Debate (not debase) a Truther

[funk de fino]

Well there will certainly never be any kind of honest debate if you yell, liar liar pants on fire every time you're called on your exaggerations and misrepresentations.

I have quotes from NIST to back up where they said structural damage had little effect on initiating the collapse. The reason you're being petulant is because you know you have to defend NIST's preposterous fire theory and are trying to shoehorn structural damage into the discussion.

It would be nice to see some kind of civil debate take place here for once, but regardless of what debate transpires you'll be forced to defend a fire theory. I can understand why you're trying to avoid it.

You just repeated your earlier lie. Quaint.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well there will certainly never be any kind of honest debate if you yell, liar liar pants on fire every time you're called on your exaggerations and misrepresentations.

I have quotes from NIST to back up where they said structural damage had little effect on initiating the collapse. The reason you're being petulant is because you know you have to defend NIST's preposterous fire theory and are trying to shoehorn structural damage into the discussion.

It would be nice to see some kind of civil debate take place here for once, but regardless of what debate transpires you'll be forced to defend a fire theory. I can understand why you're trying to avoid it.

Well given the easier thing for the "liars" at NIST to do, would be to LIE and say that the structural damage DID significantly impact on the collapse, WHY ON GODS EARTH did they say that it didn't?

BECAUSE THEIR MODEL PREDICTS COLLAPSE WITHOUT THE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.

As for your opinion on why people are being petulant, well it it doesn't take that much to make us such when dealing with snake oil salesmen.

To be honest, from a laymen pov, until NIST came out with their final paper, I thought that the impact damage from the debris WOULD have been a significant factor...I was surprised like everyone else when they said it wasn't. However, just because they said it didn't, didn't make me suddenly go, "oh they must be covering up something.".

TAM

 

[beachnut]

... it was unprecedented for a 110 storey building to collapse close enough to a 47-storey building to cause widespread structural damage from debris impact. It was unprecedented for a 47-storey building to experience simultaneous initiation of multiple fires at multiple locations on multiple floors ...

And yet that structural damage is not what caused the bldg to collapse. You already know this, so why are you perpetuating this misconception?

Oops, you have the misconception, Dave did not say what you think he said. Did you mess up and made up junk ideas and posted to your illusion of what you thought you read?

... I have quotes from NIST to back up where they said structural damage had little effect on initiating the collapse. ...

It had little effect. A little is some. Glad you cleared that up. It had some effect on initiating the collapse. When will you have those citations for back up?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well there will certainly never be any kind of honest debate if you yell, liar liar pants on fire every time you're called on your exaggerations and misrepresentations.

RedIbis, there will never be any kind of honest debate as long as you insist on dishonestly misrepresenting your opponents' positions. Since you seem addicted to that behaviour, it's unlikely you'll ever be able to participate in an honest debate.

I have quotes from NIST to back up where they said structural damage had little effect on initiating the collapse.

(a) 'Little' and 'none' are not the same word, and (b) you were lying when you claimed I was trying to give the impression that the collapse was caused by the impact damage. Anyone can look back over the thread and see that I wasn't claiming any such thing, yet you've chosen to repeat your lie. It's not helping you.

The reason you're being petulant is because you know you have to defend NIST's preposterous fire theory and are trying to shoehorn structural damage into the discussion.

NIST's collapse hypothesis, which states that the collapse was caused primarily by fire damage but progressed in a way that was significantly affected by the impact damage, is accepted by all honest, unbiased and competent commentators. The fact that you find it 'preposterous' is your own problem.

It would be nice to see some kind of civil debate take place here for once, but regardless of what debate transpires you'll be forced to defend a fire theory. I can understand why you're trying to avoid it.

Since I've repeatedly defended it, this is another lie.

Dave

 

[ImANiceGuy]

No, nah, nope, never. Mince has carefully explained what is wrong with this. And "n'est pas" is NOT grammatically correct in French, therefore NOBODY says incorrect bullfeces like this. If even somebody spoke really like this, he would be considered as a retarded guy.

Francais n'est pas capable a utilize jargon, especialement a l'internet?

I can't believe you took the time to disect this sentence and point out the missing accents! How long did you silly post take to construct? What a laugh! Thanks though...

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Stop guessing.



Of course I am.

I'm not guessing, I'm telling. I also told you I was looking for the sources....so chill out!

I'm not claiming that the unprecedented nature of the collapse is suspect, only that it adds fuel to conspiracy theorists.

I agree with RedIbis that the wording used by skeptics often implies that the structural damage from the collapsing tower somehow affected the collapse initiation. The reality is that the only effect it had on the collapse was a sharp dip to the damaged corner in the last "phase".

 

[DavidJames]

Francais n'est pas capable a utilize jargon, especialement a l'internet?

I can't believe you took the time to disect this sentence and point out the missing accents! How long did you silly post take to construct? What a laugh! Thanks though...

And therein lies the difference between people who are concerned about getting their facts correct and those that pretend they know something, but really don't.

People will also note the pretenders will often respond exactly as you did.

 

[Edx]

I agree with RedIbis that the wording used by skeptics often implies that the structural damage from the collapsing tower somehow affected the collapse initiation. The reality is that the only effect it had on the collapse was a sharp dip to the damaged corner in the last "phase".

The issue for me is that truthers deny any signficiant damage at all, that the pictures are fakes, the smoke coming is really only from WTC6 and the witness' are lying and that there were no major fires. Clearly truthers think fires and the damage would contribute to the collapse, that's why they have to deny it.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

And therein lies the difference between people who are concerned about getting their facts correct and those that pretend they know something, but really don't.

People will also note the pretenders will often respond exactly as you did.

David, I think your opinion of me is a little misguided. I would suggest reading through the entire thread in order to gain better context and make less ignorant posts.

 

[beachnut]

David, I think your opinion of me is a little misguided. I would suggest reading through the entire thread in order to gain better context and make less ignorant posts.

Means you failed to read NIST and can't contribute to your own 911 truth proxy OP? yep, and you ran out of interest in your fake 911 truth proxy thread.

When is your next 911 truth proxy thread coming. I can't wait to see how you will show your indifference in the next thread to finding the truth by posting another question you don't care about since you are easily distracted by anything and avoid the topic.

You may also like to look through http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-5index.htm particularly NCSTAR 1-5G that goes through the process of verifying the thermal models with real world experiments.

Was this helpful?

 

[ImANiceGuy]

The issue for me is that truthers deny any signficiant damage at all, that the pictures are fakes, the smoke coming is really only from WTC6 and the witness' are lying and that there were no major fires. Clearly truthers think fires and the damage would contribute to the collapse, that's why they have to deny it.

When you say "truthers deny any significant damage".....I would ask: How is the damage significant in regards to the collapse? The answer is that it was not; it was the fires that caused the collapse.....then, we would both agree, the Truthers would proceed to deny the fires.

What concerns me is not the status of the building(on fire, no sprinklers), it is the investigation into the collapse.

....still reading NCSTAR to verify info from Truther vids......thanks for the help w/ the .pdf editing.

I don't expect credit for not posting links to youtube vids; however, please be patient as the 'real' source information takes some time to gather.

 

[Newtons Bit]

please be patient as the 'real' source information takes some time to gather.

Maybe you should have started by reading the original information rather than the conspiracy peddlers?

 

[ImANiceGuy]

Means you failed to read NIST and can't contribute to your own 911 truth proxy OP? yep, and you ran out of interest in your fake 911 truth proxy thread.

When is your next 911 truth proxy thread coming. I can't wait to see how you will show your indifference in the next thread to finding the truth by posting another question you don't care about since you are easily distracted by anything and avoid the topic.


Was this helpful?

