Many questions remain about 9/11 as we near the 18th anniversary.

[Skylar]

Wow. So much for you thermite theory taking down the towers.

Again, even you treat your conspiracies like meaningless garbage.

You're well-practiced with your talking points. Congratulations.

The word you're looking for is 'informed'.

See, I've actually done my research. I know what I'm talking about. I'm not just apeing what some website or youtube video told me to think, as you are.

I know your conspiracies *way* better than you do. And I already know why they are awful, pointless, needlessly complicated explanations that don't match the evidence.

Which you would realize the moment you stop ignoring the very facts you claim to be seeking.

 

[Faun]

The new precident for 50 story buildings on fire.

G'head, Truther .... tell the forum again how 14 seconds to collapse is "free fall."

 

[Faun]

It never occurs to them that the same hapless, flawed and ignorant process that produced their LAST failed conspiracy is the exact same hapless, flawed and ignorant process they're still using for their NEXT failed conspiracy.

Idiots. What do you do copy and paste from the "debunking JFK conspiracy theories" handbook. ? LMFAO

Says the poor hapless soul that has been spamming videos he's never watched, links he's never visited, promoting conspiracies he doesn't understand.

Sorry, Angelo....but you're just not very good at this. You don't know the arguments you're apeing. You haven't done the research. You're just spamming.

Which is why you so easily lost.

When you say, "never watched," you must mean like this post of his ....

A Truther making an ass of himself

Watch the second of the 3 videos he posted.

He didn't watch it. He just caught a glimpse of it on youtube and copied in his post, thinking it was a video showing explosives bringing down building 7; when in fact, it was a video debunking the flashes as being photoshopped.

The only bigger idiots than Truthers -- are Birthers.

 

[the other mike]

“It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them. … “What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think.” — Adolf Hitler

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. … Propaganda must always be essentially simple and repetitious. The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly… it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”– Joseph Goebbels

“It is my firm belief that 9/11 skeptics—and true skeptics of any paradigm-shifting and taboo subject—who publicly expose lies and ‘naked emperors’ are heroes …They have suffered the ridicule and wrath of those emperors, their minions, and the just plain frightened…In our American society, many of our authority figures routinely lie to us, but nonetheless, many citizens continue to look to them for truth and safety—especially when fear is heightened.

This strong tendency to believe and obey authority is another obstacle with which skeptics of the official 9/11 account must contend…By unquestioningly believing and obeying authority, we make very bad decisions, which often negatively affect others. This can be equally true for the four human proclivities studied by social psychologists: doublethink, cognitive dissonance, conformity, and groupthink.” – Frances Shure

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” – Carl Sagan

 

[the other mike]

Duty to Warn: 9/11 and Cognitive Dissonance - Global Research
“Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological or emotional discomfort felt when one is confronted with new information or a new reality that contradicts one’s deeply held beliefs.

“When there are conflicting, mutually exclusive beliefs, intelligent, open-minded and thoughtful people that have not been victimized by significant psychological trauma during their upbringing, are usually willing to change their minds by re-evaluating their prior stances, looking carefully and honestly at the new evidence, reassessing the credibility of both positions and then making a decision to adopt or reject the new information, depending on the evidence before them.

“Close-minded, distracted, uninformed, addicted, ignorant, too-busy, overly obedient, uber-patriotic, co-opted or radically conservative people may not have the time, inclination, intelligence or political will (or courage) to look at the available new evidence that runs contrary to their old, ingrained beliefs. Therefore, they may unconsciously or reflexively reject the new information, even if the evidence is overwhelmingly and provably true.”

 

[irosie91]

Duty to Warn: 9/11 and Cognitive Dissonance - Global Research
“Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological or emotional discomfort felt when one is confronted with new information or a new reality that contradicts one’s deeply held beliefs.

“When there are conflicting, mutually exclusive beliefs, intelligent, open-minded and thoughtful people that have not been victimized by significant psychological trauma during their upbringing, are usually willing to change their minds by re-evaluating their prior stances, looking carefully and honestly at the new evidence, reassessing the credibility of both positions and then making a decision to adopt or reject the new information, depending on the evidence before them.

“Close-minded, distracted, uninformed, addicted, ignorant, too-busy, overly obedient, uber-patriotic, co-opted or radically conservative people may not have the time, inclination, intelligence or political will (or courage) to look at the available new evidence that runs contrary to their old, ingrained beliefs. Therefore, they may unconsciously or reflexively reject the new information, even if the evidence is overwhelmingly and provably true.”

the literature of the organization GLOBAL RESEARCH publishes Literature
that would present no problem of cognitive dissonance in the residents of the
BERLIN BUNKER January 1945 thru April 1945

 

[the other mike]

Not believing the mainstream media is very hard for some folk who have put their trust and faith in the state and press.

 

[the other mike]

Despite calls for the evidence to be preserved, New York City officials had the building's debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place.

 

[irosie91]

Not believing the mainstream media is very hard for some folk who have put their trust and faith in the state and press.

swallowing the swill presented by "GLOBAL RESEARCH" is easy for folks who
find that of Adolf and Goebbels---palatable

 

[irosie91]

Despite calls for the evidence to be preserved, New York City officials had the building's debris removed and destroyed in the ensuing weeks and months, preventing a proper forensic investigation from ever taking place.

you got a citation for "calls for preservation of evidence"------and 'destruction"
thereof?

 

[the other mike]

swallowing the swill presented by "GLOBAL RESEARCH" is easy for folks who
find that of Adolf and Goebbels---palatable

Attacking the messenger. That's very original.
You learn that from the Dinocrocks who are scared of Fox News ?

 

[irosie91]

swallowing the swill presented by "GLOBAL RESEARCH" is easy for folks who
find that of Adolf and Goebbels---palatable

Attacking the messenger. That's very original.
You learn that from the Dinocrocks who are scared of Fox News ?

sorry-------I attacked your idols. You have a right to your religious
beliefs

 

[the other mike]

you got a citation for "calls for preservation of evidence"------and 'destruction"
thereof?

Documenting the Destruction of Physical Evidence at the World Trade Center

Official acknowledgement of the destruction of physical evidence from the WTC

• Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002: 2

“In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT Team)], a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.”

• Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, 7th District, New York: 3

“[T]here is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.”

• Jonathan Barnett, PhD, FEMA BPAT Investigator: 4

“Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item – photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7.”

Control of the WTC cleanup
In the aftermath of the attacks, protocol for disaster cleanup and investigations was not followed. According to the New York Times: 5

“In other disasters, FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies have played a more central role in making decisions about cleanup and investigations. But from the start, they found that New York had a degree of engineering and construction expertise unlike any they had encountered.

“‘They wanted to do a lot of things on their own,’ said Charles Hess, who is in charge of civil emergency management for the Army Corps.”

New York City’s Department of Design and Construction (DDC) took control of the site as a result of Mayor Giuliani’s “back-room decision to scrap the organization charts, to finesse the city’s own Office of Emergency Management (OEM), and to allow the DDC to proceed”: 6

“[T]here was a shift in power in their direction that was never quite formalized and, indeed, was unjustified by bureaucratic logic or political considerations. The City’s official and secret emergency plans, written before the attack, called for the Department of Sanitation to clean up after a building collapse. A woman involved in writing the latest versions – a midlevel official in the OEM – mentioned to one of the contractors a week after the Trade Center collapse that she still did not quite know what the DDC was.”

DDC Deputy Commissioner Michael Burton showed complete disregard for the need to preserve the evidence: 7

“Burton, who had become the effective czar for the cleanup job, had made it clear that he cared very little about engineering subtleties like the question of why the towers first stood, then collapsed on September 11. ‘We know why they fell,’ he said. ‘Because they flew two planes into the towers.’ But he was deeply immersed in the details of hauling steel out of the debris pile.”

By September 28, 2001, 130,000 tons of debris had already been removed from the site,8 in what one journalist with unrestricted access to the site called, “the most aggressive possible schedule of demolition and debris removal.” 9

The decision to destroy the physical evidence
According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton: 10

“[O]fficials at the Department of Design and Construction, including Michael Burton, had decided to ship virtually all of the steel to scrap yards, where it would be cut up, shipped away, and melted down for reuse before it was inspected… Burton cleared the decision with Richard Tomasetti of Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers. Months later, Tomasetti would say that had he known the direction that investigations into the disaster would take, he would have adopted a different stance. But the decision to quickly melt down the trade center steel had been made.” [Underline added for emphasis]

However, Mr. Tomasetti’s alleged ignorance of the need to save the steel is questionable given his knowledge of engineering investigations, and given that his business partner, Charles Thornton, was a lead member on the team of engineers initially assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to investigate the cause of the collapses. The ASCE team, which later became the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), reportedly requested early on that the steel be saved. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton: 11

“[O]n September 28, the New York Times learned that the city was recycling the steel. When the Times contacted Kenneth R. Holden, commissioner of the Department of Design and Construction, he said that no one from the investigative team had asked him to keep or inspect the steel. The ASCE, it turned out, had faxed a request, but to the wrong fax machine. Late that afternoon, after reporters shuttled the correct fax number to the ASCE, Holden said that a request had finally reached him.”

