Just in case you think you’re kidding: Star Wars Energy Weapons 1
Remember: no sane person can come up with an idea so outrageous that no Conspiracy Theorist has ever proposed it as a serious alternative.
[QUOTE=JohnClay]
Well I guess to do that I’d have to read all of the old threads. Though their 4 part response to Popular Mechanics is from 2012 while I thought the old threads were from a lot longer ago…
[/QUOTE]
You know, if you had read the whole sentence I actually specified what would truly be new. So, you basically went back a few years, read one thread, saw that the Popular Science article was used and did a search to see if someone had debunked the debunkers, then put in a drive-by link so that I and others could read em and weep?
What I asked you for was a peer reviewed paper from the group in your OP that would give the technical specifications of why the collapse(s) had to be from a controlled demolition or whatever other theory they are touting and instead you give me a link without bothering to cut and paste out the parts you think are interesting, that actually make good points (in your opinion) supporting the debunking of PM’s article or, well, anything.
Seen it. Here, let me show you how it’s done. Click here. Here is a quote:
You can click on the actual paper here. Giving me a link to a page in the thread with a drive-by link to a page that purports to have peer reviewed papers in support of the A&E folks if I take the time to dig through them to determine (from a bunch of folks who have already been shown to play fast and loose with the change) A) if the papers have in fact been peer reviewed or even submitted for peer review and B) if the papers even exist at all is a bit of a stretch. If you want to use them as evidence of something, at least have the courtesy to read your own citations, pick out the things you think support your case, link to them and quote the relevant parts.
And what did you find compelling in their debunkment? Which parts do you suppose makes your case or the cases that 9/11 was a controlled demo or part of a government conspiracy?
I see it as an evasive answer that relies on people to click on your drive-by links, then sift through the crap to try and figure out what point you were trying to make…which, in reality, means you are relying on people to play your game. Sadly, for you it’s pretty obvious that you are playing a game, most if not all of the things you’ve linked to have been addressed in the past and you aren’t even trying to defend whatever position you have on this, which you are evasive on as well (which is nothing new either, as we have had all sorts of Truther CT types here, including the JAQing off type who don’t REALLY believe in the 9/11 CTs but are just asking questions about them…). If you would like to discuss your PM debunkment link, feel free to write about the parts you find compelling and quote the relevent sections and I’ll be glad to address them (for about the 4th time if my memory is correct from past threads), otherwise let’s see your next hand wave or drive-by.
At least a dozen or 40% of the building.
That sounds like what some others were doing here too except most people who said to look in the old threads didn’t give any links. About the rest of your reply “well that’s all irrelevant, I don’t believe in it anymore”.
Well…ok then. Ignorance fought I suppose. Stick around for the next installment…it’s like sunrise that in a month or so (or a day or a week) another 9/11 Truther will come in posting a link to a Must See! site (that will almost certainly be years or even a decade out of date) or video to open our eyes and show us the light about what REALLY happened on 9/11! 
You know what? Enough.
Everyone head to your respective corners and come back in a few days.