A skeptic questions generally accepted conclusions.
A truther rejects generally accepted conclusions.
Different in my book.
9-11-ten yrs Later
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
A truther rejects generally accepted conclusions.
Different in my book.
Put another way, one could say that there are no stupid questions but there are stupid answers.
The Titanic sunk by an iceberg? What garbage. When was the last time you've seen ice split steel. And the Titanic was in two pieces... clearly it was blown in half. Ice just doesn't do that.
Yes, and in a broader sense of the term "skeptical" ,it goes hand in hand with asking questions, which is never, ever wrong,imho. A person doesn't know what they don't know. Hence why there are no stupid questions, assuming of course one is asking a question to actually gain information.
Truther, to my understanding, has no broader definition outside of 9/11 (I believe the term was coined specifically with regards to 9/11? I may be wrong) but can be compared to any situation where conclusions comes before questions. That's specious reasoning.
As surprising as that is to me, it's quite a bit different than the two towers of the W.T.C. - the planes that flew into them were actually observed and I would imagine the remains of the wreckage was recovered later! :smile:
Oh c'mon! The Titanic never sank! Clearly the story of it's sinking was a diverson perpetrated by the a joint task force of the Illuminati and the Masons so that they might take command of the ship and use it for their own nefarious purposes!
I believe Elvis is currently the captain.
It wasn't sunk by an iceberg. It was sunk by a romaine.
Or it filled with water because ice floats.
Or it filled with water because ice floats.
Fair enough.
Polyester, paper, cotton, monodiisosynate, and so on, make a plane fire, a mixed fire. Do you want to get into a discussion on PFOS and PFOA surfactant foams?
Ya, I'll run down to Baldwin, the next time the boys from the local FD are training to extinguish a plane crash. And demand they only use Class D agent.
That is a plausible possibility. Given the circumstances, why do you think the powers that be, would deny such an action?
And how does the wing box play into that?
Boeing doesn't use fire retardant material for their seats and interior materials? Does the FAA know this? While in Baldwin ask how many times they've simulated their fires using an old propane tank with window cut outs or can airport that size can afford to burn whole aluminum aircraft instead? Why wouldn't they keep it quiet and embellish on heroism? Maybe Lynch can answer that one for you?
Why is the wing box important? It's MIA. Well I guess there is a first time for everything huh?
Something a little more uplifting.......a break, perhaps, in the fractious debate:
Rex Murphy: How Newfoundlanders made stranded 9/11 passengers into neighbours | Full Comment | National Post
Gotta love Rex!!!!
Rex Murphy: How Newfoundlanders made stranded 9/11 passengers into neighbours | Full Comment | National Post
Gotta love Rex!!!!
Again I ask...what is your theory on that? Do you have one? or are you just blowing smoke?
I said that?
Do you really want to start making up, things I didn't say, this early in the conversation to avoid having to either back up your claim or concede to fact?
Whole Cessna's. Brought up from an aircraft grave yard in Markham. Complete with fuel, interior and luggage. The only thing usually missing is the engine, electronics, and flight controls.
Practicing on something that isn't going to act/react, like the real deal, is a waste of time.
Don't know, that's why I asked.
Why is it important to your theory?
...
Why is it so hard for you to answer that question petros?
Your're the one who keeps ranting about the wing spar?
Again: Again I ask...what is your theory on that? Do you have one? or are you just blowing smoke?
Ever notice how questioning the events of 9-11 get the same reaction as questioning the Holocaust or the Koran or the Bible?