Beachnut, I already explained that reading NIST in its entirety would take years....they've studied subjects other than just the WTC.

Beachnut, sincerely, what is your issue with me personally.....hate the Truth movement all you want, call them delusional if you'd like (some certainly are). Everytime you insult my posts or call me out I respond for clarification and get no response.

It is you who is dodging legitimate questions; eg. You called my ideas delusional: please tell me exactly where I have demonstrated this with a quote. Please give me some, any reason to not put you on ignore...

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

When you say "truthers deny any significant damage".....I would ask: How is the damage significant in regards to the collapse? The answer is that it was not; it was the fires that caused the collapse.....then, we would both agree, the Truthers would proceed to deny the fires.

Except the damage significantly weakened the structural integrity. The fires created the collapse, but the damage done sped up the timescale of collapse.

 

[triforcharity]

I did download the .pdf's, and as far as I can tell, there is a security setting which does not allow text to be copied and pasted...

I might be a truther, but I'm not an imbicile. (that should elicit some stupid useless comments)

right click on it, select "select" instead of hand, or whatever, and go back to the PDF. Or, you can simply do a screen shot, put it on your harddrive, then to photobucket, and paste link here.

Remember when using PB, use the IMG link.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm not guessing, I'm telling. I also told you I was looking for the sources....so chill out!

I'm not claiming that the unprecedented nature of the collapse is suspect, only that it adds fuel to conspiracy theorists.

I agree with RedIbis that the wording used by skeptics often implies that the structural damage from the collapsing tower somehow affected the collapse initiation. The reality is that the only effect it had on the collapse was a sharp dip to the damaged corner in the last "phase".

You keep taking things out of context again. It did not directly affect the collapse. It DID however, directly affect the fire's progression inside the building, which IS the cause of the collapse.

 

[BigAl]

When you say "truthers deny any significant damage".....I would ask: How is the damage significant in regards to the collapse? .

To be significant, the only damage necessary could be as little as destroying some of the fireproofing. Breaking lots of windows on the south side would contribute to the collapse by allowing generous ventilation for the fires.

A building is designed to survive a fire for an hour or so with a working sprinkler system while the fire trucks arrive. In my experience, buildings are designed to contain a fire to one floor until the FD shows up.

With no sprinklers, damaged fireproofing, lots of ventilation and fire on multiple floors and no water for firefighting, WTC7 was doomed.

 

[BigAl]

I agree with RedIbis that the wording used by skeptics often implies that the structural damage from the collapsing tower somehow affected the collapse initiation. The reality is that the only effect it had on the collapse was a sharp dip to the damaged corner in the last "phase".

A "sharp dip" means the structure is doomed.

WTC7 was known to be doomed as early as 2PM due to observed bulging.

This has been pointed out to Red countless times.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And yet that structural damage is not what caused the bldg to collapse. You already know this, so why are you perpetuating this misconception?

Dave didn't say that it did cause the collapse. You're lying like a truther again, Red.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

I think similarly to the other topic; literally, the heat of the structure during/after the collapse, many misunderstandings between (master)debaters have come from the spurious interchanging of specific words such as molten metal vs molten steel; mostly by truthers Big difference in this case

However, with the depth of analysis one is subjected to here(rightfully so; and including sometimes random grammar lessons from foreigners) the need to stress exact wordage within posts is a little over-the-top in your collective favor.

There is a culture here of self-serving interpretation as an excuse to debase other members. You can't pick and choose when to take something literally or not in order to marginalize them as Truthers.

Some of us are normal people who hear crazy stories and Jesse Ventura on CNN and decide to do a little investigating, on our own, in our spare(and limited)time. What you learn from an initial search is that JREF is the place to go if you want straight answers. The problem is you guys dont even let us ask questions, you've heard it all before....

Don't end up chasing everyone away...

feel free to mess with jammonious though, im pretty sure hes a noplaner right?