<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MUIcyp1JTF4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MUIcyp1JTF4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Because first off, they lied when they said that his mom addmitted that they were cousins, she did not, and second, there is no evidence that they are cousins. This would be a very easy thing to prove for the truther camp, either they are cousins or they are not. Instead they see a common last name, then lie about the contents of a phone call they made to his mom and use that as the "proof" that they are cousins.
Maybe you are talking to Willie here, I'm not sure what you are asking.
I think that some of the motivation is money, yes. I can't say for sure what the overall motivation is for these kinds of people though.
r u just assuming they lied about the mother? and willie's lies are that there are hundreds of independent studies supporting the official story when he has yet to provide one. how about u, do u know of any independent studies that support the official story without ties to the government.
Not just assuming, she has said so herself. When asked on the phone if the were related she said that "they might be distant cousins", which this guy then lied and misrepresented as that they WERE cousins, and even tried to quote the mother as saying so using words she never said.
The bottom line here is that it's not too difficult to prove if they are cousins. Why do you think the only "proof" of this is a phone call that they lied about the contents of? If it were true then they would be able to prove it easily. But in fact the opposite is true, there is no evidence anywhere that they are cousins.
I'm not sure if I could ever meet your definition of "independant".
Besides NIST's report, there have been at least 4 different independant total simulation efforts that I know of. The Purdue study is the latest, also the MIT model, the Weidlinger Associates model, and Exponent Failure Analysis Associates model. And probably even more that I'm not aware of. The idea that you can try and dismiss the entire Purdue study based on nothing but because it was funded by the NSF, therefore it's the "government" is absurd BTW, but even if you do there's still MIT and the other two.
And talk about papers! Papers up the ass about the collapse...
http://www.911-strike.com/BazantZhou.htm
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/skyscrapers.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
(Hell, I'll use one from Tgbn's list too...)
http://www.nistreview.org/WTC7-COLLAPSE-SCHEUERMAN.pdf
http://www.structuremag.org/archives/2007/March 2007/D-Spotlight-ComputerModeling-Mar07.pdf
http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/31114/1/61145960.pdf
And that's just a sample. Need I go on?
OK, some more journal papers that have been written on the collapse...
A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.
Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.
Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.
How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.
How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p
Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.
Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.
A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.
Reconnaissance and preliminary assessment of a damaged high-rise building near Ground Zero. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 12 :5, 15 December 2003. pp. 371 - 391. Warn, Gordon; Berman, Jeffrey; Whittaker, Andrew; Bruneau, Michel
Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15
The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9
WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11
How about overseas? Universities in many other countries have studied the collapse as well and arived at similar conclusions to the "official story".
Here's an example. Chinese researchers from Beijing on the collapse...
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm
Independant enough for ya? Or are we paying off the Chinese now to keep our 9/11 secrets. :missingte
Not to mention that NIST themselves contracted with outside sources. So you'd have to think that every single one of these outside, independant companies that they used are all also in on the deception so they can get some cash, and that not one of these people have spoken up either. :thumbsup:
<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 4255810" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>Omni</TD><TD class=alt2>Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by random1323
r u just assuming they lied about the mother?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Not just assuming, she has said so herself. When asked on the phone if the were related she said that "they might be distant cousins", which this guy then lied and misrepresented as that they WERE cousins, and even tried to quote the mother as saying so using words she never said.
The bottom line here is that it's not too difficult to prove if they are cousins. Why do you think the only "proof" of this is a phone call that they lied about the contents of? If it were true then they would be able to prove it easily. But in fact the opposite is true, there is no evidence anywhere that they are cousins.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by random1323
and willie's lies are that there are hundreds of independent studies supporting the official story when he has yet to provide one. how about u, do u know of any independent studies that support the official story without ties to the government.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I'm not sure if I could ever meet your definition of "independant".
Besides NIST's report, there have been at least 4 different independant total simulation efforts that I know of. The Purdue study is the latest, also the MIT model, the Weidlinger Associates model, and Exponent Failure Analysis Associates model. And probably even more that I'm not aware of. The idea that you can try and dismiss the entire Purdue study based on nothing but because it was funded by the NSF, therefore it's the "government" is absurd BTW, but even if you do there's still MIT and the other two.
And talk about papers! Papers up the ass about the collapse...
http://www.911-strike.com/BazantZhou.htm
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/skyscrapers.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
(Hell, I'll use one from Tgbn's list too...)
http://www.nistreview.org/WTC7-COLLAPSE-SCHEUERMAN.pdf
http://www.structuremag.org/archives...ling-Mar07.pdf
http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wt...clifton/p1.htm
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ce.../0502feat.html
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721...1/61145960.pdf
And that's just a sample. Need I go on?
OK, some more journal papers that have been written on the collapse...
A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.
Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.
Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.
How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.
How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p
Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.
Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.
A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.
Reconnaissance and preliminary assessment of a damaged high-rise building near Ground Zero. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 12 :5, 15 December 2003. pp. 371 - 391. Warn, Gordon; Berman, Jeffrey; Whittaker, Andrew; Bruneau, Michel
Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15
The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9
WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11
How about overseas? Universities in many other countries have studied the collapse as well and arived at similar conclusions to the "official story".
Here's an example. Chinese researchers from Beijing on the collapse...
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm
Independant enough for ya? Or are we paying off the Chinese now to keep our 9/11 secrets. :missingte
Not to mention that NIST themselves contracted with outside sources. So you'd have to think that every single one of these outside, independant companies that they used are all also in on the deception so they can get some cash, and that not one of these people have spoken up either. :thumbsup:</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The sheep never mention the fact that in these cases , independent or not, anyone who handles sensitive information has already signed a paper preventing them from disclosing to the public ANY information thay have or face 20 years in prison.
And the few that have spoken up have been dismissed nas kooks like you want them to be in your compartmentalized world where everyone in the GOVT always tells the truth about everything that happened on 9/11.
And even if they did get some reporter on the phone and spilled the beans do you think its going to be headline knews? You could know that one piece of information seems to be incorrect, but you dont know the whole story. Its a very daunting challenge to be a whistleblower when the GOVT has you sign off on your own imprisonment with your signature. The MSM is not going to take the word of anybody on the subject of 9/11, unless you have evidence that wasnt destroyed, and even then it will be dismissed as bogus info by sheep like you and Willie because there is no other way to refute it.
You can speak up all you want but what somebody says is not proof. Its what you can prove that counts, right? Well , lucky for you they destroyed all the evidence, and some stray "evidence" they missed like the Flight 77 Data Recorder information could be bogus and planted out there to confuse things even more.There are so many different trails leading in so many directions. But one things for sure. Both altitude direction stories cannot be true at the same time, so one or both are bogus. Never underestimate the power of disinformation...
How do you prove that the story is a fabrication if all the evidence has been destroyed, dissapeared, or hauled away in record time?
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by random1323
r u just assuming they lied about the mother?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Not just assuming, she has said so herself. When asked on the phone if the were related she said that "they might be distant cousins", which this guy then lied and misrepresented as that they WERE cousins, and even tried to quote the mother as saying so using words she never said.
The bottom line here is that it's not too difficult to prove if they are cousins. Why do you think the only "proof" of this is a phone call that they lied about the contents of? If it were true then they would be able to prove it easily. But in fact the opposite is true, there is no evidence anywhere that they are cousins.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by random1323
and willie's lies are that there are hundreds of independent studies supporting the official story when he has yet to provide one. how about u, do u know of any independent studies that support the official story without ties to the government.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I'm not sure if I could ever meet your definition of "independant".
Besides NIST's report, there have been at least 4 different independant total simulation efforts that I know of. The Purdue study is the latest, also the MIT model, the Weidlinger Associates model, and Exponent Failure Analysis Associates model. And probably even more that I'm not aware of. The idea that you can try and dismiss the entire Purdue study based on nothing but because it was funded by the NSF, therefore it's the "government" is absurd BTW, but even if you do there's still MIT and the other two.
And talk about papers! Papers up the ass about the collapse...
http://www.911-strike.com/BazantZhou.htm
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/skyscrapers.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
(Hell, I'll use one from Tgbn's list too...)
http://www.nistreview.org/WTC7-COLLAPSE-SCHEUERMAN.pdf
http://www.structuremag.org/archives...ling-Mar07.pdf
http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wt...clifton/p1.htm
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ce.../0502feat.html
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721...1/61145960.pdf
And that's just a sample. Need I go on?
OK, some more journal papers that have been written on the collapse...
A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.
Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.
Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.
How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.
How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p
Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.
Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.
A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.
Reconnaissance and preliminary assessment of a damaged high-rise building near Ground Zero. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 12 :5, 15 December 2003. pp. 371 - 391. Warn, Gordon; Berman, Jeffrey; Whittaker, Andrew; Bruneau, Michel
Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15
The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9
WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11
How about overseas? Universities in many other countries have studied the collapse as well and arived at similar conclusions to the "official story".
Here's an example. Chinese researchers from Beijing on the collapse...
