• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Science says there were no hijackers on 911

It's pretty funny. I don't reply to his posts for a couple of days and I get this:



I wonder where camlok is hiding?

;)

Hes not hiding, hes scouring truther sites to try and find a response to your post, when that fails he will resort to a diversion
 
lol. This proves it you really can't be serious. You have to be trolling.
Watched the video 3 times. There is no missile in hitting anything. Maybe you need to get glasses
I honestly don't know what camlok's thinking is regarding what, in his opinion, the video shows. What does the "nose cone" mean?

1. Does he think it means that the perimeter columns were removed by explosives or thermite to permit the plane to easily pass through?
2. Does he think it means that the only thing strong enough to penetrate both perimeter column walls is a missile?
3. Does he think it means that someone edited the video and forgot to remove or added the perfect "nose cone"?

And he won't answer questions. All he does is go into rants about people being dishonest and not providing evidence.

Oh well.
 
Hes not hiding, hes scouring truther sites to try and find a response to your post, when that fails he will resort to a diversion

I doubt if truthers will come up with an explanation for that.
 
I honestly don't know what camlok's thinking is regarding what, in his opinion, the video shows. What does the "nose cone" mean?

1. Does he think it means that the perimeter columns were removed by explosives or thermite to permit the plane to easily pass through?
2. Does he think it means that the only thing strong enough to penetrate both perimeter column walls is a missile?
3. Does he think it means that someone edited the video and forgot to remove or added the perfect "nose cone"?

And he won't answer questions. All he does is go into rants about people being dishonest and not providing evidence.

Oh well.

It really is strange. It does do a good job of demonstrating just how poor the critical thinking ability of your average CTer is though. Which by itself is not that bad as some people just were born without that capacity. Not their fault.
Unfortunately it also demonstrates the lack of honesty your average truther has. If they were actually interested in finding out the truth then when presented with evidence like this that destroys their theories they would admit the fault in their ideas and be open to discussing it. Truthers though either just run away or do there best to ignore it or change the topic. It proves how little they are actually interested in the truth.
 
It really is strange. It does do a good job of demonstrating just how poor the critical thinking ability of your average CTer is though. Which by itself is not that bad as some people just were born without that capacity. Not their fault.
Unfortunately it also demonstrates the lack of honesty your average truther has. If they were actually interested in finding out the truth then when presented with evidence like this that destroys their theories they would admit the fault in their ideas and be open to discussing it. Truthers though either just run away or do there best to ignore it or change the topic. It proves how little they are actually interested in the truth.
Great points.

I have nothing to gain by what they call "supporting the official story" so if they provided evidence that shows there was a conspiracy, then so be it. But to stall discussion because they would rather rant on how some people are dishonest cowards or shills is ridiculous. Why can't they move the discussion forward by discussing points and counter points provided in each thread?

Case in point. It has been stated in this forum that the presence of molten molybdenum is evidence of thermite or other nefarious circumstance. So I started looking into this and came up with these points and/or questions.

1. Molten molybdenum was not actually viewed, but was assumed based on the presence of molybdenum microspheres.
2. So the next question is WHEN were those molybdenum formed? Was it the day of 9/11? Or were they formed by torches during construction back in the late 60s, early 70s? If you can't answer these questions, then you can't say those microspheres prove anything. I just provided reasonable doubt regarding that claim.

Not sure why it's so hard to discuss things.
 
Great points.

I have nothing to gain by what they call "supporting the official story" so if they provided evidence that shows there was a conspiracy, then so be it. But to stall discussion because they would rather rant on how some people are dishonest cowards or shills is ridiculous. Why can't they move the discussion forward by discussing points and counter points provided in each thread?

Case in point. It has been stated in this forum that the presence of molten molybdenum is evidence of thermite or other nefarious circumstance. So I started looking into this and came up with these points and/or questions.

1. Molten molybdenum was not actually viewed, but was assumed based on the presence of molybdenum microspheres.
2. So the next question is WHEN were those molybdenum formed? Was it the day of 9/11? Or were they formed by torches during construction back in the late 60s, early 70s? If you can't answer these questions, then you can't say those microspheres prove anything. I just provided reasonable doubt regarding that claim.

Not sure why it's so hard to discuss things.

Good post.

Some have brought up the illness of the first responders who worked the WTC site as "evidence/proof" of a nuclear event. The reasoning was radiation can cause cancer. I asked for a source that states the illness came only from radiation and no other cause.

When presented links to research papers by the AMA and other sources that showed firefighters throughout the country who never worked the 9/11 site had similar health issue the reply was pretty much the researchers are tied to the govt and not reliable.

Research shows the illness can be related to toxic smoke environment, extremely small particles that occurs in building a wildland fires. Nothing to do with a nuclear event.

It is so telling that the CT crowd does not want their alternative explanation looked at in detail. They cannot even agree among themselves on what happened. It is a divided camp with little to know evidence.
 
It really is strange. It does do a good job of demonstrating just how poor the critical thinking ability of your average CTer is though. Which by itself is not that bad as some people just were born without that capacity. Not their fault.
Unfortunately it also demonstrates the lack of honesty your average truther has. If they were actually interested in finding out the truth then when presented with evidence like this that destroys their theories they would admit the fault in their ideas and be open to discussing it. Truthers though either just run away or do there best to ignore it or change the topic. It proves how little they are actually interested in the truth.


Truther is an ironic name
 
Truther is an ironic name

It is a sarcastic demeaning title. It is used in a pejoratively sense. Even then some "truthers" try to spin it as a positive.
 
It is a sarcastic demeaning title. It is used in a pejoratively sense. Even then some "truthers" try to spin it as a positive.

True but it is ironic because the last thing they want or care about is the truth
 
Back
Top Bottom