By September 28, the DDC is publicly known to have been aware of the BPAT’s request for the steel to be saved, however, the decision to recycle the steel stood.

Of course, Mayor Giuliani – previously a U.S. Attorney – and the DDC had to be fully aware of the illegality of destroying the physical evidence prior to their decision to recycle the steel. Their refusal to desist from recycling the steel when asked by the investigative team to do so – still less than three weeks into the cleanup effort, with hundreds of thousands of tons of steel still salvageable, and relatively negligible revenue from selling the steel not an issue because there was virtually unlimited federal funding for the cleanup effort – strongly suggests their contravention of the law was deliberate and motivated by intent to prevent the discovery of a crime they knew had taken place.

The continued destruction of evidence despite public outcry
In the months that followed, the city ignored mounting calls from the public to halt its recycling of the steel. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton: 12

“The decision to go on with the recycling program fueled outrage among the victims’ families. On December 14, nearly three months after the program had been disclosed, Sally Regenhard was standing in a drizzle outside City Hall protesting the recycling decision. Her son, Christian, a firefighter, had died in the towers’ collapse. ‘We’re here today to call for a stop to the destruction of evidence, composed mainly of steel,’ she said.”

The outcry was echoed by prominent voices in the fire-engineering community. Fire Engineering editor Bill Manning wrote on January 1, 2002: 13

“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on a slow boat to China, never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car. Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing for the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall… As things stand now and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.”

Calls to halt the recycling fell on deaf ears. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton: 14

“Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation. ‘The city considered it reasonable to have recovered structural steel recycled,’ said Matthew G. Monahan, a spokesman for the city's Department of Design and Construction, which is in charge of debris removal at the site.”

Why didn’t the city simply stop recycling the steel? Again, the outright refusal of city officials to desist from recycling the steel strongly suggests their contravention of the law was deliberate and motivated by intent to prevent the discovery of a crime they knew had taken place.

 

[the other mike]

sorry-------I attacked your idols. You have a right to your religious
beliefs

I'd love to see you try to attack my idols.

 

[Skylar]

swallowing the swill presented by "GLOBAL RESEARCH" is easy for folks who
find that of Adolf and Goebbels---palatable

Attacking the messenger. That's very original.
You learn that from the Dinocrocks who are scared of Fox News ?

I tried asking the 'messenger' about the numerous gaping, conspiracy crippling holes in the truther explanations he offered us. And the messenger fled with his tail tucked between his legs, utterly unable and failing completely.

And this is *before* the messenger gave us a batshit conspiracy about 'angle cut girders' to try and prop up his debunked 'thermite' conspiracy, insisting that the clean up crews would never cut girders at 45 degree angles.

Until we showed the messenger a picture of the clean up crews doing *exactly* that. At which point, the messenger abandoned his failed 'thermite' nonsense and skittered to yet another vague conspiracy theory.

 

[Skylar]

you got a citation for "calls for preservation of evidence"------and 'destruction"
thereof?

Documenting the Destruction of Physical Evidence at the World Trade Center

Official acknowledgement of the destruction of physical evidence from the WTC

• Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002: 2

“In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT Team)], a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.”

• Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, 7th District, New York: 3

“[T]here is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.”

• Jonathan Barnett, PhD, FEMA BPAT Investigator: 4

“Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item – photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7.”

Control of the WTC cleanup
In the aftermath of the attacks, protocol for disaster cleanup and investigations was not followed. According to the New York Times: 5

“In other disasters, FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies have played a more central role in making decisions about cleanup and investigations. But from the start, they found that New York had a degree of engineering and construction expertise unlike any they had encountered.

“‘They wanted to do a lot of things on their own,’ said Charles Hess, who is in charge of civil emergency management for the Army Corps.”

New York City’s Department of Design and Construction (DDC) took control of the site as a result of Mayor Giuliani’s “back-room decision to scrap the organization charts, to finesse the city’s own Office of Emergency Management (OEM), and to allow the DDC to proceed”: 6

“[T]here was a shift in power in their direction that was never quite formalized and, indeed, was unjustified by bureaucratic logic or political considerations. The City’s official and secret emergency plans, written before the attack, called for the Department of Sanitation to clean up after a building collapse. A woman involved in writing the latest versions – a midlevel official in the OEM – mentioned to one of the contractors a week after the Trade Center collapse that she still did not quite know what the DDC was.”

DDC Deputy Commissioner Michael Burton showed complete disregard for the need to preserve the evidence: 7

“Burton, who had become the effective czar for the cleanup job, had made it clear that he cared very little about engineering subtleties like the question of why the towers first stood, then collapsed on September 11. ‘We know why they fell,’ he said. ‘Because they flew two planes into the towers.’ But he was deeply immersed in the details of hauling steel out of the debris pile.”

By September 28, 2001, 130,000 tons of debris had already been removed from the site,8 in what one journalist with unrestricted access to the site called, “the most aggressive possible schedule of demolition and debris removal.” 9

The decision to destroy the physical evidence
According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton: 10

“[O]fficials at the Department of Design and Construction, including Michael Burton, had decided to ship virtually all of the steel to scrap yards, where it would be cut up, shipped away, and melted down for reuse before it was inspected… Burton cleared the decision with Richard Tomasetti of Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers. Months later, Tomasetti would say that had he known the direction that investigations into the disaster would take, he would have adopted a different stance. But the decision to quickly melt down the trade center steel had been made.” [Underline added for emphasis]

However, Mr. Tomasetti’s alleged ignorance of the need to save the steel is questionable given his knowledge of engineering investigations, and given that his business partner, Charles Thornton, was a lead member on the team of engineers initially assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to investigate the cause of the collapses. The ASCE team, which later became the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), reportedly requested early on that the steel be saved. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton: 11

“[O]n September 28, the New York Times learned that the city was recycling the steel. When the Times contacted Kenneth R. Holden, commissioner of the Department of Design and Construction, he said that no one from the investigative team had asked him to keep or inspect the steel. The ASCE, it turned out, had faxed a request, but to the wrong fax machine. Late that afternoon, after reporters shuttled the correct fax number to the ASCE, Holden said that a request had finally reached him.”

By September 28, the DDC is publicly known to have been aware of the BPAT’s request for the steel to be saved, however, the decision to recycle the steel stood.

Of course, Mayor Giuliani – previously a U.S. Attorney – and the DDC had to be fully aware of the illegality of destroying the physical evidence prior to their decision to recycle the steel. Their refusal to desist from recycling the steel when asked by the investigative team to do so – still less than three weeks into the cleanup effort, with hundreds of thousands of tons of steel still salvageable, and relatively negligible revenue from selling the steel not an issue because there was virtually unlimited federal funding for the cleanup effort – strongly suggests their contravention of the law was deliberate and motivated by intent to prevent the discovery of a crime they knew had taken place.

The continued destruction of evidence despite public outcry
In the months that followed, the city ignored mounting calls from the public to halt its recycling of the steel. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton: 12

“The decision to go on with the recycling program fueled outrage among the victims’ families. On December 14, nearly three months after the program had been disclosed, Sally Regenhard was standing in a drizzle outside City Hall protesting the recycling decision. Her son, Christian, a firefighter, had died in the towers’ collapse. ‘We’re here today to call for a stop to the destruction of evidence, composed mainly of steel,’ she said.”

The outcry was echoed by prominent voices in the fire-engineering community. Fire Engineering editor Bill Manning wrote on January 1, 2002: 13

“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on a slow boat to China, never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car. Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing for the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall… As things stand now and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.”

Calls to halt the recycling fell on deaf ears. According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton: 14

“Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation. ‘The city considered it reasonable to have recovered structural steel recycled,’ said Matthew G. Monahan, a spokesman for the city's Department of Design and Construction, which is in charge of debris removal at the site.”

Why didn’t the city simply stop recycling the steel? Again, the outright refusal of city officials to desist from recycling the steel strongly suggests their contravention of the law was deliberate and motivated by intent to prevent the discovery of a crime they knew had taken place.

And by 'destroying evidence', you mean they cleared the debris from ground zero?

So your working conspiracy is that a clean up crew hired to remove debris from ground zero........removed debris from ground zero.

