2
-2

[–] 10459689? 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Not a single person that said something sensible in there was cut to not give full context of what they said and what they said does not support the conclusion. The few that get through a whole point are drawing false parallels or just grasping in thin air for ideas. I have about the same credentials as some of the people (claim to) have in that video and I'm not sure they really earned it. And good fucking god, no, a tower of snow is not going to behave the same as a building that is largely hollow and has complex supporting structures.

1
0

[–] KosherHiveKicker [S] 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I have about the same credentials as some of the people (claim to) have in that video and I'm not sure they really earned it

Sure thing.... "Internet Expert Structural Engineer"

Would you care to refute the actual physics involved, or are you going to limit yourself to mocking "The Tower of Snow"?

1
-1

[–] 10467061? 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a49/1227842/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked

http://www.news.com.au/world/six-really-stupid-911-conspiracies-debunked-in-about-six-seconds/news-story/a59cdac9a894a786544f96b8b7893cee

I'm as qualified as the guy claiming he had a masters in math therefor staring at the WTC he can tell how it would collapse. I have a math degree and I am calling him an idiot. Please provide me a list of names in this video and a list of their credentials that show they are qualified to make these claims. Because they either aren't or they are being taken out of context.

1
-1

[–] BlackGrapeDrank 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

so explain building 7, Einstein. some rubble from one of the towers causes a near perfect demolition free fall?

because you do realize no aircraft hit it.

0
0

[–] 10467071? ago