A New Conspiracy for LTS TRN Tool

[Jay in Phoenix]

Okay, no more use exposing your utter lack of substance in anything you say--Jay, goobs,--you've had ample opportunity to offer something--anything--to back up your tedious droning of...well what is it, after all? Do you actually believe the NIST report? The Gerald Posner book? The 9/11 Commission report? The weird assertions of Donald Rumsfeld? Regardless, you've had your ass handed to you, and all you can offer in response is your own pissy insistence on me being a kook? And yet I'm not the MIT engineer claiming bullshit. You can't smear him. Or the firefighters who calmly reported explosions. Or the pilots who insist on the truth.

Complete and utter tripe. What A-dad just wrote was spot on. No matter how many times you link the same idiotic conspiracy web sites, you're just singing the same sad song Chicken LittleNick. Yes, the buildings fell, but not because they were blown up by explosives. Mvscal and others have repeatedly sited the enormous difficulty, even implausibility of planting materials all over these buildings without anyone detecting it. I realize logic and rational thought are impossible for you Nick, but your mouth-breathing and nonsense are tired. You've been refuted over and over, getting your ass handed to you again and again on a platter, yet you still won't quit.

Pathetic.

You're the pathetic cowards, the brain-dead limp-dick losers who are like sludge built up in the nation's fuel lines. You're the ring-around-the-collar of basic moral decency. You're the herpes sore on the phallus of the planet. You're the flat tire on an otherwise functioning automobile. You're a disgrace to smack boards, as well as rational and responsible citizenry.

Since this is still somewhat of a smack board, why don't you try running some? The flat tire and planet phallus lines were juvenile at best. Your sad and lonely existence would be pitiable if your weren't so laugh out loud stupid.

[LTS TRN 2]

That wasn't one thing, but I'll pick the only one where you actually applied any semblance of logic, the eyewitness testimony.
Yes, eyewitness, or in this case mostly earwitness, testimony can be a bit tricky. Timing gets fucked up in your head. You think you hear a gun and it was a backfire. That is all well and good but it doesn't refute what they are saying. It only serves to explain why they might be mistaken.
That's not what I am taking about. Is there one, just one, assertion made on that site that you can refute?

The link Goobs posted is a point by point 'controlled demolition' of every half-witted woo-woo bullshit theory you and Licks Turd2 have ever offered.

Here it is again in case you missed it. Read it or don't. I don't really care. Neither one of you has a clue.

http://www.debunking911.com/

This site is pure Popular Mechanics bullshit on every point. It's a joke. Astonishing, really, when one considers how it just blusters through each obvious hole in the official story. This sort of absolute howling Alice In Wonderland nonsense would make Gerald Posner blush.

A simple example of this ludicrous site's outrageous audacity in attempting to offer with a straight face some sort of "debunking" is its pathetic attempt to spin the famous accidental "pull it" admission by Larry Silverstein. This bullshit site claims "pull it" referred to cables that were attached to the 47-storey steel framed skyscraper to help pull it down (because, gee whiz, it was on fire).

Well first, so what if debris fell on one side of it (with a huge building between it and the falling tower, btw)? No one has ever suggested what might burn for hours in the first place in an office building. Chairs and carpet? Calenders on the walls? Except of course the bizarre theory of a huge tank of diesel fuel in the basement that for some reason started automatically being pumped up to the 36th-floor, non-stop

Well, this is a total crock of shit. First, no cables were attached as it stood. Attached to what? The site doesn't even try to suggest what this ludicrous image might entail. What's supposed to be pulling a 47-storey building down with cables? A truck? A helicopter? Two-trucks? The accompanying photo with a cable in it is a picture of the ensuing rubble. The collapse was determined by NIST to be a mysterious "unique phenomenon" that required over 100 support columns to all break at once. And that's as far as it goes for an official explanation. Further, the actual video of Silverstein makes perfectly clear he was referring to controlled demolition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I

And make no mistake, every single point on this site can be similarly pounded like a tent peg. How disgusting. And this is what you're standing by? Rumsfeld and Zakheim would be smiling.

[LTS TRN 2]

How many of you conspiracy numb nuts have ever been in a structural testing lab?

What do you think a it sounds like when a simple #8 rebar fractures? About as loud as 44 magnum.

How about fracturing the weld of smallish W8 section beam column joint? or the web plate of a built up wide flange shear link? Yes it sounds like an explosion and shakes the entire building.

Multiply that by the hundreds if not thousands of beam, column and connection failures that occurred pretty much in quick succession and I am sure it sounded like a whole fuckton of explosions going off.

I'm pretty sure they would have been heard pretty quickly down in lower levels and basements before people would of realized what was going on. Those primary vertical columns were essentially continuous sections, sound waves would have traveled at a speed of ~200,000 in/sec whereas through air only ~13,500 in/sec, so almost 15 times faster.

Sorry to interrupt the bullshit with some simple facts, carry on.

I don't know who you are--one of these lame tools using a quick fake name--but your point is ludicrous. First, you're suggesting that the snapping support columns --from the 95th floor--could be heard down on the ground? Because the sound resonated through the building? Are you kidding? Second, you're suggesting that the firefighters and police witnesses to explosions don't know the difference between an actual explosion and a snapping steel beam deep inside a huge building a thousand feet-above? Does this bullshit never stop? Or are you guys prepared to just say anything?

[Jay in Phoenix]

PSYCHOLOGISTS will tell you that even perfectly sane people have the ability to accept wild conspiracy theories. The more powerless or alone we feel, the more likely we are to develop such theories.

It's all linked to self-esteem. If you're the sort of person who feels isolated or disenfranchised, you're much more likely to develop wild theories as a way of making you seem more knowledgeable, more powerful, more special.
That might help explain why many Americans are into conspiracies. The irony of our technologically over-connected age is that there are scores of socially disconnected people sitting in dark rooms extrapolating all sorts of crap from factoids they find online. - Anthony Sharwood

Sound like someone you are Nick?

Here are six solid rebuttals to the garbage you continue to chew and spew.

STUPID THEORY 1: The US government did it.

SIMPLE REBUTTAL: People who say it was an inside job are split into two camps. There are those who say the US government cooked up and enacted the whole crazy plot, and those who say they let it happen without intervention. In both cases, conspiracists generally claim that the aim was to give the Bush government an excuse to wage war on the Islamic world.

So here's your simple rebuttal. US governments have shown for decades that they will intervene when and where it suits them. The last thing they need to do to justify any foreign policy is kill 3000 of their own citizens.

STUPID THEORY 2: The twin towers did not collapse. They were demolished.

SIMPLE REBUTTAL: 9/11 "truthers", who would perhaps be more accurately described as 9/11 "liars", like to rope in an expert to tell you that no office fire ever made a building topple. Well, that'd be because no office fire was ever as big as these two, with as much jet fuel to help it along.

But the real reason the twin towers collapsed was structural. Most buildings have their core structural supports at the center. The towers had some major central steel columns, but that elegant exterior steel shell was also crucial in providing perimeter support. Also, the perimeter columns supported massive steel trusses which supported each floor.
So basically, when the exterior of the building was penetrated so devastatingly by the planes, the structure's ability to hold itself up was threatened. So when one floor went, the combined weight meant they all went.

STUPID THEORY 3: World Trade Center 7 did not collapse. It was demolished.

SIMPLE REBUTTAL: Riiiight, so the world's tallest tower collapses on its neighbour less than 200m across the road. You've got 110 storys of rubble pummelling a 47-story building, setting it on fire, covering it in untold extra weight and inflicted untold stresses. And later that day, when the smaller building collapses, it's obvious the CIA did it with explosives. And Elvis left the building right before it happened.

Oh, and if you want a secondary explanation of why the building really wasn't toppled by mysterious people with explosives, try googling any of the so-called architects or engineers in the wacky YouTube vids. Almost none of them appear to be either a) currently employed or b) affiliated with any group other than 9/11 conspiracy groups. Chew on that one Nick and choke on it.

STUPID THEORY 4: FLIGHT 93 was shot down in Pennsylvania and the people who were supposedly on it were murdered or relocated.

SIMPLE REBUTTAL: The small jet flying low in the area, which some believe shot down Flight 93, was in fact a business jet which had been instructed to fly low to inspect the wreckage. Also, the log of calls made from Flight 93 is pretty compelling evidence that those were real people aboard a hijacked jet. If these people are actors who are actually still alive somewhere, the real mystery is why they haven't made squillions in Hollywood. Because they were seriously convincing.

STUPID THEORY 5: There was no "stand down" order, which proves the US government gone and done it.

SIMPLE REBUTTAL: A stand down order is an order from the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) to scramble fighter jets. This didn't happen until too late on September 11, prompting conspiracists to say the government deliberately held off to let the carnage unfold.

But NORAD didn't actually track flights within America prior to 9/11. Also, the hijackers turned off the transponders on their planes, which meant Air Traffic Control couldn't track them. And NORAD needed an alert from Air Traffic Control to act. So basically, you had a system which ensured bureaucratic bungles, but that's a far cry from complicit officials.

STUPID THEORY 6: They weren't planes, they were missiles.

SIMPLE REBUTTAL: Some of the worst nutters claim that the original planes which struck the twin towers weren't planes but missiles. This was fuelled by an early eyewitness account broadcast on live TV from a journalist who said he thought the first plane had no windows. But the journalist saw the plane in a blink of his eye - a fact ignored by conspiracists who have seized on this statement.

The obvious plane-sized holes in the buildings are a bit of a giveaway too. But you know, maybe they were just caused by Batman or something.

Or Chicken Nick Little clucking and plucking his own soupy brains out.

[LTS TRN 2]

And this is more of the Gerald Posner school of attacking the skeptics. It's bullshit on every count. For example, suggesting that the towers did not have a core structure that of course would not collapse because of a fire. Even the "pancake" theory of the floor collapsing has been abandoned. Similarly, the suggestion that "hundreds of tons" of debris fell on WTC7 is bullshit. In fact--look at a map--there was another huge building between the falling tower and WTC 7. And there's no reason for falling debris to start some huge mysterious fire inside the building. What absolute bullshit. These "simple rebuttals" are just hand rails for scared and stupid individuals who can't face the truth. What the fuck is your excuse?

[Jay in Phoenix]

In other words, you've got nothing. No crutch, no bullshit link, no phony video.

No ability to refute any of these points with salient science or fact.

So instead you continue to do this...

[atmdad]

Last Tool for the record I was previously registered as atomicdad and have been around since SCII or SCIII days, don't remember which incarnation. You still probably wouldn't know me because I rarely if ever responded to your whirling dervish of nonsense and idiocy.

So if there were actually hundreds of charges placed surreptitiously. That would have also required a crew of people following up patching drywall/wallboard, matching texture and paint perfectly throughout the buildings and it was done so perfectly no one would have noticed. How does that fit into your narrative?

and you hammer on Christians because of their faith?

[LTS TRN 2]

In other words, you've got nothing. No crutch, no bullshit link, no phony video.

No ability to refute any of these points with salient science or fact.

So instead you continue to do this...

I've already provided several links to actual engineers and pilots and firefighters and police. And none have been refuted--just an attempt to dismiss them outright. And you've offered a Gerald Posner type attack on skeptics in general--with some "simple" walking points of denial. Are you kidding?

I just blew the other site out of the water with just one example. I could do it to each of its pathetic assertions..

http://www.debunking911.com/.. this crap

You can't, for eaxample, refute the point I made about the ludicrous claim of "cables" pulling down WTC7--as per that silly site. So?...you're the one flailing

As for Atm-clown, the placement of the thermite or whatever specialized demolitions was done secretly in the preceding six months after Silverstein bought the whole complex. It was probably done at night under the guise of examining and planning the asbestos retrofitting project (a huge problem and extremely expensive issue which hastened the whole affair). These charges were not placed in office areas or places where people would be normally active. Rather, in the interior core structure, by way of elevator shafts and so forth. Obviously it was a top-level operation of the most sophisticated equipment--not a standard controlled demolition job at all. And that's for all three towers.

C'mon, Atm-clown, let's hear you attempt to chorus the laughable notion of a "fire" and "debris" causing a massive 47-storey building to collapse by being "pulled" with cables.

[Y2K]

Ok I have my tin foil hat on and ready to rock.

First off let's forget we know that every truck and delivery vehicle was inspected after the first bombing...

I'll just go with this...

Port Authority Guard: "why are you here and why are you bringing 20 Semi trucks with you?"

Dr Evil: "Asbestos Inspection"

PAG: "what's in the trucks?"

Dr Evil: "Several Hundred tons of Thermite Explosives to assist in the removal process"

PAG: "Sounds legit to me, you may pass."

:twisted:

[Jay in Phoenix]

For Gods sake Nick, just stop. You want science and engineering?

Try Popular Mechanics and their debunking of your silly assertions.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a50/1230517/

Make sure to click all of the links and read everything.

When you do, if you aren't too pigheaded enough to, go point by point with what the editors and writers said that makes you look foolish.

[R-Jack]

If I want to put on my tinfoil hat and say 9/11 was an inside job, I wouldn't be so hung up on the controlled demo angle. I put on my criminal mastermind war mongering capitalist pig hook nose on and realize that the amount of time, people and resources to bring the buildings down would set the risk factor way too fucking high. That's the thing about covert operations. They have to remain that way.

If someone want to mistrust the government and say they did it, they have that right. Weighing the risk/reward, I would think the towers coming down is more of an unintentional consequence of the conspiracy.

[R-Jack]

I don't know who you are--one of these lame tools using a quick fake name

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I don't know who you are--one of these lame tools using a quick fake name

I think the "quick fake name" of Friends Of Ours is on that list...

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

That's not what a dichotomy is you short statured simpleton. In any event, this isn't a court room, it's a smack board, and a stance rooted in such a high level of nut jobbery doesn't warrant a more serious response.

Dismiss it all you want it only shows how stupid and indefensible your stance is.

And please stop thinking about my body so much. It's creepy.

Aww, look at the adorable little 9/11 truther! I just want to pinch your wittle cheeks. Come here you!



Ah goochy goochy goo! Ah goochy goochy goo!

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

"C'mon...seriously guys...can we get some (!) in the thread title if this shit is going to happen?"

Sincerely,

[LTS TRN 2]

For Gods sake Nick, just stop. You want science and engineering?

Try Popular Mechanics and their debunking of your silly assertions.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a50/1230517/

Make sure to click all of the links and read everything.

When you do, if you aren't too pigheaded enough to, go point by point with what the editors and writers said that makes you look foolish.

Jay as I and many others have pointed out, the Popular Mechanics "Debunking The Debunkers" piece was quickly exposed as a shameless fraud on every level.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/676-deb ... anics.html

If you actually can believe any of its tripe, you deserve the fake life you lead.

[atmdad]

Still Haunted after all these years.

[LTS TRN 2]

Atom-lad, it's not me haunted, but the world--including you. The Permanent War, the unprecedented suspension of basic civil rights, the hijacked economy with the Military budget blasting off like a volcano.

Your attempt to provide support for the official story..your idiotic suggestion of snapping columns causing firefighters to think these were explosions, etc...means that you are every bit as cowered and cornered as babs, bris juice, willers, and the rest of the huddled herd.

Posting a picture of an ostrich really doesn't resonate or count for jack shit.

You know that 9/11 was completely an inside job, and that the palsied--reluctantly provided--report is a sick and insulting farce.

And, you know who's behind it.


Yep, it's us...fuck you...no, :twisted: really

[Jay in Phoenix]

Jay as I and many others have pointed out, the Popular Mechanics "Debunking The Debunkers" piece was quickly exposed as a shameless fraud on every level.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/676-deb ... anics.html

If you actually can believe any of its tripe, you deserve the fake life you lead.

So you're trying to discount Popular Mechanics, a legit magazine and source of research for engineering and mechanics. You do this with a couple of conspiracy websites that offer no counter information to show why the issue was wrong. Your information is from an 'Adam Taylor', a blogger and non-scientist who is merely offering "his opinion" but nothing more.

Great resource of information Nick.

If you actually can believe any of his tripe, you deserve the fucking lies you live.

[LTS TRN 2]

The point by point take down of the Popular Mechanics piece stands on its own. We notice you don't even try to refute any of its points and observations. And it's not the only one. After all, the PM piece is a ludicrous spin job that . as I mentioned, would make Gerald Posner blush. It's every bit as false--and as easily debunked--as this idiotic site http://www.debunking911.com/

Here's another clear and logical refutation of the PM piece.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/ ... hanics.htm

Try and actually deal with its content rather than attempt to dismiss it out of hand. Similarly, you should be ashamed of yourself for accepting the PM piece on face value. Did you also accept Rumsfeld and Cheney's version of the event? Just at face value?

"Good job, Dick"......"Thank-you, sir".....

[Y2K]

Nickie - just so you know, Jay is kicking your fuck inside out.

Carry on...

Come on now Spray, put that tinfoil hat on

We all now this was about Bush, Cheney and Rummy,

Just like the first bombing in the garage, just that Bush Sr. and his villanous cohorts weren't as smart as his kid.

[LTS TRN 2]

This shameless act is part of the overall fervent Christer implosion, going hand in hand with the Climate Change denial towards some demented apocalyptic panting. These folks are toxic, and the fact that they're in power is horrifying.

(referring to the latest Texas vigorous insanity--a governor-ordered ban on local bans of fracking)

Note that the so-called "libertarian" influenced right-wing hob-goblin currently holding that diseased post in Austin, is in fact showing his obeiscant fascist colors on display.

Oh..excuse me, are you tired and folded fools still pretending to believe the 9/11 official report and deny Climate Change? Oh, you good little pups, you sweet little trundling trolls...so happy to pretend and roll over and get a treat

:wink: :wink:

[poptart]

L TARD, to my knowledge, there is no evidence that Cheney, Rummy, Bushy (or any of your Jew owners you are always posting about) knew about (let alone had any involvement in) 9/11.

[Goober McTuber]

What a complete fucking whack job. Unreal.

[Jay in Phoenix]

The point by point take down of the Popular Mechanics piece stands on its own.

No Nick, it does not. When the item is "authored" by an internet blogger with no apparent technical, electrical, structural or engineering background is just offering up his "opinion" based on junk from other conspiracy sites, your credibility is as solid as the air you still sadly breathe.

Of course you'll choose to ignore this rather important fact and just snivel about the same spin crap. Of so curious when science and fact are ignored by the same group of anonymous, cowardly internet trolls that squat unwashed in their bedroom, bottle of Dew in one hand as you masturbate your mouse with the other.

Sad.

We notice you don't even try to refute any of its points and observations. And it's not the only one. After all, the PM piece is a ludicrous spin job that . as I mentioned, would make Gerald Posner blush. It's every bit as false--and as easily debunked--as this idiotic site http://www.debunking911.com/

Here's another clear and logical refutation of the PM piece.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/ ... hanics.htm

So I read the piece, and my first question is who is Peter Meyer? I can't find a single reference anywhere that doesn't lead right back to that website, so what is his background? Who has he worked with?

By the way, the website is ludicrous. The debunking of the PM article is more of the same. Pointing out aspects of photos that don't exist, reading things into photos that aren't there, more misinformation than an Oliver Stone film on JFK. (I know Nikcy, that movie is one of your favorites!)

Try and actually deal with its content rather than attempt to dismiss it out of hand. Similarly, you should be ashamed of yourself for accepting the PM piece on face value. Did you also accept Rumsfeld and Cheney's version of the event? Just at face value?

I am no fan of Rummy or especially Cheney. I will always have questions when it comes to the government. It lies to us all the time, just not this time, at least not about a group of planes hitting the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and an open field. These things happened Nick. THAT you have to deal with.

[Moving Sale]

No Jay these things don't happen. Unless you have an example of it happening before. You are one gullible piece of shit.

[Jay in Phoenix]

No Jay these things don't happen. Unless you have an example of it happening before. You are one gullible piece of shit.

So prove that hundreds of people who saw the planes crash, as well as dozens of photos and videos of it happening, didn't see what they saw. Explain how a plane shaped hole appears in the side of a building as said plane impacted it...on camera and again, in front of witnesses. Explain in detail exactly what happened to the Towers, the Pentagon and on board the plane that crashed into the field. You know, the plane that had the recordings of the passengers turning on the terrorists. Flight 93?

Go ahead MS, give us the truth about that day. In your own words, backed up of course with proof.

Feel free to adorn the tin foil tiara and hold Nick's hand for reassurance.

We'll wait.

[LTS TRN 2]

Jay, you're attacking a false premise. no one suggested planes (which could well have been a remote controlled drone) did not hit the towers. So stop saying as much. What's clear is that the towers could not have fallen--in perfect controlled fashion--by way of a fire. Same with WTC7--which was not hit by a plane. The pentagon was not hit by a 757, as evidenced by the tiny hloe and no 7578 debris. Same with the Pennsylvania crash. No debris--as noted by immediate witnesses.

As for the PM piece--and the other site provided--they are a fucking joke. I personally destroyed the one, and this site systematically dismantles the PM piece itself.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/ ... hanics.htm

\As for Rumsfeld and Zakheim and Cheney heading up the most brazen crime of modern times, we must rely on circumstantial evidence--the missing three trillion announced the day before, as well as the clearly stated desire of A New Pearl Harbor by Zakheim and the PNAC, and Cheney's bizarre behavior "does the order still stand?"--as he patiently awaited the incoming attack on the pentagon.

Frankly, the placing of blame is a secondary aspect to the foremost fact--that the official 9/11 Commission report does not stand up to basic scrutiny on any level. As the PM piece plainly reveals.

As to who and what you really are--with your constant squirming--troll--demeanor, as well as an utterly cowardly and intensely anti-intellectual approach to virtually any subject, well the question remains, how do you look in the mirror?

[Jay in Phoenix]

Quite comfortably actually. Thank you for asking.

The drone comment is ridiculous. You know that, so stop deflecting.

The aspect of the Tower(s) collapse has been well documented and covered in any number of posts in this thread. You're grasping at straws Nick, you and your midget sycophant. You have done nothing here Nick, nothing. I have asked you to explain what credentials this Peter Meyer has that makes him a credible authority on the subject, you avoided the question. It's what gutless and paranoid sheep do. Until you can, that piece remains what it is, a fabrication from a delusional nobody.

[Goober McTuber]

Total. Fucking. Whackjob.

[LTS TRN 2]

Look, offer whatever personal smear upon the man who provided this site
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/ ... hanics.htm

But...what actual refutation can you offer to any of his observations? In fact, the PM piece is not written by engineers or experts, but by editors of a co-opted magazine. The "experts" they cite are really just like the shameless shills paid to offer "expert" denial of Climate Change.

As for your fatuous claim that "the aspect of the towers' collapse has been well documented" is as false as your claim of explaining the design and construction of crop circles. In each case you're simply stating a lie. You've provided nothing but the PM piece, which is plainly debunked as a joke.

If you can't actually support and defend an actual specific part of the official 9/11 report, than admit that it doesn't stand up. Stop being a total fake cowardly weasel.

[LTS TRN 2]

Who says I don't. Think of yourself as a big dumb drunk scratching post....

Hey willers, you look kinda like the WTC tower...o' course you're just filled with wood..

[Jay in Phoenix]

Nick, for the third damn time now, what are the credentials of Peter Meyer. What is his background? Stop avoiding this one basic question, because if you don't want your precious resource of information smeared, you'll tell us all why we should listen to his writing as an authority.

I can refute everything he says if he isn't credentialed. Pretty simple math here Nick.

You want me to comment on the rest of your questions, answer that one.

Go ahead Nick, try.

[LTS TRN 2]

Peter Meyer is a researcher who has presented evidence and assertions. If you think you can refute them, give it a try. It is the astonishingly fatuous "official" stories that are demanding of some proper credential. Who are these supposed "experts' who gave us the "pancake" theory and the "overheated core" explanation for the towers' collapse? Are you aware how absurd these are? Can you actually even discuss them with a straight face?

Since the official story is so obviously a joke, what are you afraid of in terms of addressing what the real story may have been?

[LTS TRN 2]

No, you're a scratching post who's duller than an old door knob. Your sourpuss and really brain-dead lack of curiosity creates no real interest. And despite its dire implications, a diabolical coup initiated upon the U.S. is matter of factly interesting.

[LTS TRN 2]

Are you unable to consume enough paint thinner to force yourself through another fake day? Just go hide under a stump and wish you could actually play over changes..

and stop butting in when you've got nothing to say.. :wink:

"Didn't you hear what I saw me think..what I saw...?"

[Moving Sale]

Jay,
I never said no planes hit the towers. I said no jumbo jet hit the pentagon. Try and keep up.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Peter Meyer is a researcher who has presented evidence and assertions.

Researcher? With what credentials? With what background?

Try doing a Google search on this guy and guess what comes up? Nothing. Just the anonymous website with his blogs and opinions, not backed up by any sources. Otherwise, this guy is a ghost. And this is what you're basing your arguments on.

Weak sauce for a weak troll.

If you think you can refute them, give it a try. It is the astonishingly fatuous "official" stories that are demanding of some proper credential. Who are these supposed "experts' who gave us the "pancake" theory and the "overheated core" explanation for the towers' collapse? Are you aware how absurd these are? Can you actually even discuss them with a straight face?

Without question, as I've told you before. But not unless you can explain who this guy is better than "he's a researcher who presented evidence" and nothing more. You have to have references, biographies, etc. to have legitimacy, otherwise, this guy is a cipher, an anonymous nobody just like you, spouting propaganda and opinion blindly just to make white noise.

So give us some background or just stop. You're going in circles and your spin is ridiculous.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Jay,
I never said no planes hit the towers. I said no jumbo jet hit the pentagon. Try and keep up.

What was it then, a missile? A drone? A bomb? So where is Flight 77?

Go ahead MS, enlighten us.

[Goober McTuber]

I am also a researcher. By LTS Tard's standards, I'm probably a board-certified gynecologist.