Um, wow. That's just so spectacularly underwhelming. What's your next 'revelation'? Garbage men take out garbage? Window washers wash windows?

 

[Skylar]

It never occurs to them that the same hapless, flawed and ignorant process that produced their LAST failed conspiracy is the exact same hapless, flawed and ignorant process they're still using for their NEXT failed conspiracy.

Idiots. What do you do copy and paste from the "debunking JFK conspiracy theories" handbook. ? LMFAO

Says the poor hapless soul that has been spamming videos he's never watched, links he's never visited, promoting conspiracies he doesn't understand.

Sorry, Angelo....but you're just not very good at this. You don't know the arguments you're apeing. You haven't done the research. You're just spamming.

Which is why you so easily lost.

When you say, "never watched," you must mean like this post of his ....

A Truther making an ass of himself

Watch the second of the 3 videos he posted.

He didn't watch it. He just caught a glimpse of it on youtube and copied in his post, thinking it was a video showing explosives bringing down building 7; when in fact, it was a video debunking the flashes as being photoshopped.

The only bigger idiots than Truthers -- are Birthers.

Its not like Angelo has actuually watched the truther conspiracy videos he's spamming. Or has the slightest clue what's in them. He simply doesn't understand the very conspiracies he's spewing.

When I asked him the most basic questions about the silly thermite conspiracy he offered us...


"Thermite reactions are absolutely and completely obvious. And with 47 core columns and 240 perimeter columns per floor and the tower coming down from the point of impact with the planes to the ground, each floor would have had to been destroyed individually. That's roughly 90 floors on one tower and about 80 on the other, that would have been nearly 50,000 individual thermite reactions that would have needed to have gone off.

With the 240 perimeter columns are on the outside of the building, exposed to open air. So when the 10s or thousands of thermite reactions went off, they would have lit the WTC towers so brightly you would have been able to see the light from orbit.

Yet.....nothing. Not a single thermite reaction was ever seen. Despite your theory requiring 10s of thousands of them.

Where were the 10s of thousands of thermite reactions that the Truther thermite theory requires?"


.....Angelo predictably skittered to yet another conspiracy, abandoning his debunked 'thermite' nonsense. That's what I love about Truthers. They treat their own silly conspiracies like meaningless garbage.

Which is convenient.....as I treat them the same way.

 

[the other mike]

And by 'destroying evidence', you mean they cleared the debris from ground zero?

So your working conspiracy is that a clean up crew hired to remove debris from ground zero........removed debris from ground zero.

Um, wow. That's just so spectacularly underwhelming.

Not in the mood for trolls today, but I won't put you on ignore like I probably should.
Have a nice day, Huckleberry.

If you guys are so sure you're right, why do you keep quoting me and bumping this thread back up ?

 

[the other mike]

.....Angelo predictably skittered to yet another conspiracy, abandoning his debunked 'thermite' nonsense. That's what I love about Truthers. They treat their own silly conspiracies like meaningless garbage.

Which is convenient.....as I treat them the same way.

You just admitted you're a fucking paid troll douchebag. How many 9/11 keyword
screens in your little cubicle there Timmy ?

Who else is they ? I'm the only one here. Go back through all 50 pages and I have about 3 advocates at the most.

 

[Skylar]

And by 'destroying evidence', you mean they cleared the debris from ground zero?

So your working conspiracy is that a clean up crew hired to remove debris from ground zero........removed debris from ground zero.

Um, wow. That's just so spectacularly underwhelming.

Not in the mood for trolls today, but I won't put you on ignore like I probably should.
Have a nice day, Huckleberry.

If you guys are so sure you're right, why do you keep quoting me and bumping this thread back up ?

And by 'trolls', you mean anyone who questions any of the absurd conspiracies you've offered or applies common sense or reason to them.

Sorry, but your 'thermite' conspiracy is just a terrrible explaination.

Your thermite theory requires 10 of thousands of thermite reactions, the overwhelming majority of which would have been on the OUTSIDE of the building. Yet, we didn't see any of these 10s of thousands of reactions.

And thermite is super obvious, burning so brightly that it can permanently damage your eyes if you even look at it. And yet, nothing.

How do you account for this MASSIVE inconsistency between the conspiracy you've offered and the ACTUAL events?

You can't. You're stumped. You abandon your silly 'thermite' nonsense, skittering to an all new conspiracy. If your conspiracies had merit, they could withstand questioning. But your absurd conspiracies collapse the moment that any question is asked.