RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
I'm pretty sure faking quotes is against the rules.
Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?
- Thread starter Crazytimes
- Start date
I'm pretty sure faking quotes is against the rules.
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
The column existed.
It features in the building plans.
It features in the NIST report.
Is it that it is an inconvenient fact for 911 conspiracy theorists that they're claiming it didn't exist?
A W Smith
Philosopher
No comment on the missing foam then?
To be fair to the lying liar, I was the first one to say, "non-existent column," meaning that it was never recovered/identified.
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
Nor was it ever presented during investigations or to support the final collapse report.
Yeah, because it was never recovered. And as you know, the steel wasn't marked in such a way that it could be identified in any case.
Anyway, you were about to explain your alleged theory and how a non-existent column is your best piece of evidence.
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
Make up your mind, was it never recovered or was it not identified? Not the same thing.
It was never recovered (by that, I mean by NIST) and even if it was it couldn't have been identified.
And unsurprisingly, you are still running away from explaining your alleged theory and how column 79 is your best piece of evidence. Real shocker there.
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
It didn't have a name, and wasn't widely known, but the first case of "AIDS" can be dated back to 1959
http://www.aegis.com/news/sfe/1998/se980201.html
"AIDS" didn't become an official name till 1982
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,526
Nor was it needed to to validate the theory. Industry professionals the world over know this, as do most honest, educated people.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I would settle for three or four pieces of evidence that are consistent with each other. Many truthers don't seem to have a problem with claiming, on the one hand, that flight 93 was shot down by orders from NORAD, and on the other hand, that fighter jets were ordered by NORAD to stand down.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
A 110-story skyscraper fell on building 7. Even if the exact mechanism for the collapse wasn't EXACTLY what NIST said it was, what difference does it make? In what legal system in the world would a vast, incomprehensible and unnecessary conspiracy be more plausible than "a building fell on it, so it collapsed"?
It means you still don't know what happened. But you keep pretending like you do. You also keep trying to imply things like 110 stories fell on wtc-7 when you know that's not the case.
It what mind does first time in history collapses occurring three times in one day because of two different reasons considered plausible?
Here's a couple trick questions (well, not really, but you'll likely pretend like they were):
How many times in history have large passenger jets filled with jet fuel been flown into skyscrapers at high velocity?
How many times in history have huge skyscrapers collapsed next to a smaller one and ignited large multi-story, totally unfought fires causing firefighters to predict that it would collapse?
Last edited:
Jets have hit buildings before. The tower collapses aren't blamed on the planes hitting them even according to NIST. The towers took the impacts and most likely would have remained standing if it weren't for the building content fire and removed fireproofing according to NIST.
No plane hit WTC-7. The so-called damage caused by the falling towers isn't the cause of the collapse according to NIST. Nor is removed fireproofing. Thermal expansion is the reason according to NIST.
Both causes are new and NEVER before reasons for high-rise buildings to collapse.
A W Smith
Philosopher
welcome Back hopeless Emergency
what kind of mind comes to the conclusion because it was the first time in history that three buildings were brought down by two different mechanisms considered by them to not be plausible. Then conclude that thermite which has never in the history of CD ever been used to bring down buildings is a more likly mechasnism?
???
I swear, I must be psychic or something. No. Twoofer's are just that predictable.
Why do twoofers always have such poor reading comprehension? Notice I said large passenger jets filled with jet fuel at high velocity. How many times has that happened, twoofer?
Hmmm, I wonder how the fires were started and how the fireproofing was removed. Could it have somthing to do with the freaking planes that hit the buildings? Nah, that's just too obvious.
Really? Thanks for enlightening me, twoofer. I had no idea.
This is all true. But tell me twoofer, how many times in history has a steel framed skyscraper had large multi story fires that went totally unfought? How many times has a fire department predicted such a skyscraper would collapse?
The circumstances had never happend before so your pathetic argument means nothing.
Why do twoofers always have such poor reading comprehension? Notice I said large passenger jets filled with jet fuel at high velocity. How many times has that happened, twoofer?
Hmmm, I wonder how the fires were started and how the fireproofing was removed. Could it have somthing to do with the freaking planes that hit the buildings? Nah, that's just too obvious.
Really? Thanks for enlightening me, twoofer. I had no idea.
This is all true. But tell me twoofer, how many times in history has a steel framed skyscraper had large multi story fires that went totally unfought? How many times has a fire department predicted such a skyscraper would collapse?
The circumstances had never happend before so your pathetic argument means nothing.