Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[ULTIMA1]

.
We should make the wager more even though. IF Ultima1 cannot produce the document above, then he should agree to resign from JREF, and take his nonsense elsewhere.

I have no problem what that wager, but i will have to bring the mods in to make sure you believers hold up to the wager since its been proven that you guys lie about accepting evidence.

 

[GStan]

We have already told Ultima1 what we will do. If he produces a VERIFIED Document from his FOIA request that PROVES Flight 93 was shot down, I will resign from JREF.

We should make the wager more even though. IF Ultima1 cannot produce the document above, then he should agree to resign from JREF, and take his nonsense elsewhere.

TAM

If he cannot produce it, rather than resigning from JREF, I'd like to see him wearing a big sandwich board at GZ on 9/11/2009 that says "God Hates Truthers" on one side and "Bush Was Totally Right" on the other side. IMO.

Although his parents would probably not let him skip school to travel to NYC.

 

[chillzero]

I have no problem what that wager, but i will have to bring the mods in to make sure you believers hold up to the wager since its been proven that you guys lie about accepting evidence.

That's nothing to do with forum moderation.

 

[JihadJane]

No, he just spits it on his keyboard, silly!

I see.

 

[GStan]

But i have posted evidence that questions the official story.

Its still hard to believe that after 7 years that people can be brainwashed enough to believe the officail story and not think for themselves.

While there is no "official story", please share one piece of evidence that you have posted here that is not consistent with the generally accepted explanation of what happened on 9/11.

 

[ULTIMA1]

If he cannot produce it, rather than resigning from JREF, I'd like to see him wearing a big sandwich board at GZ on 9/11/2009 that says "God Hates Truthers" on one side and "Bush Was Totally Right" on the other side. IMO.

And when i do produce it beleivers have to go to ground zero and get on thier knees and pray fogivness for disrespcthing the dead.

 

[GStan]

And when i do produce it beleivers have to go to ground zero and get on thier knees and pray fogivness for disrespcthing the dead.

Your terms are accepted. I will go to GZ, get on my knees and pray that you and your movement are forgiven for disrespecting the dead.

 

[ULTIMA1]

While there is no "official story",

Whats all that infomration the media has told us to believe then?

Oh and i guess you never heard of the 9/11 commssion either?

please share one piece of evidence that you have posted here that is not consistent with the generally accepted explanation of what happened on 9/11.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Your terms are accepted. I will go to GZ, get on my knees and pray that you and your movement are forgiven for disrespecting the dead.

How i am disrespting the dead when i am trying to find the truth, like the familes of those that died?

 

[240-185]

How i am disrespting the dead when i am trying to find the truth, like the familes of those that died?

By refuting the existence of victims that were in the plane and at the Pentagon, you spit on many people's graves.

*is gonna have a shower, is dirty because of so much stoopeed*

 

[ULTIMA1]

By refuting the existence of victims that were in the plane and at the Pentagon, you spit on many people's graves.

Please be mature enouh not to misquote me, it only makes you look dumb.

I never refuted the existance of victims that were in the plane at the Pentagon.

I simply stated that there is no evidence of the bodies from the plane being in the Pentagon.

 

[GStan]

Whats all that infomration the media has told us to believe then?

Oh and i guess you never heard of the 9/11 commssion either?




http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

What is this evidence of? I said to share a piece of evidence that is not consistent with the generally accepted explanation of what happened. Considering that if you read the entire document you posted, you will see that these guys concluded this:

...the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

While professionals who know what they are talking about may disagree over minor details, the generally accepted explanation for the destruction of the Towers is from impact damage and fires. Why did you post this article? It is more evidence IN FAVOR of the 'official story'.

 

[applecorped]

I never refuted the existance of victims that were in the plane at the Pentagon.

I simply stated that there is no evidence of the bodies from the plane being in the Pentagon.

You don't refute it but you deny there is evidence for it?

 

[GStan]

Please be mature enouh not to misquote me, it only makes you look dumb.

You ask not to be misquoted so the person misquoting you won't look dumb.

Yet you still post this:

I never refuted the existance of victims that were in the plane at the Pentagon.

I simply stated that there is no evidence of the bodies from the plane being in the Pentagon.

So you are only concerned with other people looking dumb, but not necessarily looking dumb yourself?

 

[ULTIMA1]

Why did you post this article? It is more evidence IN FAVOR of the 'official story'.

Becasue it states that the buidling withstood the planes impacts and ONLY the fire could have caused the collapse NOT a combination fo impact and fire.

Which contridicts the official story.

 

[ULTIMA1]

So you are only concerned with other people looking dumb, but not necessarily looking dumb yourself?
:

So where do i look dumb? Maybe you should read my post again or have someone read it for you.

I agree there were people in the plane.

Just no evidence of bodies from the plane being in the Pentagon.

 

[Hokulele]

Becasue it states that the buidling withstood the planes impacts and ONLY the fire could have caused the collapse NOT a combination fo impact and fire.

Would the fires have started if the planes didn't impact?

Are you suggesting that the NIST NCSTAR is the "official story"?

 

[GStan]

Dear Ultima,

We here at the NSA make it our business to know everything there is to know about all of our employees. We've been monitoring your internet usage for some time now and have concluded that your services are no longer needed, even as a night watchman. We actually can't believe you were able to form enough coherent thoughts to get a job here in the first place. Oh well, fool us once.

You're fired.

Love

NSA

 

[GStan]

Becasue it states that the buidling withstood the planes impacts and ONLY the fire could have caused the collapse NOT a combination fo impact and fire.

Which contridicts the official story.

Are there any reports that suggest the buildings did not withstand the plane impacts? I'm not sure what point your making.

 

[GStan]

So where do i look dumb? Maybe you should read my post again or have someone read it for you.

I agree there were people in the plane.

Just no evidence of bodies from the plane being in the Pentagon.