Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Real Stories" channel.

  1. If fires smolder long enough, steel can indeed melt.
    2
  2. Something about the world is off. It's all a hologram.
    2
  3. The only thing you lack is the proof.
    1
  4. As Noam Chomsky has said, the easiest thing in the world to do is submit a paper to a science or engineering journal where it can be evaluated. But 911 truth chooses instead to operate in isolation, and thus has no peer review science papers.
    1
  5. "it is architecturally impossible for a building to pancake down like that." I'm not trying to convince you of anything. BUT, how do you know this? Do you have a degree in structural engineering? Have you spoken to a demo expert? Words don't mean much without high quality evidence. Like the type found in engineering journals or the type of research papers written by experts of the subject matter. Can you meet this challenge?
    1
  6. What direction would you expect it to go?
    1
  7. Which proves nothing.
    1
  8.  @joefriendly  I agree we cannot rule out access to the building interior for rigging. But for everything else you mention, you can find just as many experts who disagree.
    1
  9. But if you notice, you're wrong. These engineers in the Gage group are for the most part not STRUCTURAL engineers, and none of them seems interested in publishing their science in a science or engineering journal. They've had 21 years to do so. That speaks far more intelligently than random nonstructural engineers putting their names on a list.
    1
  10. Yes, but the truth mvt is just as guilty of believing the media - when its suits them - such as the mistaken report that building 7 had already collapsed. I bet you are not suspicious of that media report, right?
    1
  11.  @aleksandarmarkovic1013  Yes, I agree. I thought you might be a 9/11-denier as in my experience it is they who usually make such statements. What truthers also seem not to recognize is that the forums and websites they rely on are also media. Some of the worst there are IMO. But that's another discussion.
    1
  12. I don't think your message is clear. Who is making a mockery of what? The organizer of the trip? Please clarify.
    1
  13. All that's missing is the proof.
    1
  14. All that's missing is the proof.
    1
  15. That's right, because you have a grasp of common sense that eludes little minds.
    1
  16.  @sidvicious6505  "About a third of the high jackers have been proven to be alive and well. Oh course this could be due to stolen identifications" No, wrong. I've always challenged believers on this one. You have no proof. I challenge you to post this proof.
    1
  17.  @krystjanchanerley9288  That's because the building didn't blow up. So it follows there can be no video of it blowing up. Of course, truthers never stop to ask, why on earth would it help the alleged conspirators to blow up a useless skyscraper 7 hours later?? They dream up things like, "well it must have been the control center." That has to be the dumbest theory on record.
    1
  18. I've talked to many pilots. There is no consensus that these maneuvers were impossible, unless you restrict yourself to places like pilots for 911 truth, which are a group of self-selected believers. The airline pilots I spoke with, for the most part, do not accept the views of truthers.
    1
  19. But hardly impossible. I've spoken to airline pilots about it, the consensus I got was a far cry from truther belief.
    1
  20. FYI four of your above links are unavailable and listed as private. Much of what I did read above is hardly conforming to scholarly research standards. For example, the nano thermite claims do not pass muster and has been very thoroughly debunked. Just curious, to you also read the debunking arguments and visit their sites, or do you feed yourself a one way diet of 911 truth claims? For example, are you aware of the numerous firefighter quotes that prove 7 was fully engulfed, and the thick smoke that completely obscured the south side of WTC 7? Probably not, am I correct? Just saying.
    1
  21. Easier to fly a 767 probably.
    1
  22. Oh please, you're being too literal. She hears a large commotion and assumes it must be several passengers, so she's thinking out loud, 4, 5, 6? Notice how she DOESN'T say she knows exactly.
    1