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm
Independant enough for ya? Or are we paying off the Chinese now to keep our 9/11 secrets. :missingte
Not to mention that NIST themselves contracted with outside sources. So you'd have to think that every single one of these outside, independant companies that they used are all also in on the deception so they can get some cash, and that not one of these people have spoken up either. :thumbsup:</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The sheep never mention the fact that in these cases , independent or not, anyone who handles sensitive information has already signed a paper preventing them from disclosing to the public ANY information thay have or face 20 years in prison.
And the few that have spoken up have been dismissed nas kooks like you want them to be in your compartmentalized world where everyone in the GOVT always tells the truth about everything that happened on 9/11.
And even if they did get some reporter on the phone and spilled the beans do you think its going to be headline knews? You could know that one piece of information seems to be incorrect, but you dont know the whole story. Its a very daunting challenge to be a whistleblower when the GOVT has you sign off on your own imprisonment with your signature. The MSM is not going to take the word of anybody on the subject of 9/11, unless you have evidence that wasnt destroyed, and even then it will be dismissed as bogus info by sheep like you and Willie because there is no other way to refute it.
You can speak up all you want but what somebody says is not proof. Its what you can prove that counts, right? Well , lucky for you they destroyed all the evidence, and some stray "evidence" they missed like the Flight 77 Data Recorder information could be bogus and planted out there to confuse things even more.There are so many different trails leading in so many directions. But one things for sure. Both altitude direction stories cannot be true at the same time, so one or both are bogus. Never underestimate the power of disinformation...
How do you prove that the story is a fabrication if all the evidence has been destroyed, dissapeared, or hauled away in record time?
that's some good research omni, how did your research go when it comes to explosions on that day.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8n-nT-luFIw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8n-nT-luFIw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8n-nT-luFIw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8n-nT-luFIw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Omni, I think you've realized by now that you're not going to reach these guys. I have. The weight of the evidence is staggering, the independent sources is a blowout, the inconsistencies in their positions is pathetic.
They think we need to account for every pebble on the beach while they ignore the whole fucking beach.
They think Alex Looney Jones is a source. They think he's a truth finder when his words prove him to be an idiot's idiot on a daily basis.
When they cite the likes of AJ as the truth and call people like Columbia Univ scientists the liars, that's the last straw for me.
They are beyond hope. You can't reason with ignorance.
Cincy, I may have bottomed out. I'm joining "I debate cement walls anonymous".
They think we need to account for every pebble on the beach while they ignore the whole fucking beach.
They think Alex Looney Jones is a source. They think he's a truth finder when his words prove him to be an idiot's idiot on a daily basis.
When they cite the likes of AJ as the truth and call people like Columbia Univ scientists the liars, that's the last straw for me.
They are beyond hope. You can't reason with ignorance.
Cincy, I may have bottomed out. I'm joining "I debate cement walls anonymous".
Why switch topics again? You notice how each argument comes along, with claims that it can't be refuted, and then it get challenged and it's off to the next topic.
Why should I get into the reports of explosions when all that will follow is another 'Ok but what about this?!' that has come with the last 50 arguments I've dissected on this board from yourself and others?
How many times do your individual arguements have to fall short before you realize that these people are lying to you?
Really? And here I'm reading all these papers and studies when these guys are going to be put in jail for writing them...:missingte
Because the only people who have spoken up pretty much ARE kooks, and what they have to say is usually bad assumptions, bad science, or outright lies.
You act as though anyone who had done these studies is actually out there saying that they were there and it's all lies. Nope. Only your "truther" camp full of unqualified people who believe they are experts at everything.
What do you mean "even if they did", I thought you said that people HAD spoken up? :missingte
If it was credible, the absolutely it would be headline news. Steven Jones babbling about thermite and theologins writing books talking about 'common sense' with mistakes and stupidity on every page is not news. :missingte
OK, so first off the many thousands of people here involved in the US are all just scared to death of speaking up and will keep this secret of the murder of thousands of people...:think2:...
Even if that were true (which it isn't), how about those in other countries who have done reports that come to the same conclusions? Surely they are not afraid of the US knocking on their door and taking them away?
Bolding mine for the irony. The truth movement has proven exactly ziltch so far while ignoring all the evidence.
Nice job with the blanket statement accusation that they destroyed all the evidence though. So you don't have to deal with the evidence becuase "they" destroyed it all, and you don't have to deal with the reports that include all that evidence because they are all government shills or scared to speak up. Way to go TR :thumbsup:
I must have missed the part where you have proven anything, other than your ignorance in believing crap like the nukes in the basement idea. I guess that's the kind of garbage we are supposed to believe instead?
