parky76
10th April 2009, 03:25 PM
http://www.slate.com/id/2215703/
when I first came across this article, I was a little afraid.
"what if the mainstream media IS starting to jump onto 9-11 truth? this could be bad for us debunkers!!" I thought.
but then, I read the article.
what is the amazing evidence they mention? what is their smoking gun?
"On Sept. 11, an NBC reporter quoted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKaL4eqd_h4&feature=related) New York Fire Department Chief of Safety Albert Turi as saying he believed there were explosives planted in one of the towers."
:);):D:p:cool::o:D;):p:D
and this lovely one:
"Firefighters for 9/11 Truth (http://firefightersfor911truth.org/), a Web site started in 2008, says the government destroyed evidence that 7 World Trade Center was blown up and hosts a petition (http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469) asking Congress to look into the possibility that "exotic accelerants" destroyed the buildings"
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
and this puppy:
" Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) point to the physics of the towers' collapse—its "free fall" pace, the "lateral ejection" of steel, the "mid-air pulverization of concrete"—as evidence that they could not have fallen exclusively because of the planes' impact. Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/) have their own set of theories that focus on the planes' black boxes and flight paths, arguing, for example, that the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 would have had to perform an extremely difficult aerial maneuver to hit the Pentagon where they did. Lawyers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/) conclude that the 9/11 Commission investigation was inadequate. There's also Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (http://stj911.org/) (not to be confused with its rival, Scholars for 9/11 Truth), which tackles scientific aspects of the towers' collapse, such as the alleged residue of explosive materials like thermate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate) in the dust at Ground Zero."
:D:D:D:):):););)
Hee heee heee. Its funny I know. For a second I was worried. But then I read.
A bunch of very biased people, who started with an incredible conclusion and then sought to find proof of their conclusion (and failed miserably), are quoted. I am not impressed at all. This just like Bush and Iraqi WMDs. Its called the scientific method...in reverse.
Back to the drawing board, truthees.
when I first came across this article, I was a little afraid.
"what if the mainstream media IS starting to jump onto 9-11 truth? this could be bad for us debunkers!!" I thought.
but then, I read the article.
what is the amazing evidence they mention? what is their smoking gun?
"On Sept. 11, an NBC reporter quoted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKaL4eqd_h4&feature=related) New York Fire Department Chief of Safety Albert Turi as saying he believed there were explosives planted in one of the towers."
:);):D:p:cool::o:D;):p:D
and this lovely one:
"Firefighters for 9/11 Truth (http://firefightersfor911truth.org/), a Web site started in 2008, says the government destroyed evidence that 7 World Trade Center was blown up and hosts a petition (http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=469) asking Congress to look into the possibility that "exotic accelerants" destroyed the buildings"
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
and this puppy:
" Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) point to the physics of the towers' collapse—its "free fall" pace, the "lateral ejection" of steel, the "mid-air pulverization of concrete"—as evidence that they could not have fallen exclusively because of the planes' impact. Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/) have their own set of theories that focus on the planes' black boxes and flight paths, arguing, for example, that the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 would have had to perform an extremely difficult aerial maneuver to hit the Pentagon where they did. Lawyers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/) conclude that the 9/11 Commission investigation was inadequate. There's also Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (http://stj911.org/) (not to be confused with its rival, Scholars for 9/11 Truth), which tackles scientific aspects of the towers' collapse, such as the alleged residue of explosive materials like thermate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate) in the dust at Ground Zero."
:D:D:D:):):););)
Hee heee heee. Its funny I know. For a second I was worried. But then I read.
A bunch of very biased people, who started with an incredible conclusion and then sought to find proof of their conclusion (and failed miserably), are quoted. I am not impressed at all. This just like Bush and Iraqi WMDs. Its called the scientific method...in reverse.
Back to the drawing board, truthees.