"unofficial" and unimpressive. What "may have happened" isn't indicative of what actually happened in any fashion (but about as credible as anything else "official" I suppose). You all say "what if" and it's credible, and we say "what if" and it isn't credible. The intelligent reader gets it.
(from post #6) You can keep people from seeing the evidence by censoring the info we post. Here's an example http://www.booktalk.org/the-us-government-planned-and-carried-out-9-11-t6222.html I started the above thread with the username Cosmored. Post #1 had the same info that's in post #1 of this thread. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746 The discussion was moving right along and the pro-official version posters were having a hard time obfuscating the info and their success rate was probably close to zero. Finally, the moderator deleted all of my posts including post #1 which had all of the important info. Notice that my name is mentioned in some of the other posts. The moderator did the same thing with some other threads I'd started and a few others were simply deleted.
I said it was an independent study, with evidence to back it up. That's exactly what it is. Not official, not from the US. Got any evidence to refute the findings of these engineers?
I'm beginning to get tired of your constant whine about being censored, and posting here under annother name is against the rules of the board..THAT's why your posts were 'deleted' most likely
A recap, for those following along. I said: You replied: So I did: Then you said: I showed my evidence and my source. Can you supply any evidence to refute it, or challenge it?
The source is important. LOL, that thread is a great read. That was quite an ass whooping Scott/cosmored took over there.
Well, you would certainly know what to look for so, you obviously know I'm nothing of the sort. I'm beginning to think you're...well...you already know what I think. It's in your weekly handout.
Specifically, can you show why the computer models are in error in the case of the collapse of the WTC? If you can, then do so.
Yes, they do. Do you know what that reason is? Were there some flaws in the modeling parameters that you would like to point out?
Yes...please do so...so we can run in circles and begin again. Defending the "official" BS story is indeed circular and not open to honesty or specifics.
I'm sure Hannity would have had me removed by now if that were the case but, believe what you will, or at least continue to preform the task at hand.
With you? Been there...done that. It results in the big dance. Not interested in dancing with an agenda.
Good of you to admit you have an agenda. Maybe you should drop it and look at sourced evidence instead. I linked one from an independent (non-Us Government) source a couple of days ago. You seem to be avoiding it.
Ahhh yes...the "spin"...the dance. Good work, once again. I told you sir...I only address you specifically, born of pure entertainment value. It's impossible to logically combat an "official" agenda. What can I say?
Without any facts on your side, I completely agree. Any address to the independent source (non-official) I posted? Didn't think so.
Not to you sir....no fighting an agenda (although strictly for entertainment value...it has it's curiosities).
Your agenda is quite clear. Yet you fail to present any evidence whatsoever. Your Excuses? Plenty. Your evidence? Zilch.
