patrick.net

The Professor says

"Consensus 9/11 seeks "best evidence" proof to dispel official story falsehoods. It's founded on:

(1) The opinions of respected authorities, based on professional experience, descriptive studies, and reports of expert committees.

(2) Physical data in the form of photographs, videotapes, court testimony, witness reports, and FOIA releases.

(3) Direct rather than circumstantial evidence.

Determining "best evidence" depends on "integrating individual professional expertise with the best available documentary and scientific evidence.""

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/consensus-911-panel-seeking-truth.html

They have already decided what is right and wrong before even doing the research. They create their 'theory' and fit the 'evidence' to that. It's utterly arse backwards and you would be aware of that if you actually were a scientist.

The Professor says

@bigsby
I just cut, pasted, and modified your post and reposted it. You then call it a lazy and childish response. I agree, your responses are lazy and childish.

Mirroring back somebody else's post is a childish and lazy method of response. Get it now?
And you claim to be a professor and yet here you are saying you are an evangelist for a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Very academic. More befitting of someone in their teens I'd say.

The Professor says

"The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic
contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings. NIST neglected the high-temperature and fragmentation
evidence presented here: it appears nowhere in their final report".

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

Ah, surprise, surprise. Another copy and paste effort. Why is all this sort of stuff the 'truth' to you and yet the far, far, far more detailed work done by NIST is merely taken by you to be some sort of elaborate disinformation effort and dismissed out of hand?

The Professor says

We don't live on the earth

Speak for yourself.

The thread for non-censored discussion of truther conspiracy theories.

Homeboy says

bob2356 says

Homeboy says

There's an incredible amount of crap out there about aliens. Doesn't mean it's true.

It's not true?

Of course it's true. You can't find an official group of scientists who say that alien abductions aren't happening, so therefore it's true.

There's not an official group of scientists who say that the WTC wasn't brought down by mutant steel eating earthworms either, so it must have been mutant steel eating earthworms that destroyed the WTC. The truth is finally out at last.

The Professor says

I expect Bob to pop in with alien talk anytime now.

No I am forming 911mutantsteeleatingearthwormstruth.org. Aliens clearly didn't do it, mutant steel eating earthworms are the true culprits..

How are the contributions going to ae911truth.org by the way? Any extra money coming in from all your shilling on this post?

bob2356 says

There's not an official group of scientists who say that the WTC wasn't brought down by mutant steel eating earthworms either, so it must have been mutant steel eating earthworms that destroyed the WTC. The truth is finally out at last.

Those puffs of smoke you see coming out of the windows are actually earthworm farts. It makes so much more sense than the "official" story.

Hey Professor, why did you start another thread, and why do you delete anyone's post who proves you wrong? We all know you contradicted yourself. First, you argued that a steel skyscraper has never before in history collapsed due to fire. Then you argued that just because something never happened before doesn't mean it can't happen. You are contradicting your own arguments, and you started a new thread because you don't want to own up to your mistakes.

The Professor says

All your "arguments" are here for all to see.

Thanks for your contribution and have a good night.

You deleted my arguments in your other thread. Why do you refuse to comment on your contradiction where you refuted your own point? Is it because you are embarrassed? Too bad for you that you can't delete posts in this thread.

The Professor says

@homeboy

All your "arguments" are here for all to see.

Thanks for your contribution and have a good night.

And so are all yours, so why do you feel the need to post them all again in another thread? Oh, I forgot it's because you can censor posts that disprove your points in that thread.

The Professor says

Just keeping it clean. You can write whatever you want on this thread. My new thread is for sincere argument and actual evidence. I did not delete the half of your post that was not personal.

There is a lot of real arguments and evidence for the official story out there. Convince me that they are correct!

You deleted multiple posts from a number of people, including at least one of your own. Perhaps you'd like to explain why you deleted your sophistry post and my response.

Your new thread is about nothing more than censoring responses to the lies you are peddling.

And give the 'convince me' line a rest. You've already made up your mind. All the points have been covered in this thread. There is absolutely no need to repeat your exact same claims in a different thread. It is just utterly ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt.

The Professor says

... there is evidence of thermite at the crime scene.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

The Professor says

Personal attack, belittle the evidence, and then appeal to the memory of the victims. A trollish trifecta!

Brilliant bigsby!

It's not trolling, it's a fact. You keep posting that bloody image. It's childish and insulting. You claim you want to discuss the evidence, yet you post up that image multiple times and claim it to be evidence. Says all that needs to be said about what you are up to. Pathetic.

The Professor says

Homeboy says

The Professor says

I don't expect to convince the deniers. The truthers are so far up in conspiracy that they believe things like "mutant steel eating earthworms".

Do you really not understand sarcasm or the concept of "reductio ad absurdum" or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Do you understand the concept of "feed the trolls"?

Yes.

Do you really not understand sarcasm or the concept of "reductio ad absurdum" or are you being deliberately obtuse?

And as I said in the other thread, no, it isn't.

new contribution to the debate.

http://grtv.ca/2012/11/air-defense-911-anomalies-and-questions

The Professor says

Whether the buildings were intentionally demolished is not near as important as the fact that the whole thing was an excuse to pay off contractors, distract the public, spend trillions of dollars, murder many thousands of innocent civilians, kill thousands of our soldiers, and further limit our civil rights.

Ah, so you are finally back-peddling from all your ridiculous copy and pasted CD arguments.

what’s goin on in kuala lumpur?

September 11, 2001: The Crimes of War

Committed “in the Name of 9/11″

Initiating a Legal Procedure

against the Perpetrators of 9/11

Michel Chossudovsky

* * *

International Conference on “9/11 Revisited – Seeking the Truth”

Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF)

Kuala Lumpur, November 2012

Introduction

http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-crimes-of-war-committed-in-the-name-of-9

bring the prosecutions on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUPLAYER_globalresearchtv&feature=player_embedded&v=8Z0Lsyox2zg

The Professor says

Do you understand the concept of "feed the trolls"?

If you ever come up with some sincere and valid arguments I will entertain them. I already have.

Thank you for your continuing contributions.

you go professor! you are a gentleman and a scholar!