Quite frankley, if you can't see the massive holes in your "theory" then you are not even remotely qualified to be critisizing something like the NIST report.
<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 4258052" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>Omni</TD><TD class=alt2>Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Total Recall
The sheep never mention the fact that in these cases , independent or not, anyone who handles sensitive information has already signed a paper preventing them from disclosing to the public ANY information thay have or face 20 years in prison.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Really? And here I'm reading all these papers and studies when these guys are going to be put in jail for writing them...:missingte
NAME SOME OF THESE GUYS.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Total Recall
And the few that have spoken up have been dismissed nas kooks like you want them to be in your compartmentalized world where everyone in the GOVT always tells the truth about everything that happened on 9/11.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Because the only people who have spoken up pretty much ARE kooks, and what they have to say is usually bad assumptions, bad science, or outright
lies.
PRETTY MUCH, AS OPPOSED TO ALL. OK-WHO IS ONE THAT HAS SPOKEN UP THAT YOU DONT CONSIDER A "kook"?
You act as though anyone who had done these studies is actually out there saying that they were there and it's all lies. Nope. Only your "truther" camp full of unqualified people who believe they are experts at everything.
WHAT QUALIFICATIONS ARE PILOTS MISSING ABOUT YEARS OF AQUIRED KNOWLEGDE ABOUT AERODYNAMIC IMPOSSIBILITY BOLSTERED BY THE PILOT TRAINERS WHO CONFIRM THAT THESE ARAB PILOTS COULD HARDLY TURN A CESSNA AROUND LET ALONE MAKE A 100 TON FLYING BUS DO A 270 DEGREE TURN (fact) AT 500 MILES AND HOUR AND NOT GO INTO A HIGH SPPEED STALL AND NOT BE A MILITARY PLANE THAT DULLES AIRPORT CONTROLLERS WERE BETTING IT HAD TO BE?
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Total Recall
And even if they did get some reporter on the phone and spilled the beans do you think its going to be headline knews?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
What do you mean "even if they did", I thought you said that people HAD spoken up? :missingte
THATS RIGHT JERKOFF AND YOU NEVER HEARD OF IT BECAUSE IT NEVER GETS OUT. HA-HA. DUMBASS. YOU FELL RIGHT INTO THAT TRAP EASILY ENOUGH.
If it was credible, the absolutely it would be headline news.
WITH YOUR STANDARDS OF CREDIBILITY, YOU WOULD CALL THE POPE A LIAR IF HE SAID HE HEARD MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS. YOUR STATEMENT IS SELF-SERVING BS, NOTHING MORE.
Steven Jones babbling about thermite and theologins writing books talking about 'common sense' with mistakes and stupidity on every page is not news. :missingte
IT MUST MAKE YOU FEEL VERY POWERFUL TO BE A NOBODY. YOUR TWISTED LOGIC BECOMES YOU. AND PHYSICS PROFESSORS DONT BABBLE.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Total Recall
You could know that one piece of information seems to be incorrect, but you dont know the whole story. Its a very daunting challenge to be a whistleblower when the GOVT has you sign off on your own imprisonment with your signature. The MSM is not going to take the word of anybody on the subject of 9/11, unless you have evidence that wasnt destroyed, and even then it will be dismissed as bogus info by sheep like you and Willie because there is no other way to refute it.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
OK, so first off the many thousands of people here involved in the US are all just scared to death of speaking up and will keep this secret of the murder of thousands of people...:think2:...
THOUSANDS MY ASS. IT WOULD TAKE 50-60 FOREIGN NATIONALS AND A HANDFUL OF BIG MOVERS IN THE INTEL COMMUNITY AT MOST. THEIR NOT BUILDING A PYRAMID DUMMY. THEYRE PLANTING EXPLOSIVES.
Even if that were true (which it isn't), how about those in other countries who have done reports that come to the same conclusions? Surely they are not afraid of the US knocking on their door and taking them away?
JUST AS MANY FROM OTHER COUNTRIES WHO HAVE THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Total Recall
You can speak up all you want but what somebody says is not proof. Its what you can prove that counts, right? Well , lucky for you they destroyed all the evidence, and some stray "evidence" they missed like the Flight 77 Data Recorder information could be bogus and planted out there to confuse things even more.There are so many different trails leading in so many directions. But one things for sure. Both altitude direction stories cannot be true at the same time, so one or both are bogus. Never underestimate the power of disinformation...
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Bolding mine for the irony. The truth movement has proven exactly ziltch so far while ignoring all the evidence.
