"24 hard facts about 9/11 that cannot be debunked"

sonofgloin said:
Thanks for the replies my fellow thinkers, it gave me the impetus to revisit the facts that formed my opinion all those years ago. I am moving on from this thread safe in the knowledge........

.....................I have been fooled by a bunch of con-men. I can't believe I could be so stupid as to fall for this stuff. Thanks for turning me around.
Click to expand...

Finished that statement for you.

Hey.........I can hope. :boxedin:
 
sonofgloin said:
Yes BN I stuffed that up, I knew when I posted it, the engineers designed it to resist a large aircraft. Doesn't change the fact that it was designed to be impact reistant and it was....then it burnt to the ground....
Click to expand...

This is also wrong. No one designs an office building to resist large aircraft. They designed the building to be an office building. After they designed it, they did a "what if" calculation regarding a low speed 707.
 
beachnut said:
The "in its own footprint" is classic failure.
It means you have no facts to support your fantasy.

You bring up experiments for steel frame buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 were not like the experiment, they were real events, not tests. The experiments you present by google knowledge, do not say WTC 1, 2, and 7 can't collapse, and you can't use the report to make up lies about 911. You googled up the experiments used by 911 truth to fool the gullible. If you had something you would do a paper to prove your point. Yet, you never looked up the real reports, or did you?




You repeat failed claims googled up, and adopt them out of ignorance, like saying, "in its own footprint". What does it mean? You can't figure out 911 after 12 years, so you repeat failed junk.



You can't defend any of the 24 hard facts with evidence? Why not?

The " in its own footprint" is a red flag of woo. Means 911 truth has no evidence, only failed slogans of 911 truth. 12 years of the movement of fantasy, idiotic lies, and nonsense. 911 truth = failure. You will need evidence to change that fact.

---Where are you hiding it?---
Click to expand...

Right here : Evidence http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9525376#post9525376

What exactly are you and Oystein trying to pull here ?
Dr Bazant, The NIST, and FEMA all agree....
the Twin WTC towers and 7 WTC all fell into their footprints.

363814c71dfb59eb19.jpg
 
Fonebone said:

Right here : Evidence http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9525376#post9525376

What exactly are you and Oystein trying to pull here ?
Dr Bazant, The NIST, and FEMA all agree....
the Twin WTC towers and 7 WTC all fell into their footprints.
Click to expand...

And where would you expect them to fall?
 
As the date stamp on the picture clearly shows, that was after two days worth of cleanup of the surrounding streets. The collapse left parts of WTC7 on the ROOF of neighboring buildings. I'm sure you don't consider the roof of neighboring buildings "in the footprint of WTC7" do you?
 
slyjoe said:
This is also wrong. No one designs an office building to resist large aircraft. They designed the building to be an office building. After they designed it, they did a "what if" calculation regarding a low speed 707.
Click to expand...

It wasn't designed to resist a collision with a luxury liner either.
 
Fonebone said:
...
the Twin WTC towers and 7 WTC all fell into their footprints. ...
Click to expand...
Has to be one of the dumbest slogans of 911 truth, "fell into their footprints". Dumbed down nothingness which proves a few fringe conspiracy theorist who can't do math and physics repeat a do nothing phrase of silly woo, "fell into their footprints".

Wow, your evidence, a slogan of woo. Cool, 911 truth's fantasy has vapor evidence. Better go buy some coffee from Gage's strap-hanger.
http://wakeupcoffee.org/

12 years of "fell into their (own) footprints". I can't believe how anti-intellectual that is, and it means nothing.

Not sure what a footprint is, but last time I took of WTC towers socks, there were no feet. How can 911 truth make up a dumber statement? How can 911 truth cult followers repeat a dumber statement? When you think 911 truth can't, 911 truth comes out with dumber stuff.

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911a.htm

Looks like feet print for buildings is what ever happens when they collapse due to fire, gravity, and sometime impacts 7 to 11 times greater than design.

The best part, 911 truth can't define footprint. 911 truth accidentally made up the footprint statements, they sounded good to people who can't think for themselves and gullible 911 truth follower repeat the silly phrase without thinking - drones to the truth.

