Tell me, if someone replied to you on the subject of Austrian economics, with a one word statement linking to a Paul Krugman blog, how would you feel?
I saw that. It’s on wiki as being brought down due to fallen debri also. Still the explanation skips over how:
- Debri was somehow flamable and started a fire.
- How the fire broke out so uncontrollably as to cause the entire structure to collapse.
- How those 3 buildings were as far as I know the only 3 buildings in the existence of man kind to have collapsed in that way due to fire.
- How no other building fell, even some that legitimate amounts of debri smashed into it
- How third world shitty concrete rebar crap is more sturdy then our modern buildings
I typically prefer not to really engage in the whole debate but, to be honest, I feel that in some cases the debunkers have done a good job at debunking alot of the myths of truthers, but on the other hand have also fallen short on disproving truthers on others. Not that truthers are right, just that historically speaking evidence shows that those 3 collapsed buildings were exemplars in the history of collapsed buildings. They stand out as being specifically different from all other accidentally collapsed buildings and conveniently share all attributes of a controlled demolished building.
Does he even know about Austrian economics?
And still the Truthers have no remote clue how the World Trade Centers were designed and built. Which are the only buildings ever designed exactly like they were. When you can show me a third world 110-story building designed exactly the same get back to me. Maybe Truthers should do some actual research.
Why the Towers Fell (60min) (NOVA)
Actually they share NO attributes of a controlled demolition. Apparently Truthers think that any structure that falls in the path of gravity must be “controlled”.
Exactly my point…
You have no point.
Well let me hit you over the head with it then.
Just as linking to a Paul Krugman article in an attempt to debunk Austrian economics would debunk nothing and reveal massive ignorance on the part of the ‘debunker’, so does linking to a typical ‘debunking 9/11’ video prove nothing, and reveal ignorance.
Ah, I love the arguments of the nationalists…
- government would never attack its own people…
- the government is too stupid to carry false-flag operations…As a matter of fact, false-flag operations are never possible because ‘socialism can’t calculate’ - what a learned argument…
Ah I love the arguments of truthers…
-
So is “government” 1 or all of the millions of “government” employees?
-
No government is too incompetent to execute any 911 “conspiracy”.
Now we can listen to some logical Libertarians…
Bullshit! - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (9min) (Penn & Teller: Bullshit!)
Let me reveal my ignorance.
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 (60min) (BBC)
The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower (60min) (BBC)
The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction (90min) (The History Channel)
Please if you want to learn nothing and stay ignorant do NOT watch these videos. The only way to stay an ignorant Truther is to ignore the truth.
Yes, and all “truthers” are Einsteins. Thanks for proving my point.
Don’t forget about the teacher unions. They must be involved because there’re a lot of teachers in New York 
But look at how “competent” the government is at keeping secrets:
Manhattan project - ok, kept it secret for a while, but the Soviets somehow got a bomb
Watergate
Iran-contra
Monica Lewinsky - only two people knew about it initially
Is there an argument here?
- I didn’t see anyone deny that the government would attack its own people
- and the “Truther” retort would be, “hey the government is too stupid that we could find evidence of an inside job”
An argument to explicitly prove that the gov’t did it ? No. An argument to show that’s it’s likely that the gov’t did it ? Yes.
I just listed two of the most ridiculous arguments that the nationalists, right wingers, ‘patriots’ and other pro-military types use.
As opposed to the venerated left-wing (aka radical & marxist) tradition of calling names and meaningless labels istead of saying something intelligent on the topic discussed.
Nope. You haven’t yet learned that libertarianism is not ‘left’ nor ‘right’. By the way, people like Herbert Spencer surely were radicals.
The hypocrisy of an advocate of the official story talking about meaningless labels and intelligent speech, who hasn’t read any of the material presented by the side of the argument she is trying to oppose…
But I’ll still bite. I don’t want this to turn into what it typically does when I debate advocates of the official conspiracy theory, that is, they copying and pasting appropriate sections from whatever website they deem good, while I labour to provide real responses to people more interested in propagating the official myth than debating. So PM me, you, or anyone who’s interest is genuine..
Oh, and by the way, my labels are pretty accurate. Of course people don’t like to be reminded of what they are. Just like soldiers don’t like to be reminded that they are self-serving murderers working for the state.
Here we go, making assumptions again.