Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[beachnut]

Then you should have no problem 'pwning' us "truthers" over there at the BBC blog right? ...

You will be able to pwn me there every bit as easy as here right?

Does that response sound good and logical to you? Does it sound like it is a really good reply to my post?

Well let's see... "The top part did not turn to dust. Wowzer, the top part is 95 percent air not dust"

Yes the top part is most certainly 95 percent air and not dust, but that really has nothing to do with it. I never claimed the air inside the top section turned to dust. It was the building that turned to dust.

That however is a good straw man from Beachnut...build up the argument that I claimed the air turned to dust and then shoot it down laughing that I have failed ideas

Except this was your straw man argument which has been exposed.

Exactly, it does not. Which just proves the NIST report on what happened is wrong. Thank you for agreeing.

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.

All of that and no evidence of what turned the steel to dust in the WTC? Do we have to guess why you see dust and everyone who understands 911 sees a building falling. The top moves down you say dust I say down.

If you analyzed your moronic ideas on 911 as much as you analyze my posts you would not be spewing lies, hearsay, and fantasy about 911. Does this post mean you have no evidence of anything?

BBC again? This was at the BBC and it is pure stupid.

... "neat" official conspiracy that 19 rank amateurs flew the some of the most sophisticated aviation technology in existence with the precision of highly trained professionals.

Hani Hanjour was said to have dropped from 7000 ft in a tight 270 degree spiral at speeds around 400 to 500 mph, pulling 4, 5, 6 G's in doing so, and yet his flight instructor refused to fly in a single engine Cessna because he was so bad a pilot. And the Kean Report, the 9/11 Commission report, said he was "one of the best pilots they had." What is "neat" about that?

Why is this statement stupid? Show me the 4, 5, 6 G's turn evidence. You said BBC had such great stuff but it is filled with lies from truthers. Like your failed turned to dust delusion.

 

[GlennB]

If I managed to show that the top portion of that building was nearly completely pulverized to dust before the bottom section even began to fall...as the video clearly shows...

But the video CAN NOT show this, because :

1. We can't see inside the building as it falls.

2. There is no known mechanism for turning massive steel members to "dust" in such a scenario. None. Even if the concrete were totally pulverised by a Hofmann-esque planting of high explosives in the ceiling tiles, the steel would remain essentially untouched.

Over to you. You claim the video shows the upper sections turned to dust. Propose a mechanism for reducing steel to dust. I look forward to your reply.

 

[beachnut]

Logic; SteveAustin says the top part of the WTC turned to dust from a video he presented. He says all the smoke is the building turning to dust.

...

... Steel does not turn to dust in a gravity collapse. ...

Exactly, it does not. Which just proves the NIST report on what happened is wrong. Thank you for agreeing. ...

SteveAustin caught me; I said steel does not turn to dust in a gravity collapse, and he was talking beam weapon collapse and super-nano-thermite I guess.

Does this mean he will not tell me what turned the WTC top to dust? Will he produce the evidence? What will he do with the video where you can see the whole top crushing down the building?

What turns steel to dust? How much steel was dustified on 911?

 

[SteveAustin]

At least 0.0087 percent of all world engineers support part of your conclusion what ever that is.

I thought it was 0.00087 percent? Did you forget a zero in there somewhere?

Could you show me the math that allowed you to come up with that number? Then show me what percentage of world engineers have come forward to support the "Official Conspiracy Theory"

 

[SteveAustin]

You, like every twoofer before you has no evidence whatsoever. Nobody here is afraid to go to the stupid comment section of a blog post. It's just that nobody feels the need to just become some twoofer says so. It's not as if you'll have any new lies anyway. You'd just be repeating the same lies many twoofers have already told here.

And remember, you are the one that registered here, genius.

Any other excuses you want to use? Why do you fear leaving this forum and coming over to a neutral venue?

 

[SteveAustin]

The force was gravity. Gravity is the force that accomplished it and your lack of knowledge in gravity, physics, engineering and other subjects make you believe in lies.

Appeal to authority

The video show a gravity collapse and a building falling; you say it show the building turning to dust but darn all the steel is there. You failed and you see what you want to see and make up a poorly defined delusion to explain it.

Are you purposely misquoting me again for anther straw man again? LOL will you never learn. What was it I said?

"the video clearly shows the top section of the building nearly completely turning to dust before the bottom section even begins to collapse"

How is that saying the building turned to dust? How is that saying all the steel turned to dust?

LOL it's not, but you need to build up your straw man argument.

I'll repeat, that video show very clearly that the top section of the building turns nearly completely to dust before the bottom section even begins to collapse.

I admit is was a force, gravity did it. There I admitted it and I am right. That was easy. Are you an engineer?

Appeal to authority again? Really? You should try and keep it to once per post so as not to seem to obvious

 

[dtugg]

Any other excuses you want to use? Why do you fear leaving this forum and coming over to a neutral venue?

I'm not afraid in the slightest, twoofer, but keep on telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. If you had any evidence you could present it here. But you, of course, don't have any evidence.

And you are the one that registered here, twoofer!

 

[dtugg]

I'll repeat, that video show very clearly that the top section of the building turns nearly completely to dust before the bottom section even begins to collapse.

Only in the minds of seriously deluded twoofers. I'll repeat the very inconvenient question that you keep ignoring: By what mechanism was the top section turned to dust? I dare you to answer, twoofer.

 

[SteveAustin]

Do we have to guess why you see dust and everyone who understands 911 sees a building falling. The top moves down you say dust I say down.

Yes exactly the top moves down and is nearly completely gone before the bottom portion beneath the impact zone begins to collapse. So where does the dissappearing portion of that top section go? Does it just miraculously slide into the 95 percent air of the rest of the building beneath it? Because the exterior of the bottom portion of the building, the portion just below the damaged area has no visible reaction to the building falling into it. It is simply there 1 moment and the next it is being pulverized to dust as well just like the top 16 floors were. There might have been 3-4 floors left of the top 16 floors when the very top floor beneath the impact zone finally started to collapse and disintegrate to dust.

So what happened to those floors if they were not pulverized?

If you analyzed your moronic ideas on 911 as much as you analyze my posts you would not be spewing lies, hearsay, and fantasy about 911. Does this post mean you have no evidence of anything?

BBC again? This was at the BBC and it is pure stupid. Why is this statement stupid? Show me the 4, 5, 6 G's turn evidence. You said BBC had such great stuff but it is filled with lies from truthers. Like your failed turned to dust delusion.

38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.

 

[beachnut]

I thought it was 0.00087 percent? Did you forget a zero in there somewhere?

Could you show me the math that allowed you to come up with that number? Then show me what percentage of world engineers have come forward to support the "Official Conspiracy Theory"

You are right you only have 0.00087 percent. Good catch. Go ahead run your own numbers. Got math?

The top turned to dust and you have no clue what did it. What did it?

So how did the rest of the building fall if only the top turned to dust? Did the dust do it;

OOOPPPS wait; this means the whole building was wired! OMG it was an inside job!

I am saved. Praise the lord thermite Jones and his idiotic ideas.


Do you support this super truther from you favorite hearsay forum for truthers?

...very "neat" official conspiracy that 19 rank amateurs flew the some of the most sophisticated aviation technology in existence with the precision of highly trained professionals.

Hani Hanjour was said to have dropped from 7000 ft in a tight 270 degree spiral at speeds around 400 to 500 mph, pulling 4, 5, 6 G's in doing so, and yet his flight instructor refused to fly in a single engine Cessna because he was so bad a pilot. And the Kean Report, the 9/11 Commission report, said he was "one of the best pilots they had." What is "neat" about that?

What part of this do you agree with after making me look at the truther stupid stuff at the BBC?

I am ready to make the blind faith leap to hearsay, lies and delusions; but I need you expert take on this Hani mess. Help me please.

 

[SteveAustin]

But the video CAN NOT show this, because :

1. We can't see inside the building as it falls.

2. There is no known mechanism for turning massive steel members to "dust" in such a scenario. None. Even if the concrete were totally pulverised by a Hofmann-esque planting of high explosives in the ceiling tiles, the steel would remain essentially untouched.

Over to you. You claim the video shows the upper sections turned to dust. Propose a mechanism for reducing steel to dust. I look forward to your reply.

Straw man argument again!!!

Show me where I said the steel members were turned to dust in any scenario. But you needed that for your straw man argument didn't you.

 

[HyJinX]

Straw man argument again!!!

Show me where I said the steel members were turned to dust in any scenario. But you needed that for your straw man argument didn't you.

So...the top portion of the building, that you claim turned to dust, did not contain any steel?

 

[beachnut]

Straw man argument again!!!

Show me where I said the steel members were turned to dust in any scenario. But you needed that for your straw man argument didn't you.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg

very clear video in which you can see nearly the entire top section turn to dust before the bottom section even begins to fall ....

Show your evidence for what turned steel to dust in the top part of the WTC; take a guess. Anything?

 

[SteveAustin]

You are right you only have 0.00087 percent. Good catch. Go ahead run your own numbers. Got math?

So how many engineers have publicly come forward to endorse the OCT? I mean if your appeal to authority here is to hold any water at all you must be able to show that the engineers that support the OCT outnumber those that do not support, after you have proven your number of course.

 

[SteveAustin]

So...the top portion of the building, that you claim turned to dust, did not contain any steel?

1 Carry your opponent’s proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it.

2 Use different meanings of your opponent’s words to refute his argument.

3 Ignore your opponent’s proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing.

And of course with the added...

"ridicule, ridicule, ridicule"

Nice job for just one sentence

 

[dtugg]

You're really bad at this Steve. You should get a new hobby.

 

[SteveAustin]

Show your evidence for what turned steel to dust in the top part of the WTC; take a guess. Anything?

So instead of showing where I said steel turned to dust you instead decided to just repeat the claim that I said it???

And you probably think that was smart of you don't you

 

[SteveAustin]

You're really bad at this Steve. You should get a new hobby.

I can understand why you all are too afraid to leave the safety of your JREF seeing all the responses so far.

Only on JREF would you be allowed to get away with everything you do here, on a neutral site most of your false arguments would be stopped before they even got posted.

 

[beachnut]

So how many engineers have publicly come forward to endorse the OCT? I mean if your appeal to authority here is to hold any water at all you must be able to show that the engineers that support the OCT outnumber those that do not support, after you have proven your number of course.

99.99913 percent of engineer do not support your failed ideas. Go ask them if you ever define your conclusions.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/north_tower_collapse.mpeg

very clear video in which you can see nearly the entire top section turn to dust before the bottom section even begins to fall ....

Here you say the top turned to dust. The top has steel. How did the steel turn to dust?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Straw man argument again!!!

Show me where I said the steel members were turned to dust in any scenario. But you needed that for your straw man argument didn't you.

If you think you've been misrepresented then feel free to elaborate further on this as it would save plenty of trouble:

If I managed to show that the top portion of that building was nearly completely pulverized to dust before the bottom section even began to fall...as the video clearly shows...

It goes regardless however that your assertion is a hyperbole... not based on an actual understanding of the collapse.

So how many engineers have publicly come forward to endorse the OCT?

Every professional I have spoken to both online and offline finds the controlled demolition scenario a pointless enterprise. However, if you don't believe in numbers then I think it's more effective to look at the results; the changes that have been made to the building codes since the attacks, and the thunderous silence on the part of the engineering and architecture community in reaction to what are some radical changes in the code criteria. I would also cite the work of current "professionals" who support the CD option as examples of incompetence in regular practices which competent professional take part in constantly.

I mean if your appeal to authority here is to hold any water at all you must be able to show that the engineers that support the OCT outnumber those that do not support, after you have proven your number of course.

If this were any logical fallacy it wouldn't be appeal to authority, it would better fit an appeal to numbers. That's not such a biggie considering that it's substantiated by the nature of the resulting building code changes and the response to these changes by the global architecture and engineering community. I would also point out that the work of the "700" architects and engineers for 911truth have failed to properly present their cases in the most elementary of projects including but not limited to architectural case studies in building design, and Gage's assertion that his 20 years of experience is grounds alone to qualify his credibility in light of his egregious errors