You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Post Truth Apocalypse And The Death Of The Expert

in #posttruth6 years ago

Fairbanks, AK – On September 6, 2017, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Dr. Leroy Hulsey.
Chair of UAF’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, presented some damning findings and conclusions detailed in his team’s September 2017 progress report regarding the collapse of World Trade Center building 7.

and some other report - september or october this year,( I think...)

Experts Reject Fire As Cause For 9/11 WTC Collapses
Technical experts are mounting major challenges to official U.S. government accounts of how three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed symmetrically and in near-freefall as part of the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago.

Does this mean - assuming you''re are not an expert- that you've changed your position, or do you still believe the 'official narrative BS'?

Question:
Is there a govmtn (official narrative) that you do not agree with?
such as?

Sort:  

I actually linked you to a video with NYFB (fire brigade) footage of bdg 7 from an angle not often seen, and it was quite clear that bits of falling plane and masonry had destroyed the building and it was near collapse.

But of course that's an "official narrative" so you instantly dismissed it.

I'm not getting into this again with you, it's akin to arguing with a cat, no matter what you say the cat will simply repeat its meow :-)

Cg

Sure, to give you a tiny bit of context, the first link is the 4th video in a series of 7, made by just a normal guy who is in New York and decides to go down to speak to "truthers" at Ground Zero.

His self-imposed rules were that he could only debunk the subjects that the truthers themselves brought up.

So this first link is him debunking the bdg 7 myths.

This one will link you to the entire series, though of course you'll see that anyway if you click the link above.

Enjoy!

Cg

Still don't believe the gov't.
I've been lied to too many times.

Loading...

ok, I was referring to the new report and 'experts', is all.(your post)

How you reconcile the contradiction, is my point?