Quote:
|
Ok so I dont want to reply to that entire thing... just 1 thing, when a pilot says that a more advanced pilot must have flown (he is qualified to give his opinion of this), and then says the steel line.. you ignore one topic and attack him for "We have a pilot talking about physics" yet you yourself have no problem talking about physics.. it is forbidden for him, and the valid statement is to be avoided
|
I addressed the issue of a more advanced pilot, did I not? And that particular pilot did not talk about the flying techniques.
Quote:
|
Then you get angry for them "repeating lines" yet it is simple facts they are repeating
|
They aren't facts, they are lies and half truths, there is a difference.
Quote:
|
no mention of the building 7 collapse, they say that "finding the source of the money which paid for the attacks is not important and of little significance to the investigation"
|
THE COMMISSION REPORT IS NOT AN ENGINEERING DOCUMENT. It deals with the direct attack. The hows, the whys the whens...not the actual damages and side effects of the attack. That's why you have the NIST report to talk about the collapses. There is no reason for the commission report to talk about building 7's collapse.
The money was said to be of little significance due to the small scale of the attack (i.e. didn't take a whole lot of money). Do I buy that? Not sure. But it does sound somewhat reasonable.
Quote:
|
As for going to JREF to argue with engineers in a forum, I could not stand a chance in any forum on a topic I have no expertise in, when faced with some experts in the field. I would suggest that the writers of debunking reports argue with them if they are that good, or vice-a-versa.
|
What? The people who lead the truth movement do not agree to debate anyone. And the people who are on JREF, have debunked all their reports. I don't know exactly what you are saying.
Quote:
|
Did I call any engineers? no I doubt most of them have studied this subject in depth? or do you think the average engineer or even architect, studies the collapses of the WTC towers in their spare time?
|
They can explain to you the simple concept. It's called research.
Quote:
|
and the organization "architects and engineers for 911 truth" has grown quite large
|
Not really. Plus, most of their work is plagiarized. It's a re-hash of what Steven Jones says. What do they got? A couple hundred members? The ASCE has hundreds of thousands, just for reference as to what would be "quite large"
AE911Truth.info - Home page
^I'm not submitting this site as scientific proof or anything. Just a site some guy created in response to Richard Gage. The guy who runs the site is a poster on JREF though.
Quote:
|
As mentioned many times before, the collapses of the WTC are not my main concern
|
Yet you continue to argue about them. You either believe they were CD, or you don't. Since there is no evidence of controlled demolition...I would guess that you don't, right? Then why continue to argue? This is your "out" card because you are too lazy to actually look into this matter.
Quote:
|
they are not my expertise and I have seen some valid arguments
|
You have not. There are none for controlled demolition. It's why the truth movement can't come up with actual experts, and rely on con men like Jones, who aren't even qualified in the right field.
Quote:
|
Things like the lies and omissions of the commission report.
|
Did you actually read it, or do you just rely on David Ray Griffin?
Quote:
|
Anyway, watch the video. I've included it for the convenience of anyone who is too lazy to do a google video search.
|
Screw 9/11 Mysteries - Clunkity Clunk Edition
9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide
The eye witness testimony is largely taken out of context by the truth movement.