Tucker Carslon Talks to Professor Steven Jones

howyoudoinguido · 06-28-2006, 01:35 AM

InSummary · 06-28-2006, 02:00 AM

"its a hypothesis to be tested - thats a big difference from a conclusion" - Jones

Steve Jones is just doing this for publicity. he's obviously aware there is not enough evidence to prove this theory, and more importantly, he knows full well this theory cannot be properly "tested" - considering the circumstances.

the "crutch" of his argument is wtc 7 - which by ALL accounts, was massively damaged on its south face. unfortunately the south face of wtc 7 faced the towers, and thus, after their collapse, was not capable of being captured on camara due to the smoke etc. there is one good picture of the southwest corner of wtc 7 which shows an 18 story chunk missing from the building caused by the towers collapsing into it.

these CT's are nonsense and most certainly stand to gain no further ground on the intellectual community. lay them to rest already.

InSummary · 06-28-2006, 02:13 AM

btw, i love how the moron editing this clip, in attempt to help mr. jones, pulled the whole "these fires caused wtc7 to collapse???" card.

its like showing a picture of someones scratched chin who had been shot in the back of the head by a shotgun, died, and asking "this scratch caused this man to die???"

but i guess that even if you know someone was shot in the back of the head, as long as there is no perfect photographical evidence showing the damages - its logical to assume that the government had secretly used TNT to kill the person instead.

Drd8sc · 06-28-2006, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InSummary

btw, i love how the moron editing this clip, in attempt to help mr. jones, pulled the whole "these fires caused wtc7 to collapse???" card.

its like showing a picture of someones scratched chin who had been shot in the back of the head by a shotgun, died, and asking "this scratch caused this man to die???"

but i guess that even if you know someone was shot in the back of the head, as long as there is no perfect photographical evidence showing the damages - its logical to assume that the government had secretly used TNT to kill the person instead.

you think too much, just let it flow

howyoudoinguido · 06-28-2006, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InSummary

"its a hypothesis to be tested - thats a big difference from a conclusion" - Jones

Steve Jones is just doing this for publicity. he's obviously aware there is not enough evidence to prove this theory, and more importantly, he knows full well this theory cannot be properly "tested" - considering the circumstances.

the "crutch" of his argument is wtc 7 - which by ALL accounts, was massively damaged on its south face. unfortunately the south face of wtc 7 faced the towers, and thus, after their collapse, was not capable of being captured on camara due to the smoke etc. there is one good picture of the southwest corner of wtc 7 which shows an 18 story chunk missing from the building caused by the towers collapsing into it.

these CT's are nonsense and most certainly stand to gain no further ground on the intellectual community. lay them to rest already.

It's called "crux", not "crutch you moran. I agree with your theory that wtc 7 was made of popsicle sticks and white glue. It was bound to collapse with such shoddy workmanship.

Tris · 06-28-2006, 09:38 AM

Insummary should be doing a little investigating, question authority... there's so much evidence it's ridiculous.

Arbor · 06-28-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howyoudoinguido

It's called "crux", not "crutch you moran. I agree with your theory that wtc 7 was made of popsicle sticks and white glue. It was bound to collapse with such shoddy workmanship.

It's moron, not moran, you crux.