Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
gnome said:
Dafydd isn't the only one who wants to know your idea of what's more likely to have happened. Whether it's a hypothesis or a working hypothesis or whatever, why be so shy about it?
Click to expand...


Because then zir would not be able to do the whole no-claimer shtick. It is so much easier to argue when you don't actually reveal any position.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Yeah, that's why you "I believe everything they tell me" guys have such a comfortable seat.
Click to expand...

The "I believe everything they tell me" schtick would work better for you if the events in question didn't have thousands of witnesses at the site, and millions around the world. To the rest of us, it's not a real big secret what happened.

YOU people act as if a fuel laden 757 @ 500+mph should have a negligible affect on the structural integrity of a building.
 
You genius still owe me an apology for calling me a serial liar while foaming at the mouth and posting ridiculous nonsense which was instantly teared down by me in the very next post.

The latest crop of peanut gallery is the worst this forum has ever seen. Utterly pathetic.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Yes, this. As jaydeehess pointed out, having such an extreme fire changes everything. A fire rating for something like a wall, SFRM, whatever may be defined in terms of hours of resistence to temperature "X". But physically, what's really happening is that a material is absorbing "Y" amount of energy over "T" amount of time. And there's an end stage where it ultimately succumbs to the fire (for example, with drywall the end stage would be the last of the water getting baked out of the gypsum. That's the end of its fire resistance). When you have far, far more energy than normal, you're going to shift that equation. Time "T" becomes far shorter. And that becomes significant in terms of what it means for the rest of the structure.
Click to expand...

Good grief. GYPSUM sans water. Snap.

There goes those steel support columns.
 
While accusing detractors of being "believers in everything they hear from the government" is a nice escape from the reality of the fact that people have actual views that are supported by competent professional experience and overwhelming evidence that is not based on uneducated crud... it really gets stagnant after a while...
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Let me quote myself again, Gnome:




I post on factual aspects, and if you are interested, read my posts (did you do so with the "LIHOP" thread?) and if there's something wrong with them, please correct me.
Click to expand...

What are the factual aspects of the collapse of the buildings?
 
I will decide to whom and how (within the MA, usually) I choose to post.

Now, please tell me exactly what I believe. Or, if you prefer, answer me this: Have you ever accepted a claim inside the commonly accepted narrative? Not just trivial stuff like the date and time, but important details, like hijackings, plane impacts, etc.? If so, which ones, if not, why not?
 
Last edited:
TheRedWorm said:
I will decide to whom and how (within the MA, usually) I choose to post.
Click to expand...


Haha, that's rich. So will I. Come on, link me to a controversial claim you made and defended. Just one. Maybe i'll rethink not further engaging with you.

And to sum it up: I will, and ever did, share what I choose to share, and not share or speculate about anything on anybody's demand. Ask the veterans, you can give it up. Really.

edit: I see you're here since 2007, so you should know already. And you certainly should have made at least one claim you can refer to challenging the orthodoxy on anything. Hm?
 
Last edited:
TheRedWorm said:
I will decide to whom and how (within the MA, usually) I choose to post.

Now, please tell me exactly what I believe. Or, if you prefer, answer me this: Have you ever accepted a claim inside the commonly accepted narrative? Not just trivial stuff like the date and time, but important details, like hijackings, plane impacts, etc.? If so, which ones, if not, why not?
Click to expand...

Childlike Empress said:
Haha, that's rich. So will I. Come on, link me to a controversial claim you made and defended. Just one. Maybe i'll rethink not further engaging with you.

And to sum it up: I will, and ever did, share what I choose to share, and not share or speculate about anything on anybody's demand. Ask the veterans, you can give it up. Really.
Click to expand...


So you are denigrating me for the exact same behavior that you engage in? Also, I don't see why you think that blind acceptance is a bad thing, as you seem to blindly reject virtually every aspect of the commonly held narrative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom