T1B

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote: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.

Peter Meyer is compiling and presenting research and analysis by highly credentialed sources, as he clearly shows as he offers them. If you actually read the various reports he offers you'll see this. In the mean time...what the fuck are you trying to pretend you really believe? The Popular Mechanics nonsense? Really?

As for what hit the pentagon, we know it certainly wasn't a 757 because the hole was absurdly too small, and there was no debris. The one piece of scrap with American Airlines logo or whatever was an embarrassing plant--it wasn't even singed or soiled at all.

Further, every single aspect of the entire event falls apart as far as the official story. Do you even know how the 9/11 Commission was comprised and controlled? How reluctantly it was formed in the first place? It's drastic limitations? And yet..you're standing by it? With Rummy and Cheney? Really?

(and willers, go soak yer head. go contribute something to the hockey thread or whatever)

highly credentialed sources

Quality shit, YK...for a ten year-old.

Meanwhile, for the adults, here's a prominent site comprised of credentialed experts. Engineers, pilots, etc., each with his experience and expertise detailed. And their overwhelming evidence of the obvious falsity of the official 9/11 story.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

If you feel you can refute any of their evidence, let's see it.

Y2K wrote:

highly credentialed sources

Okay Felchco...get to ranking...

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

Moving Sale wrote: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.

You're the one with the wacky conspiracy theory. I'm just telling you why it's stupid.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Peter Meyer is compiling and presenting research and analysis by highly credentialed sources, as he clearly shows as he offers them.

Could you be any more evasive and non-specific?

Are there people quoted in the various parts of that website? Yes. Are they validated or referenced by unbiased sources, or identified as to which entities they represent? No. So as you continue to drill screws into your head, looking for paranoid nirvana like that guy from "PI", you continue to dissemble into cowardice as you continue to avoid the question. Who is Meyer? What is his background? What makes him an authority?

Face it Nick, you've got nothing. No links, no proof, zip.

And once again, you silly twat, I do not endorse Rummsy or Cheney. I support evidence and truth, you know, those elusive little concepts you're so terrified of. As to the Pentagon, there is plenty of evidence, including photographic, that proves a plane hit it.

Back up your bullshit and maybe, just maybe, I'll help you out here.

Now crawl back into your basement and adjust the frequency on your chapeau. You're tuning out.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Peter Meyer is compiling and presenting research and analysis by highly credentialed sources, as he clearly shows as he offers them.

Could you be any more evasive and non-specific?

Are there people quoted in the various parts of that website? Yes. Are they validated or referenced by unbiased sources, or identified as to which entities they represent? No. So as you continue to drill screws into your head, looking for paranoid nirvana like that guy from "PI", you continue to dissemble into cowardice as you continue to avoid the question. Who is Meyer? What is his background? What makes him an authority?

The experts cited in the Meyers site are credentialed. Who are you to decide which MIT degree is valid or pertinent? What are you pretending to defend?

The Popular Mechanics piece is the one using vague "experts." The piece was written by the editors who aren't trained in these areas at all.

Now this site puts the credentials of its expert contributers right up front. Which do you dispute? On what grounds?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

And..you're believing which version? Whose? You never say.