Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Grizzly Bear]

People spend big bucks to ensure those kinds of collapses. They do not occur to buildings with limited, one-sided damage.

The problem of course is you're saying they do considerable research to make sure something like the collapses happens a particular way, yet you see absolutely no need to perform the same level of analysis to prove it happened as you allege. It's one of the fundamental problems that prompted me to say:

The reason I ridicule these theories is for their utter incompetence in performing research to the standards that are academically satisfactory both in my area of study and in multiple other disciplines.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Nice strawman.

Not really. Truthers put a lot of effort into repetition of their nonsense on this forum. Why would they waste such time and energy if they didn't feel that our acceptance was meaningful in some way?

 

[fess]

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.

Iove your selection of words; "limited, one-sided damage." I seem to recall that fires burned across entire floor areas on several floors from the south to the north side of the building.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Yep, when the sprinklers work. OOPS, the sprinklers were in-op. You lost this one, but keep up the poor performance, it is what is expected from 911 truth followers who refuse to think for themselves while they think the are thinking out of the box.

Too bad WTC tower collapse knocked out window in 7, and helped burn it to the ground. Do you need to add fire science to the things you have no knowledge?

 

[Clayton Moore]

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.

Like the truthers have observed, if the government's version of 9/11 was valid there wouldn't be so many swarming debunkers.

 

[000063]

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

Who told you?!

 

[000063]

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.

That's the shortest theory I've ever seen.

Also, research from the 'faked' report has been used to improve buildings' fire resistance.

 

[000063]

On the sane side if two huge buildings can come down with minimal "preparation" time and no explosives why are controlled demolition companies still in business?

Because the collapse was random and uncontrolled? It's not called uncontrolled demolition, is it?

 

[000063]

actually they are designed to withstand an impact of hundreds of MPH.

and they are supposed to be able to withstand fire.

not often.

Well, I guess I was wrong, then.

 

[000063]

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 they were able to predict, precisely, where the fire would burn.

They predicted the arrangement of office furniture, the amount of fuel in the aircraft, the exact angles and speed of impact and several other random factors?

Thermite chips.

The ones found by one man who hasn't submitted it to peer-review?

 

[Dave Rogers]

There is no crime in repeating the truth.

Strange how every one of you repeats it a little bit differently.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Like the truthers have observed, if the government's version of 9/11 was valid there wouldn't be so many swarming debunkers.

Ah, the good old two-way argument - if the government's story was true, more people would believe it, but also, if the government's story was true, less people would believe it.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

No, you continue to pretend that it hasn't been explained ad nauseam how it can and did.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thermite chips.

These would be the thermite chips that need a source of oxygen to react at the wrong temperature and give off too much energy, right?

Dave

 

[000063]

Strange how every one of you repeats it a little bit differently.

Dave

Blind men and an elephant, man.

 

[twinstead]

It's now official: not only does Clayton make things up as he goes along, but he pretty much believes anything he reads that conforms to his world view without any scrutiny whatsover.

Thread over.

 

[aggle-rithm]

There is no crime in repeating the truth.

Indeed, you should try it some time.

 

[twinstead]

Swarming debunkers?

 

[twinstead]

Like the truthers have observed, if the government's version of 9/11 was valid there wouldn't be so many swarming debunkers.

The "government's version"? So you just think the government told us what happened on 9/11, and despite what you think is evidence to the contrary we just believe it no questions asked?

LOL. Believing everything you hear no questions asked is YOUR shtick.

The reason why there is swarming debunkers is because you folks are great for entertainment value. When I tire of you, I just turn off my computer and you disappear.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

It's now official: not only does Clayton make things up as he goes along, but he pretty much believes anything he reads that conforms to his world view without any scrutiny whatsover.

Thread over.

That's why I've put him on ignore. I don't even think he's serious about his "truthing". He's just grabbing any old excuse to be argumentative.

Heck, I wonder if he even believes what he posts. His pattern was just to reach for any old argument. That is characteristic of someone who's looking things up as he goes along.