• 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!

The alternative explanation to the government reports on 9/11

what truth???


mike, mike, mike...

It is telling that you refuse to address the OP question.

Have a good one. We are done in this thread unless you address the topic.
 
It is telling that you refuse to address the OP question.

Have a good one. We are done in this thread unless you address the topic.

first, mate....put your blinders off. Otherwise you wont be able to see any 'truth'.

until that time, there is no use.


But one day, yes, one day you have to wake up.....it will be a painful day. I promise you that.
 
first, mate....put your blinders off. Otherwise you wont be able to see any 'truth'.

until that time, there is no use.


But one day, yes, one day you have to wake up.....it will be a painful day. I promise you that.
What about camlok's "nose cone" truth? Your silence on this issue says it all. Are you one of those that sides with someone just because you share the common belief that there is a government conspiracy? Is that why you don't point out incorrect information put forth by your truther brethren?
 
What about camlok's "nose cone" truth? Your silence on this issue says it all. Are you one of those that sides with someone just because you share the common belief that there is a government conspiracy? Is that why you don't point out incorrect information put forth by your truther brethren?

He won't answer the question. There is no "nose cone" in that vid. Both camlok and Pin refuse to address the OP by laying out what they believe happened. Both should spend some time reviewing the info here.
World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research

The work done answers questions of fall speed, building movement, etc.

Until they address the OP, I am done responding to them on this thread. I knew none would lay out the alternative explanation they accept.
 
What about camlok's "nose cone" truth? Your silence on this issue says it all. Are you one of those that sides with someone just because you share the common belief that there is a government conspiracy? Is that why you don't point out incorrect information put forth by your truther brethren?

No, as I have written before, all that is pointless UNLESS you put your blinders off.



Gee, what's wrong with these people? can't they read?
 
No, as I have written before, all that is pointless UNLESS you put your blinders off.



Gee, what's wrong with these people? can't they read?
Nice dodge.
 
The topic of the thread is not the govt. explanation. It is the alternatives to that. Why do you want to derail the thread? If you want to discuss the govt explanation you can go to the thread started by camlok.

Yes, I understand it is alternatives. In your vague way over the years and posts here, you suggest you are not on 100% with the official theory. I thought you might honor us with your less than 100% version, but as you've made clear before, you'd rather remain silent about your version. You would rather sit in judgment of those heretics who do not buy into the official story at all. Standard issue dishonest debate tactics--I won't show you mine, but when you show me yours I will ask irrelevant and misleading questions. :roll:
 
and true, don't forget that.

But I am wondering, what is it that makes you so damned scared of the truth?

To answer your question, likely acute cognitive dissonance. Many people simply do not want to know the truth because many times, especially regarding 911, the truth is too painful to acknowledge.
 
To answer your question, likely acute cognitive dissonance. Many people simply do not want to know the truth because many times, especially regarding 911, the truth is too painful to acknowledge.

I agree!

EmilysQuotes.Com-Intelligence-teacher-Mark-Twain.jpg
 
To answer your question, likely acute cognitive dissonance. Many people simply do not want to know the truth because many times, especially regarding 911, the truth is too painful to acknowledge.

quote-in-a-time-of-universal-deceit-telling-the-truth-is-a-revolutionary-act-george-orwell-13971.jpg
 
Yes, I understand it is alternatives. In your vague way over the years and posts here, you suggest you are not on 100% with the official theory. I thought you might honor us with your less than 100% version, but as you've made clear before, you'd rather remain silent about your version. You would rather sit in judgment of those heretics who do not buy into the official story at all. Standard issue dishonest debate tactics--I won't show you mine, but when you show me yours I will ask irrelevant and misleading questions. :roll:

Dodge and trying to move the goalpost back to me as expected. It is your way to avoid presenting your accepted explanation.

Why not do the honors and just not reply. I can add you to the list.
 
To answer your question, likely acute cognitive dissonance. Many people simply do not want to know the truth because many times, especially regarding 911, the truth is too painful to acknowledge.