OH NO? THEYVE PROVEN THAT SOMEONE WANTED NO EVIDENCE LEFT DURING THE COMMISSION OF THE ACT OR AFTERWARDS. THEYVE PROVEN THAT 9/11 MAKES PHYSICS LOOK LIKE JUNK SCIENCE THEYVE PROVEN THAT THE GREATEST SINGLE DAY IN THE HISTORY OF PUT OPTIONS ON THE AIRLINES OCCURED ON 9/11. THEYVE PROVEN THAT NORAD STOOD DOWN. THEYVE PROVEN THAT CHENEY IS A LIAR. THEYVE PROVEN THAT BUSH RUMMY CONDI SOME OF THE GENERALS, ROVE, AND LIBBY ARE LIARS. THEYVE PROVED THAT THE 9/11 COMMISSION LIED. THEYVE PROVEN WHAT THE SHEEP ARE TO AFRAID TO POSTULATE. THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. THATS MY BELIEF, NOT BECAUSE AJ OR SJ AR CS OR RO SAYS SO- BECAUSE I SAY SO.
Nice job with the blanket statement accusation that they destroyed all the evidence though. So you don't have to deal with the evidence becuase "they" destroyed it all, and you don't have to deal with the reports that include all that evidence because they are all government shills or scared to speak up. Way to go TR :thumbsup:
NO - YOU DONT HAVE TO DEAL WITH QUESTIONS THAT YOU CANT REFUTE WITH "WHERES THE EVIDENCE?"
I DIDNT DESTROY IT FOR GAIN- THEY DID. IM TRYING TO WORK WITHOUT IT, AND YOURE TRYING TO WORK WITH WHAT PASSES FOR EVIDENCE THESE DAYS.
I must have missed the part where you have proven anything, other than your ignorance in believing crap like the nukes in the basement idea. I guess that's the kind of garbage we are supposed to believe instead?
I DONT EXPECT THE SHEEP TO BELIEVE ANYTHING I BELIEVE. IF THEY DID ID BE A SHEEP TOO.
Quite frankley, if you can't see the massive holes in your "theory" then you are not even remotely qualified to be critisizing something like the NIST report.
THE HOLES IN MY NUKE THEORY? IM NOT QUALIFIED? MY FATHER WAS A NUCLEAR WEAPONS EXPERT. HE HANDLED THEM ALL THE TIME. HE SET THE TIMERS ON THEM, CLIMBED DOWN THE 60-100 FOOT TOWERS THEY SAT UPON AND GAVE THE BIG BOYS THE THUMBS UP TO START THE COUNTDOWN. I LEARNED EVERYTHING I COULD GET MMY HANDS ON ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF FISSION AND FUSION AND ISOTOPES AND HALF-LIFES AND ATOM SPLITTING AT A VERY YOUNG AGE. I HAD BOOKS FILLED WITH COLOR PICTURES OF NUKES EXPLODING THAT MY FATHER BROUGHT HOME FOR ME. I KNEW ABOUT THINGS THAT NONE OF THE OTHER KIDS IN SCHOLL NEW EXISTED. ONCE THAT HAPPENS YOU NEVER SEE LIFE THE SAME WAY THE SHEEP DO. SO I AM A LITTLE MORE QUALIFIED THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON ON THE SUBJECT AT LEAST HUH?
LOOK- THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE TRITE BUT YOU REALLY MUST HAVE LIVED A TYPICAL LIFE, MOST AMERICANS DONT REALIZE THERE ARE ALOT OF THINGS OUT THERE THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA EXIST. THERE IS NO SHAME IN IGNORANCE EXCEPT WHEN ITS USED TO RIDICULE THOSE WHO ARE NOT. MY THEORY CORRECTLY STATES THAT THEY DO EXIST. ITS PATHETIC THAT YOU FIND IT AMUSING. THAT THEY WERE USED OR NOT WILL BE PROVEN TO YOU SOMEDAY, HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Total Recall
The sheep never mention the fact that in these cases , independent or not, anyone who handles sensitive information has already signed a paper preventing them from disclosing to the public ANY information thay have or face 20 years in prison.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Really? And here I'm reading all these papers and studies when these guys are going to be put in jail for writing them...:missingte
NAME SOME OF THESE GUYS.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Total Recall
And the few that have spoken up have been dismissed nas kooks like you want them to be in your compartmentalized world where everyone in the GOVT always tells the truth about everything that happened on 9/11.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Because the only people who have spoken up pretty much ARE kooks, and what they have to say is usually bad assumptions, bad science, or outright
lies.
