>>8353819 (lb)
>The thought that you could be so dumb as to actually look at the vid and think it was a fire,
Anon, it was uncontrolled fires that brought down WTC7. It's not even debated among experts. And I'm sorry, but U Fairbank Alaska professor, Richard Gage AIA, etc experts is not
A lot of very very smart experts all agree that it was uncontrolled fires and have debunked the controlled demo conspiracy theory. They are not dumb. Hope you can open your mind a bit.
Telling a person to commit suicide. Super classy, anon.
You're literally dumb and you're a malicious ape.
Anon, AE911 are not smart experts, they're deluded conspiracy theorists who have no direct evidence.
Every structural PE I spoke to looked at it and said something along the lines of: "It may have looked like there must have been controlled demolition, but it was definitely fires"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories
Let's see, UMD, MIT, Northwestern, NIST, Popular Mechanics.
Inb4 "WIKIPEDIA IS A DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY"
Yes, you and others outperformed me, the PE's I spoke to, the experts from MIT and other, you know, credible top-tier institutions.
One day you'll hopefully realize that it's shills shilling their 911 WTC7 demolition theory.
>credible
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2008/11/nist-releases-final-wtc-7-investigation-report
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
>deluded
Everyone gets things wrong. Use an open mind before analyzing the available info.
>trying
Trying to open your mind, anon.
>fuck off cunt
What does your argument have to do with analyzing the (debunked) controlled demolition theory? Nothing at all, anon.
Since you're bringing up a logical fallacy - can you show us where the official reports about WTC7 falling from fires is wrong? And I mean by pointing out what they said that you think is false. (Not by posting stupid memes, regurgitating anti-Semitic non-sequitors, or saying "OOH JET FUEL HOT" or whatever garbage pinballs around that brain of yours.
I'm pretty sure Q+ trolled the world into hating him. Q would agree. Q+ is a master troll. It's an artform. You did watch the lead-up to the election, right? He attacks everyone. Politics has been turned inside out.
Politics /neq Credible Science
I'll let you in on a secret. I don't give a shit what liberal genius scientists / programmers / engineers say about Trump. I do listen to their area of expertise, though.
There isn't a credible body of science that debunks the NIST / Popular Mechanics findings. But there is for the AE911 junk.
Sorry for this, anon. But your argument doesn't prove that there's a conspiracy of scientists covering up the "truth" about controlled demo.
(They) have been told many times.
Anons figured out that bait makes them spend ammunition.
When they run out it will go from soon to now instantly.
Sleep well.
>we're the experts
You're an anon, who digs. You're likely not an expert. If you were, you'd have an argument to debunk the official findings. Unfortunately, you have not a single argument that points to something in the official findings that is provably false. Not a single thing. None. Zero.
No opinions. It's science, anon.
Anon, please do point to a single piece of evidence in the official findings that is false, and tell us why.
Point to where you think the official findings are false, anon, and tell us why.
And here come the threats. This one with what amounts to a threat of murder. For telling the truth about science. They murdered scientists long ago for doing or supporting logic and science, anon. Not in 2020. That's over two thousand years after Christ's birth. We've evolved. Join us.
>I am unable to debunk anything in the official findings and so I'll resort to childish responses.
You're not leaving me a lot of choice. Keke.
https://psychcentral.com/blog/the-psychology-of-conspiracy-theories-why-do-people-believe-them/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/201904/what-makes-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201801/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721417718261
>I can't find anything in the official findings that is false, so I'll post a stupid meme about an anus and a woman.
>I'm unable to find anything in the official findings that is false, so I'll resort to ad hominem attacks with childish memes
>Ad hominem
>Bigoted response
>Defending mental bubble
>Ego threatened
>bla bla bla butthurt anon
>bla bla curse words and ad hominem attacks
>bla bla bla can't debunk the credible science
>bla bla has nothing credible to link
>can't read a paragraph
>head in sand
>can't debunk credible science
>NUCLEAR ENERGY
haha, nice!
That Latina looking chick from your other 8353851 post is fine, but probably shopped
>Can't debunk the official findings by mainstream credible disinterested scientists
>Resort to attacks
>Assumes anon is getting paid
>we should increase our shilling by doubling down
Please don't anon. Go find something in the official reports that you think is false.
__
If you seriously think WTC7 fell from controlled demo, please do find one thing in the official findings that is false. Please.
>Can't disprove the official findings
>Actually believes that controlled demolition was used on 9/11, at WTC7 in particular
>Can't point to a single thing in the official findings that are false
>Ad hominem
__
Once again:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+psychology+of+9%2F11+conspiracy+theories
Q did say to use Duck Duck Go over Google.
>Can't point to a single thing in the official reports that is false
>Posts stupid memes
>Has a high post count, filing the bread with rubbish
>Making threats against anon for promoting logical thinking and science
>Assumes that it's okay to project hatred against traitors against an anon who is promoting logical thinking and science
Anon, let met ask you this. And I'll say this from the assumption that you are just doing what you think is your patriotic duty to project threats towards me. If Q were to actually respond to a question about WTC7 fires vs. demo, and said it was actually fires, would you apologize to me?
You're threatening me for pushing a logical scientific view. You're making some assumption about who I am. Q knows who I am - as does the military. They can trace these messages. They're too busy doing government stuff to give a shit about some anon's arguing about a long debunked conspiracy theory. Sorry about that, anon, I know there's egos involved when trying to re-frame thinking.
None of what you're saying proves anything about controlled demolition, though. Can you look at the official findings and find something in there that you think is false?
The official findings literally debunk the ridiculous controlled demo theory. Nobody has debunked the official findings, which are open for every scientist/engineer across the globe to analyze.
I encourage you to study the official findings.
>Can't find anything in the official report that is false
>Ad hominem
>Stupid meme
>Can't find anything in the official report that's wrong
>No direct evidence
>Says the video looks like controlled demo so it must be controlled demo
>Says some other irrelevant garbage that isn't applicable to 0000000
>Can't search github for a captcha buster
>Thinks 00000000 is perturbed by busted captchas
Sorry Ron for giving away the captcha thing but they won't know how to use it anyway
>Can't find anything in the official findings that is false
>Resort to more ad hominem
>Childish response
>Supporting the psychology of conspiracy theorists
>More ad hominem
>Still can't disprove the official findings
>Still making the QAnon movement look bad
Actually, most people just keep their mouth shuts and don't engage you, the shills. I'm just trying to open a few minds.
If you're so skeptical, then find something that is false and point it out.
>Can't find anything wrong in the official reports
>More attacks
>Making QAnon look stupid
Sorry for trying to raise the IQ level
>Posts stupid meme
>Lowers IQ of /qresearch
>Thinks site maintenance is a conspiracy to cover up info that is cached everywhere
>Can't think critically
Kek, anon. Sorry, but kek. Top kek of the bread, actually, as far as WTC7 nonsense is concerned, anyway.
Not mad, anon. Tired, perhaps. But nobody is going to point to a single thing in the official findings that are false.
Anon, I researched this extensively. I did initially think, "Wow, it looks like controlled demo." I read the reports and agree with the findings.
>Thinks that posting on Tor and using the 0000000 id proves a controlled demo theory
>Can't find anything in the official findings that is false
>Goes to bed
>Recommends H20
Anon, I hate to break it to you, but they are scientific findings that anyone can read and study.
>I can't study the official findings so I defer to my conspiracy theorist friends on the internets
>I engage in attacks when my conspiracy theory is threatened
>Can't understand the meaning of "there are no coincidences"
It's just Q's way of saying that God knows all, anon.
From the world of the anon who experienced the site maintenance, yes it's just a coincidence.
Let's not get into the semantics, please.
>More ad hominem
>Isn't creative in using logical fallacies so resorts to the most common and lowest type of logical fallacy - the ad hominem
>And… more ad hominem
>Still can't find anything in the official findings that are false
>Butthurt conspiracy theorist
Wrong, they are just staying quiet. The vocal minority who actually believe in the controlled demo, and the shills trying to divide anons, aren't staying quiet - they engage in ad hominem and irrational thinking.
And – wait for it – they cannot find anything in the official findings (the findings that debunk the controlled demo theory) that is false.