Circularity of the "never happened before" argument

The steel portion collapsed after hours of an inferno.

The steel building that was wtc2 collapsed after 56 minutes.
 
Wow those goalposts move fast.

The towers survived the plane impacts.

Might a gaping hole in the exterior support structure effect the ability of that building to hold up in the midst of a raging fire?

NO, of course not!
 
What do you think, JH....might that massive hole in the exterior support structure have weakened the building at all?
 
Wow those goalposts move fast.

The towers survived the plane impacts.

that isn't moving goalposts; the towers survived the impacts initially; the subsequent fire and damage from those impacts lead to collapse.

Stop separating out the events into their "own" event and sayng that "event" could not have collapse;then say they have no relation to each other. A combination of events lead the collapse of the towers.
 
Swoooosh! Another point flies over JH's head!

He's trying to help you understand what "progressive collapse" means.

I am underwhelmed by their reading comprehension. The CONCEPT of a building suffering a progressive collapse is not new. Almost all structures that have suffered from progressive collapse are different forms of construction.
 
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?

You tell me that the Ronan Point Tower isn't relevant, and then you use a barbecue for your analogy? :boggled:
 
You got calcs to back it up this time?

Looks like Newton Bits took care of that.

BTW, I directed you to calculations last time as well. You just couldn't be bothered clicking on the link.
 
You tell me that the Ronan Point Tower isn't relevant, and then you use a barbecue for your analogy? :boggled:

A closer analogy

now, you troofers--is there any subject you can stick to? You have 20 or 30 threads dealing with the collapse--this is about circular reasoning of "It has never happened before, so it can't"
Next off topic is getting reported.
Suicide by mod--the troofer's choice...
 
Last edited:
I see JHarrow has regurgitated another classic, truther brain-breaker...

"Plane impact = no collapse
Fire = no collapse
Therefore, plane impact + fire = no collapse"

In other words, 2+2 is not greater than 3!
 
Last edited:
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.
That's only partially correct at best. And in any case, so what? Extraordinary events can happen at any time; read a little history and you'll see that for yourself quite easily.
 
Keep it civil, and on topic, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Keep it civil, and on topic, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

Yes, thank you Chillzero.



I'm waiting for someone to try to refute my argument in the OP: Saying the Towers couldn't have collapsed because nothing like it has ever happened is circular logic. It's also ignoring the fact that if there weren't a first time for everything, nothing would happen, ever.
 

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