Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Justin39640 said:
I have a different speculation based on the "copyright infringement" thing.

IIRC I thought he said he worked for CiCorp, hence his old username. I bet he got in trouble cause someone found his posts on Google. Hence his name change. His pentagon thread still comes up on the first page when searching "cicorp". I bet he got threatened himself and went off the deep end trying to wipe out his bad decisions (naming himself after his employer) from search engines.

Just my theory.
:D
Click to expand...

Ohhhh, the "please cover my A%$ for me or I'll sue" line of reasoning.....
 
Google CiCorp 911 he has a lot of sites to remove his name from not just this one. Maybe some day soon he will return as a sock named WalMart or MickyD's.
I miss him. He was wacky.
 
Last edited:
Oz1976 said:
The same could be said for you. But it's cool, we know you've abandoned skepticism all together and have "figured it all out". Unfortunately for you, no matter how many times you say it, it will not make it so. I often feel truthers repeat themselves more for their OWN benefit...still trying to convince themselves of this lunacy.
Click to expand...
This is very common with woosters of all type from alt-med cranks to xians, conspiracy peddlers to the UFOs-are-aliens crowd.
As Douglas Adams put it:
If they don’t keep on exercising their lips,..., their brains start working
Click to expand...
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
If they're not listening the first time, what makes you think they'll listen the tenth time? No, you're not repeating your nonsense until people listen; you're repeating it until they believe.

That's generally referred to as brainwashing. I'm just thankful that your movement sucks at every conscious activity it attempts.
Click to expand...

Yet here you are on this forum, repeating yourself. How ironic.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I suspect that you don't know what the word "skepticism" really means.

...and could different evidence convince you to change your mind again? If no, then it's not skepticism.
Click to expand...

Sure it would, but nothing will change the fact that industrial steel will always offer some minimal amount of resistance unless it is demolished. WTC 7 was clearly demolished.

Now if you demonstrated that WTC 7 never reached free fall we could talk.
 
tempesta29 said:
Sure it would, but nothing will change the fact that industrial steel will always offer some minimal amount of resistance unless it is demolished. WTC 7 was clearly demolished.

Now if you demonstrated that WTC 7 never reached free fall we could talk.
Click to expand...

Which has been demonstrated countless times.
 
tempesta29 said:
Sure it would, but nothing will change the fact that industrial steel will always offer some minimal amount of resistance unless it is demolished. WTC 7 was clearly demolished.

Now if you demonstrated that WTC 7 never reached free fall we could talk.
Click to expand...

Pray tell why the collapse of WTC 7 ( a fire induced progressive collapse ) would support an inside job? Steven Jones "thermite" samples are supposedly from the towers right? Not WTC 7.

There's not one shred of evidence of explosives, detonations or anything of the like in any video or testimony regarding WTC 7. What we DO have, is fires raging for 7 hours unfought. We DO have video and photographic evidence of the damage WTC 1's collapse caused on 7. We have the firefighters who repeatedly were saying the building was going to go down HOURS before it did. Are they in on it?

Do you even understand the NIST report? Or the construction of 7 and the large atrium it had? Don't think saying WTC 7 was a CD is going to reset the timer...pretty sure you're completely wrong and misinformed on that building. I love the "Free Fall" fallacy though, considering freefall isn't a characteristic of CD.

So we have 3 buildings, brought down under a controlled demolition, all unlike any other controlled demolition before or since, none of which came down "into their footprint" and all 3 caused severe damage to surrounding buildings...come on...and you're claiming to be a skeptic?

tick tock
 
Oz1976 said:
Pray tell why the collapse of WTC 7 ( a fire induced progressive collapse ) would support an inside job? Steven Jones "thermite" samples are supposedly from the towers right? Not WTC 7.

There's not one shred of evidence of explosives, detonations or anything of the like in any video or testimony regarding WTC 7. What we DO have, is fires raging for 7 hours unfought. We DO have video and photographic evidence of the damage WTC 1's collapse caused on 7. We have the firefighters who repeatedly were saying the building was going to go down HOURS before it did. Are they in on it?

Do you even understand the NIST report? Or the construction of 7 and the large atrium it had? Don't think saying WTC 7 was a CD is going to reset the timer...pretty sure you're completely wrong and misinformed on that building. I love the "Free Fall" fallacy though, considering freefall isn't a characteristic of CD.

So we have 3 buildings, brought down under a controlled demolition, all unlike any other controlled demolition before or since, none of which came down "into their footprint" and all 3 caused severe damage to surrounding buildings...come on...and you're claiming to be a skeptic?

tick tock
Click to expand...

Yet in the end, NIST measured the collapse of WTC 7 using data taken from the face of the building unhit by debris. Why would those structural components ever reach free fall? The north face of WTC 7 was virtually unscathed, save for a few isolated office fires.

My favorite part is your "free fall fallacy" bit, wherein you commit a fallacy yourself. Just because free fall isn't always a characteristic of a controlled demolition isn't the point. The point is that WTC 7 could not have reached such speeds unless controlled explosives had been used to remove this resistance. The point isn't whether or not all buildings in a CD reach free fall; it's how WTC 7 could have reached free fall WITHOUT using CDs. Think before you type, please.

At least one CD expert seems to think WTC 7 came down just like a typical controlled demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

So WTC 7 must have many of the hallmarks of a CD.
 
