• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

9-11 Facts Movement

Thunder

Banned
T
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
34,918
I propose the creation of the Movement for 9-11 Facts, or 9-11 Facts Movement.

We have seen for a while now, how the 9-11 "Truth" Movement has nothing to do with facts. Just the cliche of "truth", which is really just lies and deceit.

But facts, are something different. Facts are backed up by evidence. Facts have viable sources. Facts are not up to interpretation and perspective.

As of today, there is no website known as "911Facts.org". I propose we create it.

so anytime anyone Googles "9-11 facts", they will get this website.

who's with me?

edit: I see there is already a website called 9-11Facts.net, but it is very small and has little data. but its of the same idea.
 
Last edited:
Go for it! I'll get you started:


  1. It is NOT impossible for steel-framed buildings to completely collapse from fire. We simply have no other examples of this.

  2. It was the unique combination of PLANE CRASHES and FIRE that brought the buildings down.

  3. It was the unique combination of STRUCTURAL DAMAGE and FIRES that brought the building down.

  4. We have no EVIDENCE of significant fires or structural damage. Except for the 20-storey rectangular GASH on the south face. NIST didn't need to mention or model the gash.

  5. NOBODY took pictures of the south face of WTC7. They were too busy. It's THAT simple.

  6. The KINETIC ENERGY of the upper block slumping CRASHING through the 85% remaining heat-weakened core and perimeter columns was TOO GREAT for the rest of the 80 or 90 floors of intact building which did NOT suffer damage or fire.

  7. Eighty and 90 storeys of intact structural steel would give way ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY with this TREMENDOUSTM kinetic energy of the falling rubble from the upper block destroying itself against the rest of the building.

  8. Newton's Third Law IS accounted for in this process. The upper block destroys itself!! Furthermore, Newton's Third Law is ASSUMED in the impact of rubble pieces on the rest of the intact building, and therefore doesn't need to be SHOWN or CALCULATED.

  9. Thirty percent of the COLLAPSE ENERGY was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the KINETIC ENERGY of the falling mass. We're not sure how "collapse energy" is different from kinetic energy but it's probably something you wouldn't understand.

  10. A building's structural steel framing does NOT provide strength for the building as a whole. Only for ONE FLOORTM at a time.

  11. There was NO concrete in the buildings, besides the floor slabs. NONE of the steel was encased in concrete.

  12. There was NO reinforcement of the concrete slabs.

  13. The WEAKENING of the floor connections caused the floor connections to WEAKEN.

  14. There was NO CROSS-BRACING of the core columns.

  15. There were NO eyewitness reports of explosions.

  16. It is TEMPERATURE which weakens steel, NOT heat. Correlation IS causation. Furthermore, this has NO applicability to our argument, so stop bringing it up! Stupid truthers.

  17. ....
 
Oops. How could I forget?

17. Fires producing a lot of smoke are very hot!
 
Well, as a firefighter, I'd have to point out that you're not doing very well with your bookends (1 and 17). Yes, there are examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire alone. And yes, fires producing a lot of smoke can be very hot indeed. I didn't bother to read the contents; I think this is one book I can judge from its cover. OK, that's a mangled metaphor, but you get the idea.
 
ergo said:
Go for it! I'll get you started:


  1. It is NOT impossible for steel-framed buildings to completely collapse from fire. We simply have no other examples of this.

  2. It was the unique combination of PLANE CRASHES and FIRE that brought the buildings down.

  3. It was the unique combination of STRUCTURAL DAMAGE and FIRES that brought the building down.

  4. We have no EVIDENCE of significant fires or structural damage. Except for the 20-storey rectangular GASH on the south face. NIST didn't need to mention or model the gash.

  5. NOBODY took pictures of the south face of WTC7. They were too busy. It's THAT simple.

  6. The KINETIC ENERGY of the upper block slumping CRASHING through the 85% remaining heat-weakened core and perimeter columns was TOO GREAT for the rest of the 80 or 90 floors of intact building which did NOT suffer damage or fire.

  7. Eighty and 90 storeys of intact structural steel would give way ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY with this TREMENDOUSTM kinetic energy of the falling rubble from the upper block destroying itself against the rest of the building.

  8. Newton's Third Law IS accounted for in this process. The upper block destroys itself!! Furthermore, Newton's Third Law is ASSUMED in the impact of rubble pieces on the rest of the intact building, and therefore doesn't need to be SHOWN or CALCULATED.

  9. Thirty percent of the COLLAPSE ENERGY was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the KINETIC ENERGY of the falling mass. We're not sure how "collapse energy" is different from kinetic energy but it's probably something you wouldn't understand.

  10. A building's structural steel framing does NOT provide strength for the building as a whole. Only for ONE FLOORTM at a time.

  11. There was NO concrete in the buildings, besides the floor slabs. NONE of the steel was encased in concrete.

  12. There was NO reinforcement of the concrete slabs.

  13. The WEAKENING of the floor connections caused the floor connections to WEAKEN.

  14. There was NO CROSS-BRACING of the core columns.

  15. There were NO eyewitness reports of explosions.

  16. It is TEMPERATURE which weakens steel, NOT heat. Correlation IS causation. Furthermore, this has NO applicability to our argument, so stop bringing it up! Stupid truthers.

  17. ....
Click to expand...

I can't keep up anymore. Is this a parody?
 
If "Truther Sarcasm" is an oxymoron, then "Truther" must just be a moron.

Yea. I went there.
 
ergo said:
Go for it! I'll get you started:


  1. It is NOT impossible for steel-framed buildings to completely collapse from fire. We simply have no other examples of this.
Click to expand...

You said this before. It was wrong then and wrong now. You've been given examples. Is this plain trolling or can you not read?
 
I think a facts movement makes a lot more sense than a truth movement.
 
RedIbis said:
I think a facts movement makes a lot more sense than a truth movement.
Click to expand...

especially seeing how Truthers make a mockery of the word "truth".

They use it as a punchline. As a means to make money. As a propaganda tool. As an appeal to emotion.
 
RedIbis said:
I think a facts movement makes a lot more sense than a truth movement.
Click to expand...

History is full of people passionate about something that turns out to be wrong, people passionate about facts that weren't really facts. Time will tell which one of us belongs in what group, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom