They really think we are that stupid

This is the funniest post in this thread:lol:
Apparently he was homeschooled by 9/11 truthers!:rofl:

 

i hate that term. its trying to pretty up and put a pink bow on it. trying to hide the fact of what they really are. conspiracy theorists. whack jobs. squirrel turds.

 

I agree, don't know how else to identify them since that is what they are called.
Like your names better, I think they need to get a life.

 

I have answered every question, yet he still holds to his idea that it was a conspiracy.

You asked for buildings that fell, I gave you those. Then you redefined the question so i provided answers for those too. I answered you question about the term "pull It" but you refuse to accept the simple answer. We correct your definition of "Pull It" but you deflect.

So now my last statement. Time to invoke Occam's Razor -- entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem --entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.

"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations." The simplest explanation is to negate the complexity of a conspiracy.

 

It is more easy for some to believe in a complex conspiracy versus the simple truth.
I don't know why?

 

Why exactly Bldg 7 was brought down is something we would have to discuss after we have finished with whether that in fact took place.

Overwhelming evidence? Indisputed? The subject is hardly indisputed and the evidence supporting the gov't explanation is incredibly flawed.

 

of course. the truther always rejects reasonable explanations in favor of absurd ones which are easily disproven, then reject the info that disproves it.

and they also act like their information exists in a vacuum, as if they can reject the real explanation and not have that mean that there is another explanation that is absurd. if you assert that a building simply cant fall from beng bashed and burned (and i have no idea why you would assert such a stupid thing) then you must defend a better hypothesis. the only other hypothesis posited by truthers is demolition. and the real mystery here is how an adult non-retard would be so poor at critical thinking as to believe the conspiracy demolition is more likely than a simple collapse due to buring and damage. that is why truthers are so fasccinating, and why i hate them so much.

of course the main truther tactic is to introduce every stupid point as if they are simply asking questions. what they are really doing is making ****ing asinine assertions and then refusing the incredibly simple answers. why did silverstein say "pull it"? ( he clearly said they were withdrawing the firefighters because the building was unsafe). "why did the building collapse?" (because ****ing obviously they were bashed to all hell and burned for many hours).

the answers are so obvious, but the truther refuses them. why? my theory is that truthers are genuinely bad people who want to think they can see what others cannot, they want to think they know what is going on behind closed doors. they are not adults, they are children who believe things merely because it is exciting and fun to think you have a deeper understanding .

the truther is the worst sort of person, a scroundrel, a liar and an idiot.

 

you are doing exaclt what i just predicted you would, refusing to accept the ramifications of your assertions. if you are telling us that the building was demolished, then you have to explain that. otherwise you might as well say since it couldnt have burned and therefore it was vaporized by fairies.

the demolition hypothesis is so absurd that you refuse to discuss it specifically. you are just repeating the lies of your gay ass websites and radio hosts. why? why do you let these people manipulate you into being a liar?

yes. stop lying.

by sane folks, yes. stop lying.

you are simply a liar.

the building burned. it was also heavily damaged by debris. so it fell.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by flabengal
Never said "who" did it....just that the building came down by design, not because of some outside force, like fire.

Sourdoughman:

-No planes hit building 7. Stay on the point...I grant you everything the gov't says about WTC 1 and 2, for arguments sake.
-There is plenty of evidence....high rise buildings don't come down because of fires. The way they are constructed and the material used makes it practically impossible from normal office building materials, diesel, etc.
-If it was a conspiracy it would be difficult, certainly. It doesn't mean they wouldn't try to....as far as thousands involved that sounds pretty high but certainly a very involved operation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flabengal
No high rise building has ever come down because of a fire. None. Zero. Nada.

Sourgdoughman:

-No planes hit Bldg 7. No jet fuel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flabengal
I'm not trying to link them togther regarding who was responsible. What I am saying is that THE OFFICIAL STORY DOES NOT FIT THE FACTS.

Do you disagree? Which facts are those that you don't think fit with what I am saying?

Sourdoughman:

Which facts do I have wrong?

Regarding the consiracy, I agree it would be very complex. No amateurs allowed.

 

of course you wont.

you cant grant us that without your argument fallnig apart. why would terrorists attack on the same day and in the same place that they had by chance rigged a building to be demolished? your point makes no sense. either the government story is right about wtc 1 and 2 or it isnt. if it is, your demolition theory is nonsense.

please pay attention. wtc didnt just burn, it was bashed up terribly. i told you this already. i even told you that i personally saw the destruction to many nearby buildings by the same debris. yunno when two of the biggest structures ever built come down they tend to cause a bit of dmage to the surrounding area.

why do you keep failing to mention that the building was also damaged? why? why so you lie so much?

how many times will i need to repeat that you refuse to accept that the buildings were seriously structurally compromised before the fire? how many times?

that is a lie.

Do you disagree? Which facts are those that you don't think fit with what I am saying?

everything you have asserted is wrong and stupid. the silverstein quote is not confusing or mysterious at all. and clearly buildings can be severely weakened and compromised by crushing debris and fire. they collapse. your assertion that it cant happen is nothing more than a lie.

the way the building collapsed is well understood;

" Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building (see p. 21 of this report), directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall (see here) directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse. "

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html