PRETTY MUCH, AS OPPOSED TO ALL. OK-WHO IS ONE THAT HAS SPOKEN UP THAT YOU DONT CONSIDER A "kook"?
You act as though anyone who had done these studies is actually out there saying that they were there and it's all lies. Nope. Only your "truther" camp full of unqualified people who believe they are experts at everything.
WHAT QUALIFICATIONS ARE PILOTS MISSING ABOUT YEARS OF AQUIRED KNOWLEGDE ABOUT AERODYNAMIC IMPOSSIBILITY BOLSTERED BY THE PILOT TRAINERS WHO CONFIRM THAT THESE ARAB PILOTS COULD HARDLY TURN A CESSNA AROUND LET ALONE MAKE A 100 TON FLYING BUS DO A 270 DEGREE TURN (fact) AT 500 MILES AND HOUR AND NOT GO INTO A HIGH SPPEED STALL AND NOT BE A MILITARY PLANE THAT DULLES AIRPORT CONTROLLERS WERE BETTING IT HAD TO BE?
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Total Recall
And even if they did get some reporter on the phone and spilled the beans do you think its going to be headline knews?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
What do you mean "even if they did", I thought you said that people HAD spoken up? :missingte
THATS RIGHT JERKOFF AND YOU NEVER HEARD OF IT BECAUSE IT NEVER GETS OUT. HA-HA. DUMBASS. YOU FELL RIGHT INTO THAT TRAP EASILY ENOUGH.
If it was credible, the absolutely it would be headline news.
WITH YOUR STANDARDS OF CREDIBILITY, YOU WOULD CALL THE POPE A LIAR IF HE SAID HE HEARD MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS. YOUR STATEMENT IS SELF-SERVING BS, NOTHING MORE.
Steven Jones babbling about thermite and theologins writing books talking about 'common sense' with mistakes and stupidity on every page is not news. :missingte
IT MUST MAKE YOU FEEL VERY POWERFUL TO BE A NOBODY. YOUR TWISTED LOGIC BECOMES YOU. AND PHYSICS PROFESSORS DONT BABBLE.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Total Recall
You could know that one piece of information seems to be incorrect, but you dont know the whole story. Its a very daunting challenge to be a whistleblower when the GOVT has you sign off on your own imprisonment with your signature. The MSM is not going to take the word of anybody on the subject of 9/11, unless you have evidence that wasnt destroyed, and even then it will be dismissed as bogus info by sheep like you and Willie because there is no other way to refute it.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
OK, so first off the many thousands of people here involved in the US are all just scared to death of speaking up and will keep this secret of the murder of thousands of people...:think2:...
THOUSANDS MY ASS. IT WOULD TAKE 50-60 FOREIGN NATIONALS AND A HANDFUL OF BIG MOVERS IN THE INTEL COMMUNITY AT MOST. THEIR NOT BUILDING A PYRAMID DUMMY. THEYRE PLANTING EXPLOSIVES.
Even if that were true (which it isn't), how about those in other countries who have done reports that come to the same conclusions? Surely they are not afraid of the US knocking on their door and taking them away?
JUST AS MANY FROM OTHER COUNTRIES WHO HAVE THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Total Recall
You can speak up all you want but what somebody says is not proof. Its what you can prove that counts, right? Well , lucky for you they destroyed all the evidence, and some stray "evidence" they missed like the Flight 77 Data Recorder information could be bogus and planted out there to confuse things even more.There are so many different trails leading in so many directions. But one things for sure. Both altitude direction stories cannot be true at the same time, so one or both are bogus. Never underestimate the power of disinformation...
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Bolding mine for the irony. The truth movement has proven exactly ziltch so far while ignoring all the evidence.
OH NO? THEYVE PROVEN THAT SOMEONE WANTED NO EVIDENCE LEFT DURING THE COMMISSION OF THE ACT OR AFTERWARDS. THEYVE PROVEN THAT 9/11 MAKES PHYSICS LOOK LIKE JUNK SCIENCE THEYVE PROVEN THAT THE GREATEST SINGLE DAY IN THE HISTORY OF PUT OPTIONS ON THE AIRLINES OCCURED ON 9/11. THEYVE PROVEN THAT NORAD STOOD DOWN. THEYVE PROVEN THAT CHENEY IS A LIAR. THEYVE PROVEN THAT BUSH RUMMY CONDI SOME OF THE GENERALS, ROVE, AND LIBBY ARE LIARS. THEYVE PROVED THAT THE 9/11 COMMISSION LIED. THEYVE PROVEN WHAT THE SHEEP ARE TO AFRAID TO POSTULATE. THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB. THATS MY BELIEF, NOT BECAUSE AJ OR SJ AR CS OR RO SAYS SO- BECAUSE I SAY SO.
Nice job with the blanket statement accusation that they destroyed all the evidence though. So you don't have to deal with the evidence becuase "they" destroyed it all, and you don't have to deal with the reports that include all that evidence because they are all government shills or scared to speak up. Way to go TR :thumbsup:
NO - YOU DONT HAVE TO DEAL WITH QUESTIONS THAT YOU CANT REFUTE WITH "WHERES THE EVIDENCE?"
I DIDNT DESTROY IT FOR GAIN- THEY DID. IM TRYING TO WORK WITHOUT IT, AND YOURE TRYING TO WORK WITH WHAT PASSES FOR EVIDENCE THESE DAYS.
I must have missed the part where you have proven anything, other than your ignorance in believing crap like the nukes in the basement idea. I guess that's the kind of garbage we are supposed to believe instead?
I DONT EXPECT THE SHEEP TO BELIEVE ANYTHING I BELIEVE. IF THEY DID ID BE A SHEEP TOO.
Quite frankley, if you can't see the massive holes in your "theory" then you are not even remotely qualified to be critisizing something like the NIST report.
THE HOLES IN MY NUKE THEORY? IM NOT QUALIFIED? MY FATHER WAS A NUCLEAR WEAPONS EXPERT. HE HANDLED THEM ALL THE TIME. HE SET THE TIMERS ON THEM, CLIMBED DOWN THE 60-100 FOOT TOWERS THEY SAT UPON AND GAVE THE BIG BOYS THE THUMBS UP TO START THE COUNTDOWN. I LEARNED EVERYTHING I COULD GET MMY HANDS ON ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF FISSION AND FUSION AND ISOTOPES AND HALF-LIFES AND ATOM SPLITTING AT A VERY YOUNG AGE. I HAD BOOKS FILLED WITH COLOR PICTURES OF NUKES EXPLODING THAT MY FATHER BROUGHT HOME FOR ME. I KNEW ABOUT THINGS THAT NONE OF THE OTHER KIDS IN SCHOLL NEW EXISTED. ONCE THAT HAPPENS YOU NEVER SEE LIFE THE SAME WAY THE SHEEP DO. SO I AM A LITTLE MORE QUALIFIED THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON ON THE SUBJECT AT LEAST HUH?
LOOK- THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE TRITE BUT YOU REALLY MUST HAVE LIVED A TYPICAL LIFE, MOST AMERICANS DONT REALIZE THERE ARE ALOT OF THINGS OUT THERE THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA EXIST. THERE IS NO SHAME IN IGNORANCE EXCEPT WHEN ITS USED TO RIDICULE THOSE WHO ARE NOT. MY THEORY CORRECTLY STATES THAT THEY DO EXIST. ITS PATHETIC THAT YOU FIND IT AMUSING. THAT THEY WERE USED OR NOT WILL BE PROVEN TO YOU SOMEDAY, HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
You really need to just stop, you show your ignorance over and over...
You must have missed the large list I already posted for random here in this thread. Maybe I should have used bigger lettering...
I'd say that the only guy who really has any qualifications that I've heard allegedly on the other side is that Jowenko guy. But of course there are other facts to consider...he was given the truther's favorite video of the collapse with no other facts or context and they got him on tape saying that it looked like a CD. Then you can see his face go blank as the started to tell him other details, like that the building was on fire...in any case, his opinion comes only from after watching that one video from that one angle with no other facts to go along with it, if he'd like to write a paper talking about his conclusions then I'd love to read it.
First off, if you are talking about the "pilots for truth", their leader himself is a failed pilot who has shown his lack of understanding on various piloting issues with many of his past statements. (They've taken their various claims to other forums with real pilots in them, and been laughed right out.)
Second off, I guess I have to address this point that you keep bringing up that I haven't yet corrected you on. The people at air traffic control did not say that it HAD to be a military plane, just that because of the way in which it was being flown they thought that it was...
Let's see the full quote...""The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." So the reason they thought it was a military plane was the unsafe way that it was being flown, not because it couldn;t be a 757. :thumbsup:
And nice to see you dodge my assertion that no one involved in these studies has spoken up about them being wrong by talking about pilots....
Whoosh. That's the sound of my point going right over your head.
And I guess we've all never heard of it because it's never gotten out, right? But if it's never gotten out, then how do YOU know about it? :missingte
Sorry if my standards of credability are conclusions based on evidence and actual scientific possibility and not nutjob theories with no backing or basis in reality, mixed in with horrible science and several outright lies. :thumbsup:
That's why you don't make the news, not some big conspiracy.
Ouch, I'm so hurt. Sorry that you don't like that these guys are full of shit, but calling me a "nobody" doesn't change that fact. :missingte
And this Physics professor DOES babble. :thumbsup: Quite a bit actually.
Whoosh again. The thousands that worked on the reports that you talked about them being too scared to speak up, they all have to keep the secret too, don;t they? :thumbsup: All those engineers and everyone who worked on all these papers and reports, man there's tons of people. And that's just from that particular area of the conspiracy. 50-60 my ass. :missingte
OK, show me engineers from another country who has looked at the evidence, done a detailed report on it, and come up with the "opposite conclusion".
My guess is that you'll point me to more conspiracy babble.
Nope. :thumbsup:
Not even close. :thumbsup:
I'm not even sure what exactly your accusation is here, your wording is so poor.
Swing and a miss. :thumbsup:
Maybe in general, but not about 9/11. :thumbsup:
Not really :thumbsup:
You mean that big fat pile of evidence they used as evidence? Well screw them...:missingte
In this case, I really don't expect ANYONE with half a brain to believe what you believe.
That's interesting info about your father. So tell me, are YOU a nuclear weapons expert, or have you just read a few books?
Better yet, have you ever run your theory by an actual nuclear weapons expert?:thumbsup:
The one word that best describes the so called "truth movement" would have to be ignorance. In all areas. CD's, physics, piloting, engineering...you name it, they've shown their ignorance of it.
You must have missed the large list I already posted for random here in this thread. Maybe I should have used bigger lettering...
I'd say that the only guy who really has any qualifications that I've heard allegedly on the other side is that Jowenko guy. But of course there are other facts to consider...he was given the truther's favorite video of the collapse with no other facts or context and they got him on tape saying that it looked like a CD. Then you can see his face go blank as the started to tell him other details, like that the building was on fire...in any case, his opinion comes only from after watching that one video from that one angle with no other facts to go along with it, if he'd like to write a paper talking about his conclusions then I'd love to read it.
First off, if you are talking about the "pilots for truth", their leader himself is a failed pilot who has shown his lack of understanding on various piloting issues with many of his past statements. (They've taken their various claims to other forums with real pilots in them, and been laughed right out.)
Second off, I guess I have to address this point that you keep bringing up that I haven't yet corrected you on. The people at air traffic control did not say that it HAD to be a military plane, just that because of the way in which it was being flown they thought that it was...
Let's see the full quote...""The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." So the reason they thought it was a military plane was the unsafe way that it was being flown, not because it couldn;t be a 757. :thumbsup:
And nice to see you dodge my assertion that no one involved in these studies has spoken up about them being wrong by talking about pilots....
Whoosh. That's the sound of my point going right over your head.
And I guess we've all never heard of it because it's never gotten out, right? But if it's never gotten out, then how do YOU know about it? :missingte
Sorry if my standards of credability are conclusions based on evidence and actual scientific possibility and not nutjob theories with no backing or basis in reality, mixed in with horrible science and several outright lies. :thumbsup:
That's why you don't make the news, not some big conspiracy.
Ouch, I'm so hurt. Sorry that you don't like that these guys are full of shit, but calling me a "nobody" doesn't change that fact. :missingte
And this Physics professor DOES babble. :thumbsup: Quite a bit actually.
Whoosh again. The thousands that worked on the reports that you talked about them being too scared to speak up, they all have to keep the secret too, don;t they? :thumbsup: All those engineers and everyone who worked on all these papers and reports, man there's tons of people. And that's just from that particular area of the conspiracy. 50-60 my ass. :missingte
OK, show me engineers from another country who has looked at the evidence, done a detailed report on it, and come up with the "opposite conclusion".
My guess is that you'll point me to more conspiracy babble.
Nope. :thumbsup:
Not even close. :thumbsup:
I'm not even sure what exactly your accusation is here, your wording is so poor.
Swing and a miss. :thumbsup:
Maybe in general, but not about 9/11. :thumbsup:
Not really :thumbsup:
You mean that big fat pile of evidence they used as evidence? Well screw them...:missingte
In this case, I really don't expect ANYONE with half a brain to believe what you believe.
That's interesting info about your father. So tell me, are YOU a nuclear weapons expert, or have you just read a few books?
Better yet, have you ever run your theory by an actual nuclear weapons expert?:thumbsup:
The one word that best describes the so called "truth movement" would have to be ignorance. In all areas. CD's, physics, piloting, engineering...you name it, they've shown their ignorance of it.
