Toward concensus in the 9/11 community

Once again you make the completely RETARDED claim that all the fuel would burn up in the fireball. Can you show a single plane accident involving a fireball where all the fuel burned up in the fireball leaving no fire behind? Are you honestly trying to pretend that there were no fires started by the plane crash into the towers?

 

I thought I'd take a moment now that we're live on the new site to remind Jim of the issues he has yet to address.

1. The claim that steel turned to dust in large quantities cannot be true.
- Finely divided steel is pyrophoric. It ignites at room temperature when exposed to oxygen.
- We did not witness any such combustion during the collapse.

2. The claim that an aircraft traveling at 500+ miles an hour would have failed to penetrate the outer wall of the tower cannot be true.
- MIT has shown that the energy of the impact exceeded the shear strength of the area impacted.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter IV Aircraft Impact.pdf
- Jim Fetzer has provided no calculations or study to refute the above.

 

I wonder when Jimbo will be back to address those questions.


Perhaps he prefers to participate in discussions where the gullible just unquestioningly swallow his bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Must be hard work building consensus among people who call you a paid government agent when you fail to meet their expectations.

 

That's true but, it's the paid shll's failure and the reader's ignorance that are at issue here.

 

I thought the issue was Jim's (and the Truth movement as a whole) inability to back up their poorly crafted speculations.

 

Wow! An attack. How incredibly unusual. Page.......7?

 

That's not an attack. Truthers are unable to back up their poorly crafted speculations.

Did you contact Jim Fetzer yet?

 

Someone who routinely calls everyone who disagrees with him shills whining about an absolutely true statement as an attack is just hilarous!

 

You think that was an attack? Sensitive Fraud is sensitive.

I merely wrote the Truth, something you seem to have trouble recognizing.

Why don't you try more backing up your theories and less bellyaching, and you might not have to play the martyr constantly. That burden must get heavy, why you put it down for a change and give everyone a break?

 

What exactly is the issue with "the reader's ignorance?" If the reader is ignorant of something you think they should know, doesn't that speak toward the quality of your education, or are you trying to claim that readers are not intelligent enough to understand you?

Because if that's the case you really should watch that Ted Talk video I posted. You just might benefit.

 

I do believe that the two planes brought down the World Trade Center Buildings.