Quote:
Originally Posted by Denie
Yes you are spamming. Do you not understand the title of the thread? This is not a thread about the official story and please stop trying to hijack it into that.
Hmm...I've never read the "official" story so how is it "obvious" I believe it?
Again, where in science is it required to provide evidence of one theory in order to ask for evidence of another? If you don't like this thread then don't reply or start your own. What's so hard about staying on topic?
|
I understand it completely. I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying, tho.
You want scientific theory regarding CD - you've posted this in the 9/1 thread. Therefore, you're talking about the Twin Towers. Am I right thus far?
I'm also not trying to hijack it...but if you're looking for science by the way of the Twin Towers' demolitions, it is axiomatic that the official story of how they fell, i.e., FEMA, NIST, Silverstein-Weidlinger, Popular Mechanics - take your pick - would be used as your argument against that scientific theory of CD.
Why don't you apply your own rules to yourself? And BTW, if you haven't already noticed, there are a plethora of threads in this very topic regarding 9/11, theory, scientific data, etc., on CD.