Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
What is the picture of? Is it associated with 9/11?
Click to expand...
It's a picture of a burnt wood beam supporting steel beams which have twisted and bent due to a fire. Didn't the caption appear on your version? It's a refutation of this ridiculous statement:

Clayton Moore said:
You could apply the heat of an office fire directly to a Tower support column for most of eternity and it would never weaken sufficiently without help beyond the building's force on it.
Click to expand...

You obviously have zero knowledge in this area. Not to mention that it would not be necessary to weaken the support columns with the fire - only to sag the floors and pull them free of their connections so the support columns are left unbraced, at which point the columns are going to fail due to having a too-large slenderness ratio.

Maybe you'd care to address this:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...ge=1&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:22,s:0&tx=140&ty=77
 
RedIbis said:
Check Gravy's Flight 93 pics. Once you locate them, you'll see the dumpster is about a third full, and it's debatable whether those are plane parts.
Click to expand...

If they are not debris from United 93 then what are they and can you prove it?
 
Um excuse me... when a plane hits earth at 500 mph or faster are we somehow supposed to expect it to look anything like a plane afterwards?
 
RedIbis said:
The bible is a commonly held narrative, doesn't mean it's true.
Click to expand...
Maybe if you doubt the parts are from UA 93 you should ask the volunteers that collected them. They unlike the creators of the bible are still alive and accessible. Wait, that would be what a researcher does.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
The bible is a commonly held narrative, doesn't mean it's true.
Click to expand...

The bible wasn't presented as evidence in a court of law with no complaints. I doubt that would happen with the bible.
 
Last edited:
I'm just shocked at the extreme level of proof we are required to present when it comes to the commonly-held narrative, yet many truthers can just pull just about anything they want out of their nether regions and call it truth, when it pleases them to give any evidence at all or even define what their theory is.

I have a healthy definition of beyond a reasonable doubt; I'm fairly tired of UN-reasonable doubt being shoved down my throat.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
I don't see a plane.
Click to expand...
Because you have no comprehension skill or knowledge of what a plane looks like when it hits the ground at high speed. You lack knowledge, you lack the skills to research and figure it out. You believe in lies due to your lack of knowledge. 10 years of failure on 911 issues, you are winning.
 
RedIbis said:
The more appropriate question is if they are from 93.
Click to expand...

As suggested by DGM, since the answers as given here aren't satisfactory to you, go ask the people who performed the clean up work, call the airliners to see if they can check the records, do something. I can only assume that finding such answers isn't worth the effort if you haven't had enough of an interest in doing so already. Constantly "suggesting" doubt isn't going to get you the answers you're looking for any faster than doing nothing at all.

No offense but you never make an argument beyond casting doubt.... there's little capacity for debate in such circumstances because you don't bring anything up that can be particularly productive...
 
sylvan8798 said:
It's a picture of a burnt wood beam supporting steel beams which have twisted and bent due to a fire. Didn't the caption appear on your version? It's a refutation of this ridiculous statement:



You obviously have zero knowledge in this area. Not to mention that it would not be necessary to weaken the support columns with the fire - only to sag the floors and pull them free of their connections so the support columns are left unbraced, at which point the columns are going to fail due to having a too-large slenderness ratio.

Maybe you'd care to address this:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...ge=1&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:22,s:0&tx=140&ty=77
Click to expand...

Looks like it's still standing.


How did the bent steel get on the wooden beam? The "beam" could have been 3' long and the "steel" could have been bent by Charles Atlas.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Looks like it's still standing.


How did the bent steel get on the wooden beam? The "beam" could have been 3' long and the "steel" could have been bent by Charles Atlas.
Click to expand...

:tr:


I swear, when or if Aliens land, I'm going to learn their language just good enough to tell them you don't represent our species.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
As suggested by DGM, since the answers as given here aren't satisfactory to you, go ask the people who performed the clean up work, call the airliners to see if they can check the records, do something. I can only assume that finding such answers isn't worth the effort if you haven't had enough of an interest in doing so already. Constantly "suggesting" doubt isn't going to get you the answers you're looking for any faster than doing nothing at all.

No offense but you never make an argument beyond casting doubt.... there's little capacity for debate in such circumstances because you don't bring anything up that can be particularly productive...
Click to expand...

All you're doing is making assumptions. You don't know what I've researched or who I've contacted. I wouldn't assume my comments in this forum represent the totality of my involvement with 9/11 research.

As for debate, feel free to present a legitimate debate topic, get it moderated and I'm all in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom