9/11 The Parroting problem
9/11 Fraud James Fetzer, Judy Wood, Sofia Smallstorm
9-11 bathtub Judy wood Wrong Again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SbmgesLM8Q
...See More
- Ronald Wieck Yes, Judy is a fraud and she is ridiculously wrong about the bathtub. When Fetzer was on my show, 'Hardfire,' he was parroting Judy's idiocy.
- Dan Plesse They were parroting the original concerns back in 1973 and then parroting the fake threats in 2001. So yes, lots of parroting of official sources when its easy to do. All these people and include yourself just can't think beyond the rumor. Parroting is a problem. However you are NOT above the fray in the least.
9/11 The Parroting problem by 2 1/2 Scientists
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I0jRH1pDcQ
www.youtube.com
"Pure Happenstance" theory of thermite by three Doctorates of Scientific Communi...See More- Dan Plesse I meant he fray of being being one of the parrots, not the fray at exposing anything. Jesus the ego on you. Checkout the video and take a few minutes and think for a second. Why are all these people saying the same thing while being at opposite ends of the debate? Can you process this or it is too complex for you.
- Ronald Wieck Two of these three people are twoofers. They are wedded to error by their political agendas. They are ignormauses.
Dave Thomas is a real physicist. - Ronald Wieck Two of these three people are twoofers. They are wedded to error by their political agendas. They are ignormauses.
Dave Thomas is a real physicist. - Ronald Wieck When I asked you what Dave Thomas got wrong in his article explaining the collapses of the towers, you ran away. Care to try again?
http://nmsr.org/nmsr911a.htm
nmsr.org
One of the most frequent assertions of the 9/11 "Truth" movement is that the str...See More 
Maxime Nord again "characterization" by Ronald Wieck! Thats ALL you do... WHY don't you admit to people that you're a TROLL!?
Did you know that this guy goes out of his way to travel and try to discredit the truth movement!? Who would do such a thing, if you"re not PAID to do so!?
see him here on location to try to ridiculize people that are seeking TRUTH! His condescending way to address the "twoofers", as he call them (which makes me laugh cuz by definition it means "truther" as oppose to liars)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQF1f8jBMeM
Do a quick search on youtube and you can see our TROLLS in action! Its always the same characters, same guys that try to create propaganda and lies! NOW you know
- Ronald Wieck I admit that I hosted a cable TV show called 'Hardfire.'
You are an idiot.
- Dan Plesse The guy in "Ronald Wieck's flocking truthers video explained" is correct. The truss system could have fallen without effecting the inner core.
The inner core was such vastly different monster. What the debunkers did to solve that problem was to make the problem go away completely..
9/11 Tower Truss Issue was a Complete Subterfuge by Popular Mechanics, NIST, 9/11 debunkers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3GRKBhR6lw
www.youtube.com
The floors which NIST, PM and Mike Flores only deal with is only 60 feet front a...See Morea few seconds ago · Like · Remove Preview
- Dan Plesse He is talking about Heat transfer coefficient for steel
For steel in air it's 7.9 W/(m^2-K).
1 comment:
I enjoyed see "the parroting" of the information about what Dr. Steven Jones found in the dust. It is fascinating that there would be rust in the steel towers (iron oxide), fascinating that the outer face was aluminum, fascinating how "the proximity argument" plays out whereby the two, by accidental design, being so close together would produce the aluminum iron oxide that is being attributed to super-duper nano-thermite.
I think what it means is that the heat of the neutron nuclear DEW certainly got the iron oxide to combine with aluminum as found later in the dust. "All things Oxide when on fire." Rather than pointing to a demolition mechanism, I think it points to a demolition side-effect.
The point of your video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I0jRH1pDcQ) seems to have been that three 9/11 Truthers from different ends of its spectrum have coincidentally "been fed the same lines" on which to attack super-duper nano-thermite.
I think that this is more the uncovering of a nugget of truth.
Given the other major issues that I have found with super-duper nano-thermite, it becomes much clearer how science was mis-used to jump to faulty conclusions in a limited-hang-out theory designed from the onset to be discredited. The only question was when? When would it be discredited?
From my perspective, the one thing those three people are missing is what was available in the equation (e.g., massive heat) that would make more sense to the proximity argument.
//
Post a Comment