Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Clayton Moore]

Nonsense!
What about Flight 77 and Flight 93? You have no clue on structural engineering, and now you have two more flights you can't explain. How will you get your America Back, we don't want to go back to failed logic you want, or paranoid conspiracies like you want, we choose to go forward not because it is easy, but gaining knowledge and thinking for yourself is hard, something you can't do, something you refuse to do.

You have failed to take action and expose what you think is a conspiracy. You never will take action, you haven nothing to offer, zero evidence, no clue what happen as you make up lies and spread delusional claims.

Flight 93? Dirt ash and people walking around. Over 4,773,588 views on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc

 

[Clayton Moore]

And still you ignore the issue of control. Your digression is yet another example of your utterly failed attempts at logic.

Truther preposition: If CD's could be done by applying some heat to some columns on a few floors, then CD companies would save themselves and their clients a lot of time and money and use this method.

Failure: This "method" did not result in a controlled demolition. It resulted in crushing nearly 16 acres during the destruction of 3 acres of buildings. It resulted in this:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...&ndsp=10&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:10&biw=1090&bih=466

etc., etc.

Enter the computer crunching of billions of permutations to build acceptable demolition model.

 

[NoahFence]

Certainly within the range/scope/sphere of two different collisions and subsequent application of steel weakening heat a computer generated demolition formula would be a snap.

ok...have at it.

 

[NoahFence]

Flight 93? Dirt ash and people walking around. Over 4,773,588 views on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc

Wow. Nearly 5 million huh? Lets break that down


2 dudes watching the same video 2 million times each.
773+ thousand poor souls led to it by those 2.


2 people thinking it's enlightening for some reason. You're accounted for - who's the other?

 

[NoahFence]

Enter the computer crunching of billions of permutations to build acceptable demolition model.

In order to build an "acceptable demolition model" of the trade centers, they would first have to be an actual demolition, which they weren't.

Try again.

You've still not answered and PROVEN what type of explosives can even manage to survive.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Sounds like (e)motions to suppress.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Apparently the engineers that set up the model and IT department that set up and maintained the server farm think the whole exercise was "for the greater good". And to run "billions" of permutations, requiring "billions" of adjustments to the initial conditions...?

No. Don't be an idiot.

 

[tempesta29]

And put it on a loop. The truthers do nothing but repeat themselves anyway.

There is no crime in repeating the truth. If you listened, perhaps its repetition wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Trakar]

Sounds like (e)motions to suppress.

What emotions do you feel I've expressed or implied with respect to 9/11 conspiracy issues?

 

[Trakar]

I've always thought it should be a sub-forum of the Humor section.

We have a sub-human forum section?...ah, wait, I see the problem, sorry about that, my bad!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There is no crime in repeating the truth. If you listened, perhaps its repetition wouldn't be necessary.

Truly an honestly it is. It's absolutely redundant to spend a considerable amount of time re-explaining something that someone else said three years before you. I've been here three years; the argument over explosives is almost as old as the conspiracy theory itself (10 years). If there were an organized archive of posts or content that talks about a repeated claim I don't have a problem personally, but it's a waste of energy IMO to rewrite the stuff.

A project of that kind was started in 2008... to my knowledge that never got up to speed. I think there should at least be a FAQ, or thread archive. The former would IMO work best since there's thousands individual threads. And if the last attempt to organize links into a single thread is any indication, neither conspiracy proponents nor opponents are likely commit to a FAQ-like listing pointing to individual threads.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Truthers tend to see conspiracies in everything (no shock mental illness is commonplace with Truthers)- many are simply focusing on other conspiracies, such as Obama's birth certificate, or fears of some Zionist or Ferengi takeover

 

[dafydd]

There is no crime in repeating the truth. If you listened, perhaps its repetition wouldn't be necessary.

We have listened,that is your main problem. Give me your full theory about the events on 911 and I will listen again.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

There is no crime in repeating the truth. If you listened, perhaps its repetition wouldn't be necessary.

If there were any truth in 9/11 Truth, it wouldn't matter if we listened or not.

I mean, how pathetic is 9/11 Truth that you hinge its success or failure on whether or not a handful of members of a relatively small Internet forum actually "listen" to your claims? Or that you even consider our approval significant in any way?

 

[TSR]

I think an hour of preparation is a nice tidy window of preparation.

.
Based as it is on nothing more than your pathetic need that it be so, no one here cares what you 'think'.

What can you *prove*.
.

Applying steel weakening heat at exactly the right, computer modeled places.

.
Can you offer any evidence as to which places, exactly?

Can you offer any evidence as to how this heat was applied?

Can you offer any evidence as to how the where with all to apply the heat got into place with no one seeing it?

Can you offer any evidence as to how the where with all to apply the heat survive the impact of mostly fueled jet liners and the resultant fires for hours before being triggered?

Can you offer any evidence as to how were they triggered?

Can you offer any evidence as to why it was not sufficient to simply crash airliners into the towers?

Then we can get back to why, if it is no great shakes, there should be any reason for the building crew to correct errors on the part of the designer...
.

 

[jaydeehess]

I think an hour of preparation is a nice tidy window of preparation. Applying steel weakening heat at exactly the right, computer modeled places.

So you are now saying that NIST is correct in that once collapse was initiated that it followed that it would progress to a global collapse?


Heat weaken the right set of structural components in the towers and an initial collapse will progress to global collapse.

Heat weak the right set of structural elements in WTC 7 and an initial collapse will progress to global collapse.

Good to see you coming around slowly to see the light Clayton.

 

[jaydeehess]

.[/COLOR]
Can you offer any evidence as to which places, exactly?

See the NIST reports

Can you offer any evidence as to how this heat was applied?

Thousands of gallons of acellerant dumped over several floors to initiate a widespread multifloor office fire

Can you offer any evidence as to how the where with all to apply the heat got into place with no one seeing it?

Boeing delivery system

Can you offer any evidence as to how the where with all to apply the heat survive the impact of mostly fueled jet liners and the resultant fires for hours before being triggered?

moot point since the airliners delivered the ignition materials.

Can you offer any evidence as to how were they triggered?

Boeing parts slamming against WTC parts

Can you offer any evidence as to why it was not sufficient to simply crash airliners into the towers?

It was, of course, quite sufficient

 

[jaydeehess]

Thermite chips.

There were no thermite chips and thermite is not an explosive.

 

[tempesta29]

If there were any truth in 9/11 Truth, it wouldn't matter if we listened or not.

I mean, how pathetic is 9/11 Truth that you hinge its success or failure on whether or not a handful of members of a relatively small Internet forum actually "listen" to your claims? Or that you even consider our approval significant in any way?

Nice strawman.

 

[tempesta29]

We have listened,that is your main problem. Give me your full theory about the events on 911 and I will listen again.

Yet you continue to fail to grasp the very simple concept that debris damage and fire cannot account for the period of building 7's free fall. People spend big bucks to ensure those kinds of collapses. They do not occur to buildings with limited, one-sided damage.