The latest dumb person I've spoken to about 9/11 told me that he doesn't believe anything that's written on the internet because people write that stuff.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The latest dumb person I've spoken to about 9/11 told me that he doesn't believe anything that's written on the internet because people write that stuff.
Click to expand...
And people never lie.
You can't figure out 911 given the answers! But you sure are great typing practice. The truth movement, 911 truth, a name only NAZIs would like, and so 1984, it smacks of stupid. You are gullible, you are 911 truth; bravo, you make it look so effort free. Bravo!

For #29

woodbeambentsteel-full.jpg

Yep, steel never fails! How has education failed 911 truth? Oh, you are suppose to try, you are suppose to make an effort to learn; 911 truth failed. '

Tick tock, why has 911 truth failed to earn a Pulitzer? It takes evidence. (hearsay is not evidence, opinions are not evidence, etc._)
 
Clayton Moore said:
The latest dumb person I've spoken to about 9/11 told me that he doesn't believe anything that's written on the internet because people write that stuff.
Click to expand...


But your not dumb like that person, because unlike them, you believe everything written on the internet by any joe shmoe conspiracy nut...:rolleyes:
 
tempesta29 said:
Yet in the end, NIST measured the collapse of WTC 7 using data taken from the face of the building unhit by debris. Why would those structural components ever reach free fall? The north face of WTC 7 was virtually unscathed, save for a few isolated office fires.

My favorite part is your "free fall fallacy" bit, wherein you commit a fallacy yourself. Just because free fall isn't always a characteristic of a controlled demolition isn't the point. The point is that WTC 7 could not have reached such speeds unless controlled explosives had been used to remove this resistance. The point isn't whether or not all buildings in a CD reach free fall; it's how WTC 7 could have reached free fall WITHOUT using CDs. Think before you type, please.

At least one CD expert seems to think WTC 7 came down just like a typical controlled demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

So WTC 7 must have many of the hallmarks of a CD.
Click to expand...

And what propaganda movie is he being shown? Is he being shown the south facade and fires? No? Is he being shown what the firefighters were saying all day? No? Does he have any direct knowledge of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1 when this interview was done? No?

Protip: Your savior on 7, Mr. Jowenko, DOES NOT believe WTC 1 and 2 were CD. He was making a statement when put on the spot about 1 building.

You don't understand the NIST report. You don't understand the method of collapse. There was no controlled demolition plain and simple.
 
Oz1976 said:
And what propaganda movie is he being shown? Is he being shown the south facade and fires? No? Is he being shown what the firefighters were saying all day? No? Does he have any direct knowledge of the structural damage from the collapse of WTC 1 when this interview was done? No?

Protip: Your savior on 7, Mr. Jowenko, DOES NOT believe WTC 1 and 2 were CD. He was making a statement when put on the spot about 1 building.

You don't understand the NIST report. You don't understand the method of collapse. There was no controlled demolition plain and simple.
Click to expand...

One could also go to Danny Jowenko's very own business homepage:
http://www.jowenko.com
and listen to the intro trailer. What do we hear? What we always hear when buildings are CDed - a rapid sequence of very loud BANG!!!s

Danny was played a silent clip of the WTC7 collapse - volume down to 0! Had he been played the same with sound, he just might have noticed that you can hear the building collapse, but no rapid sequence of very loud BANG!!!s just before the collapse began. Hmm!

Jowenko also was very obviously totally unaware of anything about WTC7 - he knew nothing at all about the fires, didn't know when the building collapsed (what day!). Looking for some seconds at a rough blueprint for 1 floor isn't enough to learn about the structure. So while Jowenko surely is an expert for explosive CD, he was, at the time of the interview, surely the illest informed expert you could think of. Expertise without information to work on is worthless.
 
tempesta29 said:
Sure it would, but nothing will change the fact that industrial steel will always offer some minimal amount of resistance unless it is demolished.
Click to expand...

Do you have a cite for that assertion, or is it "just obvious" that structural steel cannot lose all structural strength due to, for example, the fracture of plastic hinges at the pivot points of a multi-storey buckle? And have you explained this point to - for example - Zdenek Bazant, and pointed out how much more valid your expertise is than his?

In fact, do you even know what the terms "plastic hinge", "multi-storey buckle" or "fracture" mean?

Dave

ETA: And, to get back on topic, ignorami making sweeping assertions about complex topics they don't even begin to understand won't stop the clock; that's one of the oldest forms of argument from the truth movement.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
One could also go to Danny Jowenko's very own business homepage:
http://www.jowenko.com
and listen to the intro trailer. What do we hear? What we always hear when buildings are CDed - a rapid sequence of very loud BANG!!!s

Danny was played a silent clip of the WTC7 collapse - volume down to 0! Had he been played the same with sound, he just might have noticed that you can hear the building collapse, but no rapid sequence of very loud BANG!!!s just before the collapse began. Hmm!

Jowenko also was very obviously totally unaware of anything about WTC7 - he knew nothing at all about the fires, didn't know when the building collapsed (what day!). Looking for some seconds at a rough blueprint for 1 floor isn't enough to learn about the structure. So while Jowenko surely is an expert for explosive CD, he was, at the time of the interview, surely the illest informed expert you could think of. Expertise without information to work on is worthless.
Click to expand...

The fires. What a freaking lying canard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom