9/11 names of those involved could be released shortly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

You obviously have not read the entire comments section of the first link that you so kindly provided. I did and the basic questions asked of Stephen Knight (Godless Spellchecker) have not been addressed. Look at the exchange between Knight and Bob George more closely.

---

Help me please, where in the comments section does it show that the ESJ said it was a controlled demolition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

You obviously have not read the entire comments section of the first link that you so kindly provided. I did and the basic questions asked of Stephen Knight (Godless Spellchecker) have not been addressed. Look at the exchange between Knight and Bob George more closely.

---

You posted
"It’s Official: European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled Demolition"

It took me about 30 seconds to find out that the above statement was false with the following statement issued by the journal

"Regarding the recent developments on social media, we would like to inform the public that neither the European Scientific Journal, ESJ, nor the European Scientific Institute, ESI have published content on 9/11 attacks."

Typically however, as this doesn't match your agenda, you gloss over it and instead focus on a point that does suit your agenda. Personally I stopped reading at "First thing to clear up would be that these claims were not actually published in The European Scientific Journal at all, or any scientific journal for that matter"

You found some sensationalist, let's call it for what it is "LIE" on some obscure blog/tweet/conspiracy site, which you immediately jumped on and presented as some form of proof of your theory without doing a single minute of basic investigation or corroboration to check its accuracy.

I am of course completely certain that you will refuse to accept any of the above, and instead try to distract us all away from the fundamental FACT that your post I referred to was, as I put it, "horseshit" and probably put me on ignore again but hey ho.

I would suggest that in future, you try to do some impartial research on the nonsense that you present as supporting evidence of your theories, but we both know you won't.

Still, if it makes you happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TH63

You posted
"It’s Official: European Scientific Journal Concludes 9/11 was a Controlled Demolition"

It took me about 30 seconds to find out that the above statement was false with the following statement issued by the journal

"Regarding the recent developments on social media, we would like to inform the public that neither the European Scientific Journal, ESJ, nor the European Scientific Institute, ESI have published content on 9/11 attacks."

Typically however, as this doesn't match your agenda, you gloss over it and instead focus on a point that does suit your agenda. Personally I stopped reading at "First thing to clear up would be that these claims were not actually published in The European Scientific Journal at all, or any scientific journal for that matter"

You found some sensationalist, let's call it for what it is "LIE" on some obscure blog/tweet/conspiracy site, which you immediately jumped on and presented as some form of proof of your theory without doing a single minute of basic investigation or corroboration to check its accuracy.

I am of course completely certain that you will refuse to accept any of the above, and instead try to distract us all away from the fundamental FACT that your post I referred to was, as I put it, "horseshit" and probably put me on ignore again but hey ho.

I would suggest that in future, you try to do some impartial research on the nonsense that you present as supporting evidence of your theories, but we both know you won't.

Still, if it makes you happy.

---

Which part of this post did you have difficulty with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

Scrupulously fair Lardy. I have never denied that there are very sound countervailing arguments as this link makes abundantly clear.

https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/com...terature_that/

However I am prepared to keep an open mind as to the possibility of fresh information emerging, as it has done so many times in the past, with other major global events.

---

David, you cannot genuinely be this stupid. It's very very clear that TH63 is referring to the ESJ part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

David, you cannot genuinely be this stupid. It's very very clear that TH63 is referring to the ESJ part.

---

Isn't that self-explanatory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

Isn't that self-explanatory?

---

So what is your point?