• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Truthers at the JREF, learned anything yet?

Pardalis said:
Are you serious? You're pulling our leg right?
Click to expand...

He may not be pulling your leg, he just may never be convinced...unless someone, somewhere, somehow, will purchase a high rise building and a big 'ol jet airliner for the purpose of destroying them both in order to conduct an experiment.

Which means there has to be some possible truthers out there with some very deep pockets willing to do this. Ain't gonna happen.:rolleyes:
 
tanabear said:
To expensive compared to what? The Iraq War, which was based on lies; the Olympic Games in Beijing; the budget for the Homeland Security Department etc.

Of course, saying that it is too expensive is not the same thing as saying that my beliefs regarding 9/11 are not falsifiable. If NIST/Bazant science is applicable to the real world then it could be demonstrated. Since it can't be verified experimentally, defenders of the official story have to make up excuses as to why. Like it is to expensive.
Click to expand...

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but quite frankly I think you're mad.
 
On the rational side of things we have:

1. Structural steelwork is vulnerable to, and has to be protected from, fire.

2. Spray applied fireproofing coatings are brittle and therefore susceptible to damage from impact and movement

3. Redundancy in a structural design is not infinite and at some point can be exceeded by structural damage and lead to total structural failure

4. Tall steel framed buildings are designed so that all of the various components (columns, beams, trusses etc) work together to maintain the stability of the structure and removal or damage to some of these components can lead to total structural failure.

5. Likewise, steel trusses are also made of various components, some in tension and some in compression, and removal or damage to some of these components can lead to structural failure of the truss

6. Gravity is a bitch.

On the 'truther' side of things we have:

1. It didn't look like what how I imagined it should
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
On the rational side of things we have:

1. Structural steelwork is vulnerable to, and has to be protected from, fire.

2. Spray applied fireproofing coatings are brittle and therefore susceptible to damage from impact and movement

3. Redundancy in a structural design is not infinite and at some point can be exceeded by structural damage and lead to total structural failure

4. Tall steel framed buildings are designed so that all of the various components (columns, beams, trusses etc) work together to maintain the stability of the structure and removal or damage to some of these components can lead to total structural failure.

5. Likewise, steel trusses are also made of various components, some in tension and some in compression, and removal or damage to some of these components can lead to structural failure of the truss

6. Gravity is a bitch.

On the 'truther' side of things we have:

1. It didn't look like what how I imagined it should
Click to expand...

So the "rational" perspective ignores things like the temperature of the fires or how long they were burning when considering whether or not they will compromise the steel. It must be fun being that kind of rationalist.
 
RedIbis said:
With or without jref anyone researching 9/11 in depth will learn that official explanations and investigations are often incomplete or inaccurate. This forum won't change that.
Click to expand...
But the same can be said for anything. There’s no such thing as perfect.

Heinlein’s Razor says it well, if a little harshly:
“Don’t assume malice when stupidity will suffice.”
 
RedIbis said:
So the "rational" perspective ignores things like the temperature of the fires or how long they were burning when considering whether or not they will compromise the steel. It must be fun being that kind of rationalist.
Click to expand...
So you think that just because something is missing from his post, he’s deliberately ignoring it?

I’m beginning to see a pattern with you. What kind of rationalist would you be?
 
TheDaver said:
So you think that just because something is missing from his post, he’s deliberately ignoring it?

I’m beginning to see a pattern with you. What kind of rationalist would you be?
Click to expand...

I don't affix labels to myself. I just see the irony in some of the most irrational posters here calling themselves rationalists.
 
TheDaver said:
Show me where UK_Dave has been irrational. So far the only one shown to be irrational by your post is you.
Click to expand...
What, you think that someone who disregards all the eyewitness testimony, photographic evidence, forensic evidence, etc etc is irrational? ;)
 
Bump for RedIbis:

Pardalis said:
So you came here originally not knowing all the different theories? So you haven't changed your mind about theories you initially didn't know existed? :confused:

What was your initial position in June 2007, and the extent of your knowledge about 9/11 and the CTs?

And what is it today?
Click to expand...
 
RedIbis, you can drop the phony "agnosticism" now; just come out and admit that you believe there were magic explosives planted in the towers. You've all but given yourself away already.
 
1337m4n said:
RedIbis, you can drop the phony "agnosticism" now; just come out and admit that you believe there were magic explosives planted in the towers. You've all but given yourself away already.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as magic.
 
Pardalis said:
So you came here originally not knowing all the different theories? So you haven't changed your mind about theories you initially didn't know existed? :confused:

What was your initial position in June 2007, and the extent of your knowledge about 9/11 and the CTs?

And what is it today?
Click to expand...


Just in case you are on ignore, Pard.
 
TheRedWorm said:
Just in case you are on ignore, Pard.
Click to expand...

I don't put people on ignore. I just don't answer ridiculous questions. The extent of my knowledge on 9/11 is not something I'm going to post on an internet forum. Sorry, but I won't be playing along with the little monkey show, here.
 
Then leave. If you are too dishonest to answer a simple and straightforward question, then completely ignore it and run from the thread. Just like you did with the Flight 93 one.
 
TheRedWorm said:
Then leave. If you are too dishonest to answer a simple and straightforward question, then completely ignore it and run from the thread. Just like you did with the Flight 93 one.
Click to expand...

You sound like a two year old. There is nothing simple and straightforward about asking someone the extent of their 9/11 knowledge. Had you known better you'd recognize it as one of the sillier debunking strategies.
 
Please let's stop the bickering. Respond to the topic, without turning on each other.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
uk_dave said:
On the rational side of things we have:

1. Structural steelwork is vulnerable to, and has to be protected from, fire.

2. Spray applied fireproofing coatings are brittle and therefore susceptible to damage from impact and movement

3. Redundancy in a structural design is not infinite and at some point can be exceeded by structural damage and lead to total structural failure

4. Tall steel framed buildings are designed so that all of the various components (columns, beams, trusses etc) work together to maintain the stability of the structure and removal or damage to some of these components can lead to total structural failure.

5. Likewise, steel trusses are also made of various components, some in tension and some in compression, and removal or damage to some of these components can lead to structural failure of the truss

6. Gravity is a bitch.

On the 'truther' side of things we have:

1. It didn't look like what how I imagined it should
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
So the "rational" perspective ignores things like the temperature of the fires or how long they were burning when considering whether or not they will compromise the steel. It must be fun being that kind of rationalist.
Click to expand...

The temperature of the fires has been discussed ad nauseum. The temperatures were estimated (there was noone alive in the areas in question recording it with a thermometer) to be hot enough to compromise the steel through significant weakening.

NIST has gone over this in fine detail, as all parties here know.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom