Debunker says what?

Homeland Insurgency said:
No I'm not talking about how it was early in the morning and most people weren't there yet. I'm talking about vacant space in the tower and "nearly 100%" ( as Foolmewunz refers) of two 110 story buildings leaves plenty of vacant space. There were vacant floors but more then that there were floors not fully occupied. Some of the out of service elevators are documented in the NIST report.

Some people can look it up themselves. I don't fetch.
Click to expand...

If you don't fetch, then it doesn't exist. You made the statement. You provide the documentation.
 
HI:
That's right fool. I made the statement. Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

This is you all over. You make a silly statement, then call someone a fool, then say prove me wrong.

I might as well say the moon is made of cheese and I have a smorgasbord to back me up, fool. Prove me wrong.

It's just silly.
 
Oscar said:
HI:


This is you all over. You make a silly statement, then call someone a fool, then say prove me wrong.

I might as well say the moon is made of cheese and I have a smorgasbord to back me up, fool. Prove me wrong.

It's just silly.
Click to expand...

Ha! I was going to use the exact same example here.
 
Oscar said:
HI:


This is you all over. You make a silly statement, then call someone a fool,
Click to expand...

Ummm... I abbreviated his logon name. Did you not get that? Well I guess that's not surprising.

Oscar said:
then say prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

I already proved him wrong about the occupancy with his own statement about nearly 100%. It can easily be found in other places. I mean how did he know it was only nearly? I also told him his own gospel documents out of service elevators. Again, easily found with a little effort. Why don't you try?

Oscar said:
I might as well say the moon is made of cheese and I have a smorgasbord to back me up, fool. Prove me wrong.

It's just silly.
Click to expand...

Well yeah that is silly. The moon is made of Capt'n Crunch.
 
Last edited:
HI:
I already proved him wrong about the occupancy with his own statement about nearly 100%.
Click to expand...

You haven't proved anything. In your fantasy you have the twin towers crawling with employees and somehow assume this allows men in disguise to secretly charge it for demolition behind their backs, whereas in reality it would take months for experts with the building cleared.

Yes, you're making a whole lot of sense.
 
Oscar said:
HI:

You haven't proved anything. In your fantasy you have the twin towers crawling with employees and somehow assume this allows men in disguise to secretly charge it for demolition behind their backs,..
Click to expand...

Did I say that? WOW! I don't even know what that means. I ROCK!

Oscar said:
whereas
Click to expand...
whereas? WHAT?

Oscar said:
in reality
Click to expand...
Thank God!

Oscar said:
it would take months for experts with the building cleared.
Click to expand...

Oh man... sigh. I thought you said reality? Did you mean REALLY incoherent?

Oscar said:
Yes, you're making a whole lot of sense.
Click to expand...

Well thanks. I'm really glad one of us is. You're not so bad yourself.
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
Oh stop with the jet fuel and 500 mph crap already. Don't you even know your own story?
Click to expand...

Whoa son! You do your own debunking, correct?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm

Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely
Click to expand...


You have bolded the section above for your purpose? Let's look at the highlighted part below....

if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires. NIST previously reported that the towers had significant reserve capacity after aircraft impact based on analysis of post-impact vibration data obtained from video evidence on WTC 2, the more severely damaged tower.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy fantasists are always so "amateur hour."
 
MIKILLINI said:
Whoa son! You do your own debunking, correct?

You have bolded the section above for your purpose? Let's look at the highlighted part below....

Conspiracy fantasists are always so "amateur hour."
Click to expand...

Well thanks for reinforcing my point. Yeah I hate those official conspiracy theorist too.

Hey?!! Wanna make fun of them with me? It'll be cool!
 
dtugg said:
Being really incoherent is your specialty, remember. And I must say, you are very good at it. Do you have any tips? Because I don't think I could be as incoherent as you even if I tried really hard.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Don't be modest. You are plenty incoherent. Not only that but you are fact less too. I see how you try and I really admire it. I've never said this to you before but you've been a real inspiration to me over the years. Don't get down on yourself. You'll get that Eye of the Tiger back soon.

Here's a little advice.. now don't get upset I'm not trying to say I'm more incoherent then you I'm just trying to point out your strengths.

Talk about 9/11.

You are never more incoherent then when you talk about 9/11.

Go for it buddy. I'm rooting for you.

snif
 
MIKILLINI said:
Whoa son! You do your own debunking, correct?



You have bolded the section above for your purpose? Let's look at the highlighted part below....



Conspiracy fantasists are always so "amateur hour."
Click to expand...

cmon man
you should know by now
context has no business with the "truth?"
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Well thanks for reinforcing my point. Yeah I hate those official conspiracy theorist too.

Hey?!! Wanna make fun of them with me? It'll be cool!
Click to expand...

You want to make a point? Taking your arguments into consideration creates an overall question; How could the government execute a flawless operation with a one and only chance to pull it off without fail?
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
Ummm... I abbreviated his logon name. Did you not get that? Well I guess that's not surprising.



I already proved him wrong about the occupancy with his own statement about nearly 100%. It can easily be found in other places. I mean how did he know it was only nearly? I also told him his own gospel documents out of service elevators. Again, easily found with a little effort. Why don't you try?



Well yeah that is silly. The moon is made of Capt'n Crunch.
Click to expand...

HI,
You've proved nothing. You've been here long enough to know the basic ground rule: You make the claim; you provide the proof.
Please show us the documentation and specify which units (entire floors, remember) were empty and which freight elevators were out of service and on which dates.
If you want to take it farther, then show us that those freight elevators were actually able to get to those empty units. A non-working freight or construction elevator in WTC1 is of no use in wiring a suite of offices in WTC 2, after all.

Oh, and if you're shortening my name, put in an upper case F, please. Otherwise fool, with a lower case, is an insult and I'd prefer not to be insulted, even half-heartedly by you.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Oh come on. Don't be modest. You are plenty incoherent. Not only that but you are fact less too. I see how you try and I really admire it. I've never said this to you before but you've been a real inspiration to me over the years. Don't get down on yourself. You'll get that Eye of the Tiger back soon.

Here's a little advice.. now don't get upset I'm not trying to say I'm more incoherent then you I'm just trying to point out your strengths.

Talk about 9/11.

You are never more incoherent then when you talk about 9/11.

Go for it buddy. I'm rooting for you.

snif
Click to expand...

See that's what I'm talking about. How do you do it?
 
MIKILLINI said:
You want to make a point? Taking your arguments into consideration creates an overall question; How could the government execute a flawless operation with a one and only chance to pull it off without fail?
Click to expand...

Did I claim the government did something?

But if they did was it really without fail if so many people question it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom