed with falsified information can prove otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony, no disrespect, but you should learn a little more about the subject. there's that pot kettle thing going on again... I can't really say you don't know about 9-11, JB, but it seems your knowledge is loosely based on truther websites... which makes a lot of what you say worthless because you won't study any physics... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 05/12/12 04:44 PM
|
|
msharmony, no disrespect, but you should learn a little more about the subject. there's that pot kettle thing going on again... I can't really say you don't know about 9-11, JB, but it seems your knowledge is loosely based on truther websites... which makes a lot of what you say worthless because you won't study any physics... Physics has little to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about investigating the major crime of the entire history of the world. You don't announce that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden terrorists did it within 30 minutes of the last tower falling. That is NOT PROPER INVESTIGATION. That is just STUPID. That is what your government's spin doctors arranged through the (totally controlled) media. The FBI admitted that they had no evidence that Osama Bin Laden was connected to the attack. Osama Bin Laden did NOT take credit for it. My knowledge is based on more than what you loosely call "truther websites" In fact, any website that is NOT GOVERNMENT SPONSORED and does not promote the official version of 9/11 is labeled by you and others as a "truther" website. What I want to know is WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST THE TRUTH? WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST PEOPLE WHO WANT THE TRUTH? Yet you don't seem to ever actually talk about the real actual evidence. The only evidence you have to back your version up is fabricated evidence entered into a computer simulation. BAH! Worthless. Totally worthless and meaningless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What demographic was used from which part of the country for the random sample? What was the margin of error? These are some things that make it a legitimate survey. Why don't you ask CNN and the new New York Times/CBS News poll people. The parts where "truthers" try and deny the laws of physics is what gets me laughing. Peccy the truthers don't deny the laws of physics. Where do you get that idea? You will have to be more specific. What I don't buy is the computer simulations and the false information programmed into them in order to finally, after trial and error, get the calculations they needed to claim that it is possible for a giant high rise to be toppled by a normal fire or a plane. What I don't buy is how a parking lot full of cars were all rusted out with many that had their engine blocks melted and the parking lot was blocks away from the buildings. I watched the videos and I did not see that much fire. It was all dust. If there was that much heat and fire then why was there paper flying all over the place that was not even touched by fire? Those computer simulations you don't buy are based on....dramatic pause....physics. And can you actually prove that they were fed false information. No, the outcome was not what you wanted so you cry foul. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony, no disrespect, but you should learn a little more about the subject. there's that pot kettle thing going on again... I can't really say you don't know about 9-11, JB, but it seems your knowledge is loosely based on truther websites... which makes a lot of what you say worthless because you won't study any physics... Physics has little to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about investigating the major crime of the entire history of the world. You don't announce that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden terrorists did it within 30 minutes of the last tower falling. That is NOT PROPER INVESTIGATION. That is just STUPID. That is what your government's spin doctors arranged through the (totally controlled) media. The FBI admitted that they had no evidence that Osama Bin Laden was connected to the attack. Osama Bin Laden did NOT take credit for it. My knowledge is based on more than what you loosely call "truther websites" In fact, any website that is NOT GOVERNMENT SPONSORED and does not promote the official version of 9/11 is labeled by you and others as a "truther" website. What I want to know is WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST THE TRUTH? WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST PEOPLE WHO WANT THE TRUTH? Yet you don't seem to ever actually talk about the real actual evidence. The only evidence you have to back your version up is fabricated evidence entered into a computer simulation. BAH! Worthless. Totally worthless and meaningless. You have some misguided idea that just because the government gives money to something it controls how that money is used. They don't. People like the ASCE would turn down the job offer to investigate if they were not actually going to be able to do their own work and claim their own findings. Also the government doesn't have the resources to follow and track all of that. You claim you don't care about physics but on other posts you claim things are impossible according to physics. Every time you say that you are actually wrong. When people that know physics say you are wrong you either change the subject or say you are not talking about physics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those computer simulations you don't buy are based on....dramatic pause....physics. And can you actually prove that they were fed false information. No, the outcome was not what you wanted so you cry foul. It has already been proven that the computer simulations were fed falsified information about the extent and length of fires on the 12th floor of WTC7. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 05/13/12 03:26 PM
|
|
msharmony, no disrespect, but you should learn a little more about the subject. there's that pot kettle thing going on again... I can't really say you don't know about 9-11, JB, but it seems your knowledge is loosely based on truther websites... which makes a lot of what you say worthless because you won't study any physics... Physics has little to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about investigating the major crime of the entire history of the world. You don't announce that Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden terrorists did it within 30 minutes of the last tower falling. That is NOT PROPER INVESTIGATION. That is just STUPID. That is what your government's spin doctors arranged through the (totally controlled) media. The FBI admitted that they had no evidence that Osama Bin Laden was connected to the attack. Osama Bin Laden did NOT take credit for it. My knowledge is based on more than what you loosely call "truther websites" In fact, any website that is NOT GOVERNMENT SPONSORED and does not promote the official version of 9/11 is labeled by you and others as a "truther" website. What I want to know is WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST THE TRUTH? WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST PEOPLE WHO WANT THE TRUTH? Yet you don't seem to ever actually talk about the real actual evidence. The only evidence you have to back your version up is fabricated evidence entered into a computer simulation. BAH! Worthless. Totally worthless and meaningless. You have some misguided idea that just because the government gives money to something it controls how that money is used. They don't. People like the ASCE would turn down the job offer to investigate if they were not actually going to be able to do their own work and claim their own findings. Also the government doesn't have the resources to follow and track all of that. You claim you don't care about physics but on other posts you claim things are impossible according to physics. Every time you say that you are actually wrong. When people that know physics say you are wrong you either change the subject or say you are not talking about physics. Telling me I am "wrong" and using the buzz word "physics" does not make your case. I did not say I don't care about physics, I said, if you will actually read the above, that "physics has little to do with what I am talking about." I'm glad you have such a noble opinion of ASCE, but I believe you are mistaken. Science fraud has taken place. ASCE has been compromised in my opinion as long as they turn a blind eye to the real evidence. |
|
|
|
|