Is this like a Bigfoot footprint? lol, a fantasy? yes it is

... fell into its own footprint, as meaningless as path of least resistance (which describes 911 truth followers approach to research, they avoid it).
 
Fonebone said:

Right here : Evidence http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9525376#post9525376

What exactly are you and Oystein trying to pull here ?
Dr Bazant, The NIST, and FEMA all agree....
the Twin WTC towers and 7 WTC all fell into their footprints.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814c71dfb59eb19.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

How do you reconcile that with twoofers who claim that the "smoking gun" to explosive demolition of the towers is that they ejected material far outside their footprints?

(Note: In or outside the footprint is a non-issue to me. To me, they looked like they fell in the expected direction. That is to say, down.)
 
Gorgonian said:
As the date stamp on the picture clearly shows, that was after two days worth of cleanup of the surrounding streets. The collapse left parts of WTC7 on the ROOF of neighboring buildings. I'm sure you don't consider the roof of neighboring buildings "in the footprint of WTC7" do you?
Click to expand...

He appears to be a Truther so my guess would be yes.
 
sonofgloin said:
Thanks for the replies my fellow thinkers, it gave me the impetus to revisit the facts that formed my opinion all those years ago. I am moving on from this thread safe in the knowledge........
Click to expand...

that the WTC buildings were brought down by shotguns? :crowded:
 
sonofgloin said:
Thanks for the replies my fellow thinkers, it gave me the impetus to revisit the facts that formed my opinion all those years ago. I am moving on from this thread safe in the knowledge........
Click to expand...

That your POV is impervious to facts... :rolleyes:
 
leftysergeant said:
It takes about 6 years for a new crop of grade school kids to learn how to read well enough to know what the snake oil salesmen are peddling so all of this crap looks like new information to some poor schmuck.
Click to expand...

Your hypothesis is frighteningly sensible both in understanding current trends and predicting future activity.

I'll make sure to continue educating the RocketBoys with this in mind as they are entering the next 6-year window.
 
ozeco41 said:
Both those obsessions on the same level to this English born Aussie.

Footballs are spherical and the game played with bat and ball has the initial letter "C"

:runaway
Click to expand...

Croquet, I assume - though I was under the impression pink flamingos were the striking instrument of choice.
 
dafydd said:
It wasn't designed to resist a collision with a luxury liner either.
Click to expand...

And even IF it was designed as such (it wasn't but just suppose), what would be the evidence it was built that way?

For there would never be a difference between design and reality, wouldn't there be? (cough! Ronan Point. Cough! Hyatt Regency Walkway. Cough!)
 
sonofgloin said:
Yes BN I stuffed that up, I knew when I posted it, the engineers designed it to resist a large aircraft. Doesn't change the fact that it was designed to be impact reistant and it was....then it burnt to the ground....
Click to expand...

I recently read a book called "To Engineer is Human". It was written well before 9/11 but talked about some important engineering failures and how they taught engineers how to do their jobs better in the future.

One of the problems engineers face is the question of how failure-proof they should make any given design. They could make it three times stronger than the strongest force they expect it to experience, but...how do they know what forces it will experience? How many times will it experience that force? Will the correct materials be used to build the thing? Will it be assembled properly? Do they need to add even more failure-proofing to account for these possibilities?

One of the problems with the WTC was that, according to inspections a few years before its destruction, fire-proofing was found to be installed improperly. So right off the bat that would invalidate any calculations that might have been done, at the time the building was designed, that would show it was invulnerable to airliner impact. And that's just the fireproofing. There could have been many other mistakes in materials and assembly that weren't detected. The buildings would still function perfectly fine for decades, but would not be able to withstand that worst-case scenario it was designed to survive.
 
sonofgloin said:
Thanks for the replies my fellow thinkers, it gave me the impetus to revisit the facts that formed my opinion all those years ago. I am moving on from this thread safe in the knowledge........
Click to expand...

that the personal character assassinations will stop and I can bring some rationality to other acolytes of a deception.

But that wasn't to be.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom