"Scout" wrote in message
...


"John Smith" wrote in message
...
On 5/11/2011 7:24 PM, joeturn wrote:

...
Hell, I wish he could just provide conclusive irrefutable PROOF of a
single
specific detail that is clearly contrary to both the official
conclusions
and reasonable natural events that could have resulted from the
airliner
impact.

Since he has been unable to do so even in a single particular, then it
doesn't matter how much he puts out there, the proof of his claims are
clearly inadequate to support those assertions.

Bi golly you are a self proclaimed genious!

But, the only real proof he has offered, his posts and text, demonstrate
a moron ... as always, I will go with the tangible!

You're free to try fulfilling my challenge there John. Joe tried and
failed miserably, so much so I don't even bother to read him anymore.

So here you go John, if you care to step up to the plate and take a swing.

Present your best proof for a single specific detail which you feel
conclusively proves that both the official findings are wrong and which
can not be reasonably explained or expected as a the natural results of
the impact, fire, or other damage known to have occurred.

Certainly with everything you have there is some specific piece detail
that you can conclusive prove supports your claims and can't possibly be
explained by anything else normal or natural to known events.

Please note: I expect exact specifics backed by irrefutable proof. I am
not going to search around looking for something you claim might be there
somewhere, but rather I expect you to present me with a complete, concise
and direct set of facts and proofs. Just as I would get in a set of
engineering calculations, mathematical proofs, or scientific reports.

Still no response from John, looks like he's afraid to even try to take a
swing at providing conclusive proof about one of his claims on any specific
detail.