Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
- Status
This is what's known as cherry picking!
Animal
Master Poster
or quote mining.......either way, it is the only way troofers can maintain their religion.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I wonder if these truthers will still be shouting (for want of a better word) into the wind in twenty or thirty years time. What a waste of a life.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
If aliens reduce the world's IQ by a large factor then we might be ready.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Yes,the squiggly graphics will blow the whole conspiracy wide open. Who needs science?
You are getting feebler and more desperate by the day Beachnut. Most of my videos have a title prefix of demolition, sure. Most YT searches for anything related to 9/11 usually include the word, so it's silly not to include it. (Approaching 1 million views there). You may notice that the videos do not make *conspiracy* or *explosives* claims, but for the vast majority are simply good quality versions of available footages from various viewpoints, or various interesting features highlighted. WTC7 Shockwave Visible is a good example there, within which I have processed the video to allow you to actually see the progression of the descent of the East penthouse through the structure. Ifyou have a problem with such, that's your problem.
If you want to presume whatever you please from such, be my guest.
I note you have utterly ignored the actual meaning of the words in the post you responded to, in favour of witless petty Beachnutterisms. Good for you, pal. Keep it up !
Ooh, nearly missed this...
What on earth are you talking about ? As I told you last time you made this statement, I haven't performed any velocity analysis for 175. What, from whom, are you referring to ?
ozeco41
Philosopher
Your frustration understandable given that your research in this area (If I have it right) seems to eliminate all of the MIHOP claims which rest on use of explosives to initiate collapse....That detail alone requires the majority of that group you call *twoofers* to re-think their position at a number of fundamental levels, and you criticise me for doing so ? What a joke
Welcome to the debunker camp on those aspects.
The natural inference (for anyone with half a noodle)...What is the point in *blowing it up if it's already in motion*. Indeed, you have it right in that sense.
And yet with that information placed right in front of the faces of the likes of dafydd, carlitos, Toke & beachnut they respond with utter nonsense, making the same old tired accusations I have endured for, frankly, years.
I am against any such partitioning of individual viewpoint. There are no real sides, however much those who class themselves to be in one or another may wish to make it so (perhaps to fulfill a need to belong, who knows).Welcome to the debunker camp on those aspects.
Most self-styled *debunkers* are full of crap, making the same mistakes over and over again with barely an independant thought in existance, parroting the words of others to make themselves feel better about their rather pathetic fun-based hobby of *twoofer baiting*. Similarly most self-styled *truthers* are similarly entranched in their own brand of crap, and I'm sure engage in similar amounts of what they perceive to be *debunker baiting*. Neither *side* does itself any favours. Nothing really changes there. Pointless banter ad infinitum.
I've been branded as all manner of things. A twoofer nutjob by debunkers, and a shill by truthers.
I'm not in any camp. I'm me. Most of the crap thrown in my direction shows way more about the thrower than me, and I have to say it's pretty funny most of the time.
It's rather ironic that folk such as Major_Tom and myself, who have actively shown new information, much of which refutes pre-existing *theories*, are subject to such nonsense from the folk here.
Not that me saying this will make any difference to many it's *aimed at*, but hey ho.
Good to know presented information doesn't slip by entirely
ozeco41
Philosopher
My sort of philosophy. However there is a remote but plausible option that I have often felt the need to identify when debating committed truthers.
I will explain using the example of the "global collapse" stage of the twin towers. I have long been convinced of a three parallel mechanisms explanation of that collapse. viz a sort of "pancaking" of the open office space (this was before I was aware of the ROOSD acronym), then peeling off of the outer perimeter and near simultaneous strip down of the core.
In that scenario there is no need for demolition assistance BUT the logical possibility I would allow to ensure the logic overall covers the options is that demolition was attempted even though not needed.
Not a likely scenario. Anyone who was clever enough to cause a top down demolition assisted collapse to look like the natural consequences of impact and fire damage would also be clever enough to realise, even before the event, that assistance was not needed after initiation.
So, back to the point, even for initiation if it was started by "natural" processes the range of logical options must include that someone did try demolition even though redundant.
The point is only bout logical purity.
And I bet someone misreads this post and send's me into the purgatory of the truther camp. Them's the breaks.
BTW I agree on the "I am against any such partitioning of individual viewpoint." but I find it convenient to use the labels for pragmatic shorthand.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
The natural inference (for anyone with half a noodle)...What is the point in *blowing it up if it's already in motion*. Indeed, you have it right in that sense.
And yet with that information placed right in front of the faces of the likes of dafydd, carlitos, Toke & beachnut they respond with utter nonsense, making the same old tired accusations I have endured for, frankly, years.
I am against any such partitioning of individual viewpoint. There are no real sides, however much those who class themselves to be in one or another may wish to make it so (perhaps to fulfill a need to belong, who knows).
Most self-styled *debunkers* are full of crap, making the same mistakes over and over again with barely an independant thought in existance, parroting the words of others to make themselves feel better about their rather pathetic fun-based hobby of *twoofer baiting*. Similarly most self-styled *truthers* are similarly entranched in their own brand of crap, and I'm sure engage in similar amounts of what they perceive to be *debunker baiting*. Neither *side* does itself any favours. Nothing really changes there. Pointless banter ad infinitum.
I've been branded as all manner of things. A twoofer nutjob by debunkers, and a shill by truthers.
I'm not in any camp. I'm me. Most of the crap thrown in my direction shows way more about the thrower than me, and I have to say it's pretty funny most of the time.
It's rather ironic that folk such as Major_Tom and myself, who have actively shown new information, much of which refutes pre-existing *theories*, are subject to such nonsense from the folk here.
Not that me saying this will make any difference to many it's *aimed at*, but hey ho.
Good to know presented information doesn't slip by entirely
Major Tom is a troll,hasn't dawned on you yet? Telltale Tom too. They have taken on the mantle from Bill Smith,who seems to have found another hobby.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
My sort of philosophy. However there is a remote but plausible option that I have often felt the need to identify when debating committed truthers.
I will explain using the example of the "global collapse" stage of the twin towers. I have long been convinced of a three parallel mechanisms explanation of that collapse. viz a sort of "pancaking" of the open office space (this was before I was aware of the ROOSD acronym), then peeling off of the outer perimeter and near simultaneous strip down of the core.
In that scenario there is no need for demolition assistance BUT the logical possibility I would allow to ensure the logic overall covers the options is that demolition was attempted even though not needed.
Not a likely scenario. Anyone who was clever enough to cause a top down demolition assisted collapse to look like the natural consequences of impact and fire damage would also be clever enough to realise, even before the event, that assistance was not needed after initiation.
So, back to the point, even for initiation if it was started by "natural" processes the range of logical options must include that someone did try demolition even though redundant.
The point is only bout logical purity.
And I bet someone misreads this post and send's me into the purgatory of the truther camp. Them's the breaks.
BTW I agree on the "I am against any such partitioning of individual viewpoint." but I find it convenient to use the labels for pragmatic shorthand.
It is not logical to assume a controlled demolition. That flies in the face of all the facts.
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Last edited:
Sorry was that another truther's error, oh yeah, the spok guy, I get you all in the same sinking boat, you all have the same list of evidence; zero. My bad, I am trying to do what you do, not spend much time to get it right. Since I got the wrong person for another failed claim, it does not matter, since you can't 911 right in the first place. Getting the wrong person on this issue is not too bad since it is still 911 truth failure; I would be upset if I could not figure out 911. Sorry again, unless you are also the other truther, then you are off the hook for those data problems, but like you silly gifs, it is similar technobabble.You are getting feebler and more desperate by the day Beachnut. Most of my videos have a title prefix of demolition, sure. Most YT searches for anything related to 9/11 usually include the word, so it's silly not to include it. (Approaching 1 million views there). You may notice that the videos do not make *conspiracy* or *explosives* claims, but for the vast majority are simply good quality versions of available footages from various viewpoints, or various interesting features highlighted. WTC7 Shockwave Visible is a good example there, within which I have processed the video to allow you to actually see the progression of the descent of the East penthouse through the structure. Ifyou have a problem with such, that's your problem.
If you want to presume whatever you please from such, be my guest.
I note you have utterly ignored the actual meaning of the words in the post you responded to, in favour of witless petty Beachnutterisms. Good for you, pal. Keep it up !
Ooh, nearly missed this...
What on earth are you talking about ? As I told you last time you made this statement, I haven't performed any velocity analysis for 175. What, from whom, are you referring to ?
I must of got you mixed up since you thought 175 was still flying when it crashed into the WTC because you don't understand Flight Explorer, and it is still posted.
Demolition? lol, you are ashame of your conclusion so you make up the claim you label it demolition so nut on 911 will search for it. Nice try.
You have no facts to make 19 terrorists doing 911 a fiction. You are not proud of your conspiracy theories based on no evidence? List your facts, earn a Pulitzer Prize -
Oh, really?
19 terrorists killing 3,000 people is funny for you. The official story is fiction for you, and murderers killing Americans is funny. What was your goal, what is your conclusion, and why are they so funny?
What happen on 911, the "official story", is false for you. For you it was Demolition. You say NIST claims the jet fuel destroyed the WTC, wrong; you claims the air ejections are not due to a gravity collapse. Are you retracting your false statements, are you presenting your evidence (the stuff you don't have) to prove the "official story" is fictional? Any time table?
What happen on 911? For you it was Demolition. If not, please rename your comment-free youtube videos. You are using 1984 doublespeak, like 911 truth.
, yep, just fraud.
What??? There is comedy after all...
Very ironic since your work is nonsense and will never be published. You both have nothing, the proof is, it is not published.
Last edited:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
You seem to be having a problem understanding the word "when".
[FONT="]when: while, as soon as[/FONT]
[FONT="]NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 pg 488[pdf pg 150][/FONT]
[FONT="] Walk-off failure[/FONT][FONT="] of beams and girders was defined to occur when . . . . the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. . . . . . When this occurred in the ANSYS analysis, the beam was removed. When a girder failed in this manner, the floor beams that it supported were removed at the same time.
NIST said they removed the girder and the beams it supported WHEN [as soon as] the girder had reached the point where they said it would fail.
[/FONT]
What, and become a sheeple?
Animal
Master Poster
You seem to have a problem telling the difference between the ANSYS analysis and the NIST.
BTW the girder was still restrained at the north column.
Your predetermined conclusion still fails.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Your money trail is ten years old.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
And Ignoring Answers.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
How many conspiracies can dance in the width of a pixel?
- Status