Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,486
Pathetic.
This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!
- Thread starter 28th Kingdom
- Start date
Pathetic.
Your link's all messed up I think perhaps you meant to do it like this.
Or possibly like this:
(Spoiler tagged for reasons of taste)
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
Sir,
Can you please link me to this? Also, it's hard to believe that SO MANY skeptics...are more willing to believe and accept an ULTRA RARE and previously undocumented event...such as the three building collapses due to fire/impact damage - than they are to believe...something as simple as a controlled demolition. We KNOW that planted explosives could have easily done that to those buildings...nothing hard to believe about that, right? Don't we all agree that explosives could have done that to the buildings?
But, hey...that's a crazy conspiracy theory, because it dissents from the, "official story." But, believing that THEORIES (remember, there is no physical evidence to back up any report you find about collapses caused by fire +/- structural damage that can unequivocally prove that those THEORIES are even possible) which are quite literally THEORIES...since this has supposedly never happened in the history of the world, until this day, somehow makes more sense to you and your left-brained analysis than a simple CD? Whoa! It's just so hard for me to believe this.
Um, we CT nuts can easily prove that controlled demolitions could have taken those buildings down...you critical-thinkers on the other hand...are shockingly...accepting some CRAZY THEORY...about how three of the most well-built structures in NYC...just happened to fall down for different reasons...in different ways on the same day...and that no other surrounding buildings...although some had more damage than WTC 7, didn't even hint at a collapse. Wow, I expect so much more from skeptics. You peeps are like charlatans or something...what the heck, man. Come on people...put on your critical-thinking caps.
Has there ever, in human history, been three simultaneous covert controlled demolitions performed?
Yes or no?
ETA: can someone be kind enough to rephrase that in proper English please, I seem to be unable to get it right.
Last edited:
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Did we ever establish if that actually was a picture of him? There was some suggestion that he may have been pranked with those dating listings.
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
Sir,
Can you please link me to this? Also, it's hard to believe that SO MANY skeptics...are more willing to believe and accept an ULTRA RARE and previously undocumented event...such as the three building collapses due to fire/impact damage - than they are to believe...something as simple as a controlled demolition. We KNOW that planted explosives could have easily done that to those buildings...nothing hard to believe about that, right? Don't we all agree that explosives could have done that to the buildings?
But, hey...that's a crazy conspiracy theory, because it dissents from the, "official story." But, believing that THEORIES (remember, there is no physical evidence to back up any report you find about collapses caused by fire +/- structural damage that can unequivocally prove that those THEORIES are even possible) which are quite literally THEORIES...since this has supposedly never happened in the history of the world, until this day, somehow makes more sense to you and your left-brained analysis than a simple CD? Whoa! It's just so hard for me to believe this.
Um, we CT nuts can easily prove that controlled demolitions could have taken those buildings down...you critical-thinkers on the other hand...are shockingly...accepting some CRAZY THEORY...about how three of the most well-built structures in NYC...just happened to fall down for different reasons...in different ways on the same day...and that no other surrounding buildings...although some had more damage than WTC 7, didn't even hint at a collapse. Wow, I expect so much more from skeptics. You peeps are like charlatans or something...what the heck, man. Come on people...put on your critical-thinking caps.
How many CDs happen from the top down?
How many demo experts agree with you?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6Draft.pdf
Smacco's razor in action!
No, it's crazy because there is not one shred of evidence supporting it. You said you have evidence, now may be the time to present it.
Um, we CT nuts can easily prove that controlled demolitions could have taken those buildings down...you critical-thinkers on the other hand...are shockingly...accepting some CRAZY THEORY...about how three of the most well-built structures in NYC...just happened to fall down for different reasons...in different ways on the same day...and that no other surrounding buildings...although some had more damage than WTC 7, didn't even hint at a collapse. Wow, I expect so much more from skeptics. You peeps are like charlatans or something...what the heck, man. Come on people...put on your critical-thinking caps.
Kingdom Come,
Blowing up buildings... with thousands of people in them... that's some crazy sh[rule8]... Come on man... put off your tinfoil hat...
Sir,
Can you please link me to this? Also, it's hard to believe that SO MANY skeptics...are more willing to believe and accept an ULTRA RARE and previously undocumented event...such as the three building collapses due to fire/impact damage - than they are to believe...something as simple as a controlled demolition. We KNOW that planted explosives could have easily done that to those buildings...nothing hard to believe about that, right? Don't we all agree that explosives could have done that to the buildings?
But, hey...that's a crazy conspiracy theory, because it dissents from the, "official story." But, believing that THEORIES (remember, there is no physical evidence to back up any report you find about collapses caused by fire +/- structural damage that can unequivocally prove that those THEORIES are even possible) which are quite literally THEORIES...since this has supposedly never happened in the history of the world, until this day, somehow makes more sense to you and your left-brained analysis than a simple CD? Whoa! It's just so hard for me to believe this.
Um, we CT nuts can easily prove that controlled demolitions could have taken those buildings down...you critical-thinkers on the other hand...are shockingly...accepting some CRAZY THEORY...about how three of the most well-built structures in NYC...just happened to fall down for different reasons...in different ways on the same day...and that no other surrounding buildings...although some had more damage than WTC 7, didn't even hint at a collapse. Wow, I expect so much more from skeptics. You peeps are like charlatans or something...what the heck, man. Come on people...put on your critical-thinking caps.
Did you really flunk out of physics class?
The Doc
Curing Stupidity
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,158
Have you even read the NIST report 28th?
I eagerly await your answer.
A challenge:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
And which, after all seven tests are met, the building does not fall down. If you try to disect this into 7 different events don't even bother.1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
I eagerly await your answer.
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
No we don´t all agree. Since you know , what is the point of a reinvestigation?
Since it was so easy to plant explosives inside these buildings could you enlighten me to how it was done?
Unfortunity for you cters the majority of the scientific and engineering community agree with NIST and not you.
Yes we have put on our thinking caps and yes you are nuts.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,486
Ok. So I must have read a few hundred posts on this topic on this forum by now.
When are you, or anyone else, going to provide this "proof"?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
HOLD UP EVERYONE!!!
My apologies, but I wanted to get your attention. Let's take a breather shall we?
First, an address to the JREFers.
In observing this thread, we have been a little hasty. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I'd like to believe, for now, that 28K is genuine. He's just misled, not a troll.
The only way, in my experience, to truely win-over and educate a misled truther is to engage them in a dialogue. This has the added advantage that, once engaged in dialogue, it very quickly becomes clear if they are trolling or not (think Killtown and his UA93 thread).
We have not engaged 28K in a dialogue at all. He has been utterly swamped with a barrage of questions - some of which, frankly, totally disregard specific comments in his opening post.
I understand these questions. We are all frustrated at countless trolls etc. But what say he isn't a troll? Consider that you are a genuine but misled person, who foolishly believes CTs. You arrive at JREF to espouse your view. You are met with this barrage. Do you think such a response will help you to learn? Or make you resistant to the people here?
I would suggest we try a ChristopherA-like tactic of focusing on the points at hand. Unlike most Truthers, 28K actually seems to want to do this. He posed a single question. It has been answered. Instead of waylaying the dialogue into murky CT-land, let's stick with this answer and see where he goes next. We will soon learn if he is genuine or not.
This is, of course, all just my own suggestion.
To 28K:
I hope you took note of the above. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You asked a question in your first post:
The answer is yes, it is possible to prove the statement. For the record the TRUE statement is that a steel-structured building HAS collapsed as a direct result of fire. I have chosen to demonstrate the most striking example, but there are others.
The most striking is the Kader Toy Factory fire. I have not linked to the case study on it again, as someone else already linked to it.
But in summary, as a result of this relatively small fire, three multi-storey steel-structured buildings suffered total catastrophic collapse, killing several hundred people. Building Two, in particular suffered total collapse a mere 16 minutes after first catching alight.
Indeed, the Kader Toy Factory fire was remarkable in comparison with 9/11 in that, while it also involved three steel structures collapsing due to fire, at Kader none of the three buildings suffered any structural damage prior to collapsing, and the origin of the fires was a single corner of one floor of one building. In addition, from discovery of the very small fire, until collapse of the last building, was a duration of only 2 hours and five minutes.
In contrast, on 9/11 all three structures suffered massive structural damage prior to fires starting, two of the buildings had fuel-laden jet airliners as origin of fire, while the third had wreckage and fire from the other buildings, and from initiating event until final collapse of the third structure lasted 8 hours 34 minutes.
So, it is without dispute that YES, steel-structured buildings have collapsed due to fire prior to 9/11.
We have answered your question. I would ask that you proceed.
A further request, however, if I may be so bold.
As you can see, with so many voices, and such a complex event, it is easy to get sidetracked. You yourself have raised any number of different points.
I would ask that, for the sake of clarity, we stick to one topic in this thread. If people raise issues that are outside the designated topic, please feel free to ignore their posts, or inform them that they are off topic. Do not be baited!
If you wish to discuss other topics - Northwoods, NORAD, Iraq, etc... please create a NEW thread for the purpose of discussing the other topic.
I would again ask that all JREFers use this methodology, so we may keep things clear for engaging 28K in a proper dialogue.
So, 28K, your opening question leaves the topic relatively open. What would you like to focus this thread on? I would suggest you bring forward your best argument first. Remember to keep it very precise. "New York" is not a precise enough topic. You posted this statement earlier:
Will you stand by this? I believe this is an excellent first topic. It is something we are well versed in, as ChristopherA has been running a thread regarding the WTC cores for some time.
Shall we focus on this? Or do you have another subject area you would prefer to discuss?
If you wish to stick with the above topic, I will happily reply with a very straight forward step-by-step account of the progression of collapse, as accounted by the NIST investigations and visible evidence. I believe this explanation - in layman's terms - will answer your doubt.
I await your response.
-Gumboot
Sir,
Um, we CT nuts can easily prove that controlled demolitions could have taken those buildings down...you critical-thinkers on the other hand...are shockingly...accepting some CRAZY THEORY...about how three of the most well-built structures in NYC...just happened to fall down for different reasons...in different ways on the same day...and that no other surrounding buildings...although some had more damage than WTC 7, didn't even hint at a collapse. Wow, I expect so much more from skeptics. You peeps are like charlatans or something...what the heck, man. Come on people...put on your critical-thinking caps.
CT nuts. Yes you can show any building could be bombed. But you must prove that WTC buildings were brought down with CD. You will never be able to because it was a plane, fire, and the potential energy of the buildings that did the damage.
Fires were not fought. When fires are not fought buildings burn down. Sorry you live in a world of nut cases. Bet you are alone.
Last edited:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf
more general links:
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
I don't agree that explosives could have done that to the buildings. They would have made far more noise for a start. Furthermore controlled demolitions normally involve preparing the building by knocking out partition walls and pre-weakening some of the supports.
No buildings the size of WTC1 and 2 have ever been brought down by controlled demolition.
Left-brain/right-brain speculation is pointless and amounts to nothing more than an ad hominem attack. The theory either fits the evidence or it doesn't.
NISTs conclusion is based on the evidence of the day combined with physical testing and computer modelling. This is the best we can hope for.
CD is not simple. Keeping it secret is even more complicated.
Um, we CT nuts can easily prove that controlled demolitions could have taken those buildings down...you critical-thinkers on the other hand...are shockingly...accepting some CRAZY THEORY...about how three of the most well-built structures in NYC...just happened to fall down for different reasons...in different ways on the same day...and that no other surrounding buildings...although some had more damage than WTC 7, didn't even hint at a collapse. Wow, I expect so much more from skeptics. You peeps are like charlatans or something...what the heck, man. Come on people...put on your critical-thinking caps.
I'd thank you not to accuse people of being charlatans.
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 38,527
Troofer trolls tediously, albeit in a friendly and lively manner, per Mr Randi's guiding principles on the banner.
DR
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
Oh man, where to start?
"We" most certainly do not know that. "You" may assume that, but you don't know what you're talking about. You've linked to CD websites, so why don't you try actually reading (and comprehending) those sites. It takes months to rig a building for CD. Every building is unique, so each CD has to be designed from the ground up for the particular conditions.
Only someone who's never done a lick of real work in his life would dismiss such a task as "easy".
And "we" also don't agree that explosives could have done that to the buildings, for the simple reason that there are no known explosives that could have survived the hours-long fires that preceeded the collapses. You might believe that, but again, you'd be wrong.
No, it's a crazy conspiracy theory because it's completely out of whack with how the real world actually works.
And exactly what "evidence" would you expect to find to "prove" that the collapses were due to just the impact and fire damage? We know there was an impact*, we know there was a fire. Even if the CD hypothesis were true, we'd expect to see evidence of the impact and fires. What would also be true in that case is some additional evidence of explosives, which evidence does not exist.
*Please tell me you agree that there was an impact. You're not going to go off into no-planer land, are you?
No, you could easily prove it, if it had happened. You've had five years, and the best you've come up with is "looks like" and "pull it!".
Since you haven't proven it, it means it wasn't CD. Get over it.
"We" most certainly do not know that. "You" may assume that, but you don't know what you're talking about. You've linked to CD websites, so why don't you try actually reading (and comprehending) those sites. It takes months to rig a building for CD. Every building is unique, so each CD has to be designed from the ground up for the particular conditions.
Only someone who's never done a lick of real work in his life would dismiss such a task as "easy".
And "we" also don't agree that explosives could have done that to the buildings, for the simple reason that there are no known explosives that could have survived the hours-long fires that preceeded the collapses. You might believe that, but again, you'd be wrong.
No, it's a crazy conspiracy theory because it's completely out of whack with how the real world actually works.
And exactly what "evidence" would you expect to find to "prove" that the collapses were due to just the impact and fire damage? We know there was an impact*, we know there was a fire. Even if the CD hypothesis were true, we'd expect to see evidence of the impact and fires. What would also be true in that case is some additional evidence of explosives, which evidence does not exist.
*Please tell me you agree that there was an impact. You're not going to go off into no-planer land, are you?
Um, we CT nuts can easily prove that controlled demolitions could have taken those buildings down...you critical-thinkers on the other hand...are shockingly...accepting some CRAZY THEORY...about how three of the most well-built structures in NYC...just happened to fall down for different reasons...in different ways on the same day...and that no other surrounding buildings...although some had more damage than WTC 7, didn't even hint at a collapse. Wow, I expect so much more from skeptics. You peeps are like charlatans or something...what the heck, man. Come on people...put on your critical-thinking caps.
No, you could easily prove it, if it had happened. You've had five years, and the best you've come up with is "looks like" and "pull it!".
Since you haven't proven it, it means it wasn't CD. Get over it.
A W Smith
Philosopher
Listen up!
28th kingdom.. You are going to have to listen carefully to what I say. So lets Uncross your legs and get out of that lotus position. off your flying carpet. snuff out the incense and walk through the beaded curtains to the real world.
Now that I have your attention.
Name me one single time buildings as tall as the world trade center towers were demolished by controlled demolition. What? You cant? Therefore I present to you the finding that the world trade center could not have been brought down with controlled demolition.
see how your logic works when used by us on the debunking side?
OK now on to the "it sounded like an explosion" quotes from witnesses. OK I bring to you thousands of witness reports of tornado's sounding like freight trains. Therefore I present to you the finding that all tornado's are in fact freight trains.
28th kingdom.. You are going to have to listen carefully to what I say. So lets Uncross your legs and get out of that lotus position. off your flying carpet. snuff out the incense and walk through the beaded curtains to the real world.
Now that I have your attention.
Name me one single time buildings as tall as the world trade center towers were demolished by controlled demolition. What? You cant? Therefore I present to you the finding that the world trade center could not have been brought down with controlled demolition.
see how your logic works when used by us on the debunking side?
OK now on to the "it sounded like an explosion" quotes from witnesses. OK I bring to you thousands of witness reports of tornado's sounding like freight trains. Therefore I present to you the finding that all tornado's are in fact freight trains.
28th Kingdom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 947
Maccy,
Please just boil it down for me. What does this GOVERNMENT agency say happened to the core columns? It's doesn't take 1000 pages. Can you please just lay it out in a paragraph?
Also, does everyone agree, that WTC 1 & 2 came down in some sort of pancake collapse? Yes or No will do. I know the actual details may be more complex, but the end result is a pancake collapse, yes?
Thanks.
Please just boil it down for me. What does this GOVERNMENT agency say happened to the core columns? It's doesn't take 1000 pages. Can you please just lay it out in a paragraph?
Also, does everyone agree, that WTC 1 & 2 came down in some sort of pancake collapse? Yes or No will do. I know the actual details may be more complex, but the end result is a pancake collapse, yes?
Thanks.