scott75

Alright, before anyone mentions it; I know that people at P4T and CIT can be prickly; I've been banned from both sites myself :-p.

Nevertheless, I agree with their flyover theory. Is there anyone here that doesn't?

KP

You know Scott, if you keep getting banned from forums maybe it isn't them - it's you.

__________________
From the NIST FAQ

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."

Ahh, the power of words .....

2getherwestand

Maybe he's been sent to these sites by popular mechanics or nat'l geographic to use this method to try and mold minds to throw doubt on any rational investigation into the crime of the century.Might we suggest trying at one of these 2 sites,should have better luck there Scott.UNITED WE STAND,DIVIDED WE FALL,AND YES,WE WILL PREVAIL.

__________________
2getherwestand

scott75

I won't back down when I think I'm right on something. I've found that that can get you banned from places.

scott75

Nah, I've been part of the truth movement for a long time now.

What 2 sites?

KP

I've seen the threads - you haven't offered anything at all - you get banned for being an annoying time-waster - deal with it.

__________________
From the NIST FAQ

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."

Ahh, the power of words .....

scott75

I've asked for help with arguments made by people who are against the flyover theory. As such, the work I've done in defense of the flyover theory has primarily been away from their forums, as opposed to in them.

2getherwestand

Yeah,i think everyone here accepts the CIT investigation.So let's move on to the next step.

__________________
2getherwestand

KP

It doesn't matter that you say your intentions are, the suspicions about you are because of the results created. Your result has been the waste of time of people who should be busy with more important work.

So far I haven't seen you bring any information to any forum, just ask a series of questions and then when you get answers, you don't seem to understand them. If your mission is to fight debunkers, then do your own research - forums such as this one have everything you need, as do CIT and P4T, the information is either on the website or in the forum and the search function will help you. For example, if there is a Pentagon witness who seems to contradict CIT there will be something about them on their forum. If you have an airline question, P4T will work for you. This forum has masses of information about all aspects of 9/11 but you have to dig to find it.

__________________
From the NIST FAQ

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."

Ahh, the power of words .....

scott75

I strongly disagree with this.


Probably because you're not active either on AboveTopSecret.com, or sciforums.com.


I ask questions on truther sites in general, yes. There's generally not much work to be done on truther sites in terms of persuading people in them that 9/11 was an inside job; that type of work is generally done in the sites that I frequent, such as ATS and (generally in the past tense) sciforums.com.

I understand some answers, but not all of them. Some answers are fairly technical and it's understandable that someone who's not knowledgeable as to all those technical details could become confused.


I certainly agree that forums such as this one as well as CIT and P4T have a lot of information. The issue becomes being able to access the information necessary to counter arguments from those who disagree with tenets of the mainstream truth movement.


I am familiar with digging; I did a fair amount of that when it came to the WTC collapses. Personally, if I'm asked about something that I know about, I tend to answer. If not, but I know where to look for the information, I can link to information that I think might answer their queries. What has annoyed me in the past is when people apparently know the answer but don't want to bother explaining it, preferring to send me to a link filled with technical jargon that I can't understand.