Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Creative Speculation

wildbilln864

(13,382 posts) Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:30 PM Nov 2015

World Trade Center Twin Towers: The Implausibility of the Official Theory

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

World Trade Center Twin Towers: The Implausibility of the Official Theory (Original Post) wildbilln864 Nov 2015 OP

What would be really cool would be for Truthers to publish the details of the analysis hack89 Nov 2015 #1

would be cool wildbilln864 Nov 2015 #2

So the Truthers are holding out until NIST releases their data? hack89 Nov 2015 #3

Twaddle is the word that comes to mind. whitefordmd Nov 2015 #4

hack89

(39,180 posts)

1. What would be really cool would be for Truthers to publish the details of the analysis

Reply to wildbilln864 (Original post)

Mon Nov 23, 2015, 04:28 PM

Nov 2015

to see how it compared to what happened on 911. Methodology would be cool too - models, assumptions, initial conditions. Lets see how this analysis was conducted.

wildbilln864

(13,382 posts)

2. would be cool

Reply to hack89 (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 23, 2015, 05:17 PM

Nov 2015

to see NIST's numbers used in their modeling also but they won't release it. Why aren't you equally concerned about that.

hack89

(39,180 posts)

3. So the Truthers are holding out until NIST releases their data?

Reply to wildbilln864 (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 23, 2015, 05:21 PM

Nov 2015

smart move - got to keep the truther gravy train moving forward.

whitefordmd

(102 posts)

4. Twaddle is the word that comes to mind.

Reply to wildbilln864 (Original post)

Mon Nov 23, 2015, 07:57 PM

Nov 2015

Reply to this discussion