Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[Longfellow]

Wasn't there another poster who had poor reading comprehension skills and asked ill-posed questions to help him relieve his cognitive dissonance? Who was that poster?

Dude. You're going to have to narrow that down a bit. Like Wolrab said, that's just about all of them.

Yes, exactly right. Just about all of them. Which only serves to bolster my suspicion that the vast majority of 'truthers' who post here are sock-puppets of previously banned members.

The probable exceptions, of course, being those 'truthers' who have managed to stay members for a considerably longer time -- say at least a year. There are several that fit that description. Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility of them employing sock-puppets as a way to blow off steam here on these forums without getting banned themselves. This method also serves to bolster their numbers, so to speak. This way they get to go back to their 'truth' forums and rage against the machine that is the JREF.

And it is also my opinion that this is why, after nearly 8 years, the '9/11 truth movement' has failed to supply an alternate narrative for the events of that day that fits the facts. How can they when it's basically the same people posting the same drivel time and time again?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, there is no best piece of evidence, for the term "evidence" would suggest in this case there are at least several physical reasons to believe that some alternate cause resulted in the same final effect. And, of course, you can't have evidence for something that didn't happen.

So, insofar as any so-called "9/11 inside job conspiracy" would be, by its very definition, impossible to conceive, staff, fund, supply, enact, and cover up for all time, we're left with pretty much three possibilities for what we're dealing with: the initially curious newcomers, who have yet to educate themselves on the basics; the intellecually lazy, who can't be bothered with the work, and are likely confident their instincts in most things are pretty much infallible; and those who know they're factually incorrect, yet have some mild-to-strong troublemaking agenda.

The first cases can be brought up to speed. The second, the human ego being so tenacious, are a challenge. The third are repulsive and worthy of full contempt.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

True, 110 stories did not fall on building 7. If it had, it would have collapsed immediately instead of hours later.

However, large chunks of debris did fall from as high as 1000 feet and caused considerable damage. It is MUCH more likely that this caused the collapse than some invisible group of demolition experts rushed into a heavily damaged and burning building to quickly install demolition charges for purposes of...what? Larry Silverstein lining his pockets with billions of dollars in losses? Shock the world with the spectacle of a building no one had ever heard of collapsing on a day when the event was totally overshadowed by other calamities? Destroying sensitive documents by strewing them haphazardly all over the city? You tell me.

It what mind does first time in history collapses occurring three times in one day because of two different reasons considered plausible?

The same mind that finds it more implausible that three buildings much larger than any that had ever been demolished before using controlled demolition, were destroyed by controlled demolition in VERY unsatisfactory conditions, leaving absolutely no trace evidence behind, no witnesses, and no guilty parties leaking the information, bragging about it or confessing on their deathbeds.

Speaking as someone who has served on a jury before...in a court of law, CONSPIRACY IS NEVER THE MORE PLAUSIBLE OPTION.

 

[RedIbis]

True, 110 stories did not fall on building 7. If it had, it would have collapsed immediately instead of hours later.

However, large chunks of debris did fall from as high as 1000 feet and caused considerable damage. It is MUCH more likely that this caused the collapse than some invisible group of demolition experts rushed into a heavily damaged and burning building to quickly install demolition charges for purposes of...what?
.

Two things:
1) WTC 5 and 6 suffered much more immediate damage from the collapse of the towers and although portions of the roofs collapsed the buildings themselves did not suffer global collapse.

2) Suggesting that "large chunks of debris did fall from as high as 1000 feet and caused considerable damage. It is MUCH more likely that this caused the collapse" is not consistent with NIST's conclusions, since it is fire and not structural damage with causes the thermal expansion that leads to single column failure that leads to global collapse, not the debris damage. Debris damage starts the fire.

 

[dtugg]

Hey RedIbis is back. Perhaps now he'll explain his alleged theory that's better than NIST's and how column 79 is his best piece of evidence.

 

[RedIbis]

Hey RedIbis is back. Perhaps now he'll explain his alleged theory that's better than NIST's and how column 79 is his best piece of evidence.

That's how I know I posted something you can't argue with. You go back and bring something up that's been discussed to death, twice.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Hey RedIbis is back. Perhaps now he'll explain his alleged theory that's better than NIST's and how column 79 is his best piece of evidence.

That's how I know I posted something you can't argue with. You go back and bring something up that's been discussed to death, twice.

Tell us, how did the man-made Hush-A-Boom that was on or near beam 79 and set off at 5:30 survive the hours of fire?

 

[RedIbis]

Tell us, how did the man-made Hush-A-Boom that was on or near beam 79 and set off at 5:30 survive the hours of fire?

Who said anything about explosives placed on or near column (not beam) 79?

 

[BigAl]

Who said anything about explosives placed on or near column (not beam) 79?

The failure of column 79 initiated the collapse. Where else would the Hush-A-Boom be placed?

 

[dtugg]

That's how I know I posted something you can't argue with. You go back and bring something up that's been discussed to death, twice.

Whatever. You know very well that you've never explained your alleged theory and how column 79 is your best evidence. You carefully avoid doing that because you're exceptionally dishonest. Does being a liar and a fraud bother you at all?

 

[RedIbis]

The failure of column 79 initiated the collapse. Where else would the Hush-A-Boom be placed?

Hey Al, you might be on to something. If a single column's failure was able to globally collapse a 47 story bldg, maybe AQ agents gained access to WTC 7 and blew just that one column. That's about as plausible as NIST's hypothesis.

If I used smilies I'd post that sardonic looking one here.

 

[dtugg]

Hey Al, you might be on to something. If a single column's failure was able to globally collapse a 47 story bldg, maybe AQ agents gained access to WTC 7 and blew just that one column. That's about as plausible as NIST's hypothesis.

If I used smilies I'd post that sardonic looking one here.

Since there is no such thing as hush-a-booms, no it isn't. But you know that.

 

[RedIbis]

Since there is no such thing as hush-a-booms, no it isn't. But you know that.

But blowing a single column in the interior of an empty building may not be very loud, especially in the chaos of that day.

Again, if buildings can be brought down with the loss of a single column, maybe AQ, smart enough to catch the entire military/intel community with their pants down, also knew the fatal flaw in WTC 7.

 

[dtugg]

But blowing a single column in the interior of an empty building may not be very loud, especially in the chaos of that day.

Again, if buildings can be brought down with the loss of a single column, maybe AQ, smart enough to catch the entire military/intel community with their pants down, also knew the fatal flaw in WTC 7.

As you know, NIST calculated that the smallest amount of explosives necessary to destroy column 79 would produce a sound level of 130 db a half mile away. Such a sound would be unmistakeable. Unless you you can show these calculations wrong (which of course you can't), you have nothing.

 

[RedIbis]

As you know, NIST calculated that the smallest amount of explosives necessary to destroy column 79 would produce a sound level of 130 db a half mile away. Such a sound would be unmistakeable. Unless you you can show these calculations wrong (which of course you can't), you have nothing.

Which they compare to the sound of a gunshot blast if unobstructed by surrounding bldgs. But we're talking about lower Manhattan here, not the plains of Kansas.

 

[Oscar]

Red:

That's how I know I posted something you can't argue with. You go back and bring something up that's been discussed to death, twice.

You've never posted anything that hasn't been completely torn apart. Not that you ever seem to notice. The blindness and hypocrisy on display in your posts, Red, are jaw-dropping.

It is rather difficult, you know, to explain to someone who is plain wrong all the time why he is wrong when that person blindly accuses others of his own faults, especially as he doesn't realise what a prize ass he's making of himself.

This is why the majority of people who've been here for years ignore you. They're bored with explaining why you're wrong hundreds of times especially as you won't take any notice. I genuinely wonder if you read what is said to you, or do just you scroll down skimming your eyes across the posts like a motorbike on black ice?

 

[RedIbis]

Red:


You've never posted anything that hasn't been completely torn apart. Not that you ever seem to notice. The blindness and hypocrisy on display in your posts, Red, are jaw-dropping.

It is rather difficult, you know, to explain to someone who is plain wrong all the time why he is wrong when that person blindly accuses others of his own faults, especially as he doesn't realise what a prize ass he's making of himself.

This is why the majority of people who've been here for years ignore you. They're bored with explaining why you're wrong hundreds of times especially as you won't take any notice. I genuinely wonder if you read what is said to you, or do just you scroll down skimming your eyes across the posts like a motorbike on black ice?

Go ahead and tear apart post #844 since that's the last serious post I made in this thread. You can consider everything after that a momentary lapse into goofiness.

 

[BigAl]

Which they compare to the sound of a gunshot blast if unobstructed by surrounding bldgs. But we're talking about lower Manhattan here, not the plains of Kansas.

What is your point? A "gunshot" is not as loud as man-made demolition. Nobody heard anything like man-made demolition at WTC.

Who is "they"? Firemen? No fireman has said that they think they saw man-made demolition in any way other than the use of simile, hyperbole and metaphor.

You've got nothing.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Go ahead and tear apart post #844

Two things: 1) WTC 5 and 6 suffered much more immediate damage from the collapse of the towers and although portions of the roofs collapsed the buildings themselves did not suffer global collapse.

Apples to bricks. Try harder, apply some critical thinking skills.

since it is fire and not structural damage with causes the thermal expansion that leads to single column failure that leads to global collapse, not the debris damage.

Nobody ever suggested that a single column was responsible for the collapse. Multiple floors failed. Multiple columns failed. The very definition of a progressive collapse is not a single failure, but cascading failures that happen one after the other. When the integrity of the structure is too forgone to hold the building up, gravity pulls it down.

You're not only disingenuous on both points but ignorant of the studies involved in understanding the collapses. Just how are able to talk that way with a straight face?

 

[BigAl]

Two things:
1) WTC 5 and 6 suffered much more immediate damage from the collapse of the towers and although portions of the roofs collapsed the buildings themselves did not suffer global collapse.

WTC 1, 2 and 7 were unlike any other WTC building (and any building in the world ) in the fireproofing as described by FDNY Structures expert Dunn shortly after 9/11. I have the feeling I've posted this to you before.

Several buildings at GZ were hit hard by fire and debris and didn't collapse. 140 West st, 90 West St and the Deutsche Bank building come to mind.

Source:

In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when compared to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

Page 310, Report From Ground Zero
http://snurl.com/j54ud [books_google_com]

Who is Vincent Dunn?
http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn​