Reply With Quote
why dont you just tell me which chapter is on how and why the towers collapsed?
im waiting, we're all waiting, still
.....hate to sound like Cheney, but we won't know until we know...the whole connection between Muhammad Atta, Huffman Aviation, and Rudi Dekkers deserves to be seriously looked at...
why dont you just tell me which chapter is on how and why the towers collapsed?
im waiting, we're all waiting, still
i may be lazy and not have the book on my desk but there is a library around here, multiple book stores
it seems like a strange request if i know i havent read it
...Not to mention that NIST has changed its story several times, even disproving its own original theory of catastrophic collapse of WTC7...
Why are you waiting?
Pick one up or download it and read it if is that important to you. NIST report as well. All the links Random Guy posted, too.
You haven't even done that much in the past nine years.
Why would disproving its original theory be evidence of an NIST conspiracy?
Explain.
dude 9/11 commission report; the report, the book, the official commission the biggest release since childs play 2
what chapter do they say HOW AND WHY THE TOWERS COLLAPSED
thats what im waiting for- again
/ i'll yield to your deflection
We've already had this discussion.
Years ago.
I explained it to you.
Years ago.
You haven't done since.
The computer model they used to simulate the falls was used with incomplete data. The models that NIST used were changed several times and the last one was changed within months of them releasing the report. The data they were using for the models was not jiving with observable phenomenon.
When you do not have all the data then you have to make assumptions and guess and check. The NIST report is more or less correlative with observation but it is hardly the only theoretical solution. Keep in mind that NIST went through several iterations.
The theory they proposed is the most compelling out there and its a pretty safe bet that noone will have the access to the data, funds man power and wherewithal to undertake something similar to what NIST did. We are stuck with that theory.
Its still funny to watch CD get butthurt.
thats not good enough
why wont you answer the question?
Because I already did.
Years ago.
Feel free to use the search function.
you could have answered 3 times already if you werent wrongwhat chapter do they say HOW AND WHY THE TOWERS COLLAPSED ?
pages?, chapter?
nothing...zero. youre like an aggy yelling tshirt fan while his teams getting beat
If knowing the answer I already gave you several years ago is so important to you, you will look it up and read it again.
You are like an idiot who never read anything, and is yelling to read something he never read before and wouldn't read if it was shoved in front of his face and his eyelids were propped open.
Your claim of victory is that the Commission Report is not a scientific engineering do ent.
That's incredibly stupid.
why? what did Dekkers gain out of 9/11?
your response was/is that the commission was flawed and to go read the NIST report.
i remember that. i am right because in that report they dont say about how and why the towers collapsed, you know, i know it
so EVERYTHING after that fact is just some guys webpage, mouses youtubes or western michigan professor charles bloadwater III's letter to the editor weekly standard apr 05
its bull and you know it
thats why mouse will always own you even though youre smart and hes mouse
Right. And you apparently never got past that.
For you, I believe that. You never read the NIST report, and somehow think you have a point about 9/11 because you never read anything about it; just some guys web page (probably infowars) that said the 9/11 Commission Report wasn't a scientific engineering do ent.so EVERYTHING after that fact is just some guys webpage, mouses youtubes or western michigan professor charles bloadwater III's letter to the editor weekly standard apr 05
its bull and you know it
It's bull and you know it. You wouldn't be rehashing the same useless bull argument otherwise.
your posts are barely comprehendible.
do you believe in mouse's youtubes?
Nah, he never read anything either.
He forfeits just like you do.
You pre-own yourselves.
He believes if he doesn't read something, it doesn't exist.
I've read this whole thread and I'm not convinced either way, if that makes me a two-fer then so be it......I'm convinced of certain things though...
1. Planes and not missiles hit the towers and Pentagon
alright we're getting somewhere then. if one admits that most of the websites out there are "alternative" theories and most of the books are alternative theories and the movies and the do entaries. then we dont know and my side comes to the only logical conclusion that the official report and what americans were told about 9/11 is a joke, its a novelty of an explanation
literally a parody
Lt. Commander Data would be on my side, because TNG has about as much clout as the 9/11 commission report
2. NORAD flat out lied to investigators of the 911 Commission..
I agree that ignorant, biased people like to confirm their biases and will go out of their way to remain ignorant and biased.
You never read anything except one piece of information about one report that fit your world view, so you're done. Good for you. It's easier than, you know, reading anything else.
I accept that.
I do not accept that your self-enforced ignorance makes your opinion in any way persuasive.
you on the other hand have devoted hundreds probably thousands of hours supporting a work of fiction for no other reason than you dont want those hours to be spent in vain
youre the atheist experience
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