Same old rant. Then lay out the "truth". You are making assumption you cannot back up regarding the reader.
 
@mike -> yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwn
 
No, as I have written before, all that is pointless UNLESS you put your blinders off.
So basically all you're going to do going forward is continue to post pictures, memes, and one liners that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That is until someone takes their "blinders" off and starts to agree with your beliefs.

Got it.
 
So basically all you're going to do going forward is continue to post pictures, memes, and one liners that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. That is until someone takes their "blinders" off and starts to agree with your beliefs.

Got it.

Pin has written before. He just has not written the detailed explanation he believes. It is funny how careful Pin and others in what they posts. Always trying to leave themselves a way out.
 
Pin has written before. He just has not written the detailed explanation he believes. It is funny how careful Pin and others in what they posts. Always trying to leave themselves a way out.

really? or is that what you want to think.
 
Alternative to official story Board Message

Earlier discussions about the damage actually done to all humans in the near vicinity have been brought a little tighter into focus Mike. People were sick, early on. Like the pedophile priests in Boston, everybody pretended it wasn't so.

Matt Tartaglia really was exposed to radiation. Him and many others. Radiation and toxic air, sure signs of a nuclear event.
 
Alternative to official story Board Message

Earlier discussions about the damage actually done to all humans in the near vicinity have been brought a little tighter into focus Mike. People were sick, early on. Like the pedophile priests in Boston, everybody pretended it wasn't so.

Matt Tartaglia really was exposed to radiation. Him and many others. Radiation and toxic air, sure signs of a nuclear event.

Really? You need to find another source of information than P4T forum.

You do realize that AE911T does not support the nuclear event theory? Are you saying Tony Sz and Gage are not telling the truth?
 
Alternative to official story Board Message

Earlier discussions about the damage actually done to all humans in the near vicinity have been brought a little tighter into focus Mike. People were sick, early on. Like the pedophile priests in Boston, everybody pretended it wasn't so.

Matt Tartaglia really was exposed to radiation. Him and many others. Radiation and toxic air, sure signs of a nuclear event.

Lots of things can get people sick and cause cancer other than radiation
The one thing we know with 100% certainty is that there was no nukes in 911 and that you hate the truth.
 
Radiation and toxic air, sure signs of a nuclear event.
You have been told multiple times that radiation was not detected at the site. Nobody suffered radiation sickness. No temperatures were seen to indicate a nuclear event.

Yet you still believe a nuclear fantasy because you feel like it.
 
Really? You need to find another source of information than P4T forum.

You do realize that AE911T does not support the nuclear event theory? Are you saying Tony Sz and Gage are not telling the truth?

I rather thought any response from you would be slamming P4T.

No Michael, I'm not saying Tony and Richard are not telling the truth, no.

Cognitive Dissonance is real and common. The Nuclear Option is unpleasant for everybody to consider. One might consider that 3000 people were killed there, but one becomes most anxious to consider that nuclear devices were employed to do so, even with one body having been blown into 200 different pieces, most folks simply DO NOT WANT to consider that.

But isn't it interesting Michael, that even back in 2006 people were talking about all the sick firemen. You still deny those sicknesses today, but others were aware of it 11 years ago.

People's behavior is fascinating for me. :mrgreen:
 
One might consider that 3000 people were killed there, but one becomes most anxious to consider that nuclear devices were employed to do so, even with one body having been blown into 200 different pieces, most folks simply DO NOT WANT to consider that.
:roll:

No, most folks don't consider nuclear devices because there is no evidence for them.

But isn't it interesting Michael, that even back in 2006 people were talking about all the sick firemen.
Right. they were sick because they inhaled toxic fumes from the fires not nuclear devices.
 
after all these years, there is no one clear concise explanation regarding what some believe was the controlled demolition of wtc1,2,7.

Here you can lay out the concise explanation of what happened to those buildings. Post your supporting evidence and sources. It is not a thread about the government reports on wtc1,2,7. It is about the controlled demolition that some claim happened.

we'll take care of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom