What is their group consensus on 9/11?
They don't consider evidence, argue from incredulity and confirmation bias.
Sounds familiar right?
Their "undebunkable sepclues" thread neglects to mention the physics defying fall acceleration of building 7, the fuel burn temperature and duration violating thermodynamics or the way the planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and exiting the building.
Nuff said.
They start right with holographic planes.
Like you did, Rayzor. I wonder why?
@Bhs that time Papa called me out for being a "shill" in this issue. This is why I don't like discussing if there were planes or drones or missiles.
Guys just grab that holographic plane shit and hold onto it like a drowning man grabbing his rescuer and drowning both of them together.
We don't need it.
To recap.
Physics violation, planes entering then exiting the building with the same nose cone shape. Bhs has extensively demonstrated that rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, and scissors beat paper. Hardened structural steel and reinforced concrete under compression beats a mainly fibreglass nose cone.
Thermodynamics violation from the burn intensity and duration after the crashes. You yourself showed a three day old piece of glowing steel.
Physics violation when the buildings fell at free fall
expecially building 7 at gravitational acceleration.Rayzor, I would gladly die to have the truth on this issue come out, whatever it may be. I am sure it is obvious but this is something I feel very strongly about.
I have only argued with integrity and logic until you threw it out the window.
I don't know why you insist on holding an untenable position.
I gave you a way out just by saying what happened to building 7 was "suspicious" but you seem to think the official story is airtight, yet you have struggled defending it.
All I want from you is integrity, if you cannot do that, onebigmonkey supplied you a link where they will welcome you with open arms.