defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
then your claim is at best a non sequitor and at worst a blatant strawman
Don't mention it twoofer. lol
It was such a perfect parody. Sadly, you haven't even had to exagerate it much at all.
Now take that toofer, you liar!
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
And before the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk no one had ever achieved flight in a heavier-than-air craft before. Before Sputnik no man-made object had ever been put into orbit around the Earth.
What's your fixation with something never having happened before? There's always a first time for something to occur.
It would seem that the whole entire official version of events regarding 9/11 is what has the fixation with the “first time things have ever happened”. In fact without a strong belief of coincidence, a strong willingness for suspension of disbelief, and there’s a “first time for everything” mentality the official version wouldn't fly at all. If the official version was the Wright brother’s plane it would have crashed and burned without ever getting off the ground killing both of them. It’s that lame. It's that much of a disaster.
Garb
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,005
I'm pretty sure this thread is not about the validity of the "official story".
It's about the argument that because something has never happened, it cannot happen.
CHF
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,871
Meanwhile, the twoofers - after six years of research - still don't even have a friggin' narrative.
CHF
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,871
Are you the same LastChild who admitted on another thread that since you've never seen the circumstances of 9/11 other than on 9/11, that you have no idea how those circumstances should have played out?
Now here you are, once again ignoring the jet impacts and the fact that the events of 9/11 were unprecedented. Here you are, yet again, making a big deal about unprecedented events resulting in unprecedented things.
You really are hopeless.
Last edited:
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Let's take a look at the Ronan Point Tower example? There was a small gas explosion that destroyed one small section of wall on the 18th floor. It caused a progressive collapse that carried down to the bottom of the building.
On 9/11, one floor was destroyed by impact from a plane and the subsequent fire. It caused a progressive collapse that carried down to the bottom of the building.
It is not a new concept. We in the engineering field have known about it for a long time.
On 9/11, one floor was destroyed by impact from a plane and the subsequent fire. It caused a progressive collapse that carried down to the bottom of the building.
It is not a new concept. We in the engineering field have known about it for a long time.
Last edited:
That building seems to still be there.
CHF
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,871
Swoooosh! Another point flies over JH's head!
He's trying to help you understand what "progressive collapse" means.
Yes let's take a look why don't we?
"Only a few weeks after the occupants had moved in, a gas explosion demolished a load bearing wall, causing the collapse of one entire corner of the building. Four people were killed in the collapse, and seventeen were injured."
What else have we got here?
"Ronan Point, named after Harry Ronan was part of the wave of tower blocks built in the 1960s as cheap, affordable prefabricated housing for inhabitants of the West Ham region of London."
An explosion. Just like a bomb. To a cheap piece of crap building. Is this the best you can do? Why is that? In fact why don't you just compare the WTC to a CD? The debunker in the other thread was comparing to the Windsor tower and was implying that a fire to a few floors near the top could globally collapse a steel structure high-rise. At least I think that's what he was trying to do but I don't know because the Windsor didn't suffer global collapse either.
The WTC suffered a global collapse as in nothing left at all in less then an hour.
Then model a steel structure high-rise suffering global collapse from damage to a few floors near the top. In fact why don't you just go out back and burn down your barbeque? Use all the lighter fluid you like. Let me know how it goes. It shouldn't be hard for all you genius's in the engineering field to at least model it all the way through. BTW what's taking so long on that WTC7 report? Got any inside skinny on that one? I mean it's not complicated is it? Are you really positive how that ones gonna come out?
What’s this open mic night for the wannabe duh bunka’s?
WHAT TIME DOES THE REAL DEBUNKING START?
Any day now. Any day…
The real debunking will start when the wtc7 report comes out. I mean they wouldn't delay it again would they....
CHF
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 3,871
But remember.....the steel portion of the Mardid tower collapsing from fire shows that steel buildings cannot collapse from fire.
