General 9/11 Conspiracy Discussion

MicahJava said:
Do you think jet fuel had something to do with it?

Sent from my NeXT Computer through sadomasochism
Click to expand...
That's not an answer. Don't be coy! Give an answer to the question.

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
 
MicahJava said:
No, I've brought this up before and nobody, NIST nor any photographic expert, even a layman, has brought forth evidence that WTC 7 or the tops of either tower were leaning. The reports of leaning that day were all most likely half-truth rumors.
Click to expand...

That's because you show up here and started posting without reading.

I spent three months after I registered here reading through the various 9-11 threads before I made my first post here.

In those threads are pictures with diagrams showing the towers leaning, and mid-sections buckling. The same work was done with WTC7.

Both Twin Towers are visibly leaning in the fixed camera video footage from a couple of the networks as well.

I love how you think you know better than the 100,000 eye witnesses who were there and saw this happen.
 
MicahJava said:
Then what is the official story on the things seen by Ron DiFrancesco and Carol Marin?
Click to expand...
Strange question.

Must there be an official story for everything?

I'm not aware that anyone in an official investigation interviewed either of them. The 9/11 Commission conducted over 1200 interviews [source]. They can't include each and every person of the tens of thousands of people who got injuries.

You probably meant to ask how people think that their stories fit within the narrative accepted by everyone except truthers.

And we've noted that you've ignored the fact that blast injuries do not produce the effects that DiFrancesco or Marin reported. Not that it's any surprise: ignoring facts when they're inconvenient to their story is what truthers do, and you've been caught doing it every so often.
 
MicahJava said:
No, I've brought this up before and nobody, NIST nor any photographic expert, even a layman, has brought forth evidence that WTC 7 or the tops of either tower were leaning. The reports of leaning that day were all most likely half-truth rumors.
Click to expand...

And this is a classic example of the implicit cherry-picking fallacy. You've decided that, for some reason, the reports of WTC7 leaning were crucial to forming the conclusion that the collapse was caused by the fires (hint: no, it wasn't), so you've got to decide that those reports are invalid and arose purely from half-truth rumours. However, you've also decided that the second hand reports that an un-named engineer predicted the collapse well in advance are incompatible with the collapse being caused by the fires (hint 2: no, that wasn't either), so despite the evidence for the latter being no more anecdotal, you've decided that it's established historical fact that a specific person made a specific statement at a specific time. This is classic conspiracy theorist thinking; if the facts disagree with the conspiracy theory, the facts must be suitably adjusted.

Dave
 
turingtest said:
That's some pretty funny stuff. Only a really committed CTist could cite as evidence for his scenario the testimony of a witness which the CTist then must imply may not be "exactly what happened" for it to work. That's gold, Jerry, gold, I tellya!
Click to expand...

This is, let's not forget, the person who quotes JFK autopsy reports that state that only a single bullet wound to the head was observed and claims that they're irrefutable evidence for two bullet wounds to the head. It's on a par with Ace Baker explaining how the videos showing airliners hit the Twin Towers are proof that no airliners hit the Twin Towers.

Dave
 
MicahJava said:
He has his injuries as evidence for what he remembers. So we know for sure that somehow there was some kind of a fiery explosion on an expulsion of flame from the ground floor as a burning 110 storey building collapsed on to that ground floor.
Click to expand...

FTFY. See if you can figure out some possible reasons why the collapse of a burning building might lead to a rapid expulsion of flame; conspiracy theorists have for some reason been unable to work this one out for sixteen years, but you may be the first!

Dave
 
pgimeno said:
Strange question.

Must there be an official story for everything?
I'm not aware that anyone in an official investigation interviewed either of them. The 9/11 Commission conducted over 1200 interviews [source]. They can't include each and every person of the tens of thousands of people who got injuries.

You probably meant to ask how people think that their stories fit within the narrative accepted by everyone except truthers.

And we've noted that you've ignored the fact that blast injuries do not produce the effects that DiFrancesco or Marin reported. Not that it's any surprise: ignoring facts when they're inconvenient to their story is what truthers do, and you've been caught doing it every so often.
Click to expand...

Apparently so. Reasonable people understand that properly consilient evidence is representative of an event that can lead to a conclusion about it, without needing to be an absolute reconstruction of every little bit of it. DeFrancesco's experience is a piece of the context, not a stand-alone that negates context itself; it may not be possible to know exactly what happened to him, but it's not really necessary to when context allows a reasonable inference.

And ralfyman's idea that skepticism requires that every piece of steel needed to be examined for the "unique damage" of CD to eliminate that possibility is of a piece with this approach, sort of emblematic of it. He says he's not a truther, and I see no reason to doubt him; but what's the difference? He prefers to reach no conclusion; and CTists don't actually have one, since their CT is really only a placeholder for it. So the labels may be different, but if the outcome is identical, it's a difference that makes no difference.

They both remind me of creationists who demand that you show them a transitional fossil between species, and, when shown one, then demand the transitional fossil between that one and the preceding (or succeeding) species. Science and actual skepticism are methods of closing gaps with a reasonable degree of confidence; CT and ralfyman's brand of skepticism are exercises in forever keeping those gaps open. "God of the gaps" or "conspiracy of the gaps" are just two different faces of the same obtuse methodology.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Do you think jet fuel had something to do with it?

Sent from my NeXT Computer through sadomasochism
Click to expand...

Please provide a source link to the one concise controlled demolition explanation.

Do you think jet fuel had something to do with it? How about you lay out what you believe along with sources to back it up. 16+ years and all the CD crowd has is the same questions asked over and over.

Even the latest Dr. Hulsey work does not prove WTC7 was a controlled demolition. It is a poor attempt to show the NIST work was wrong.
Hint: Even if NIST is wrong regarding the probable collapse does not mean it was controlled demolition.
 
How to tell a Conspiracy Theorist (CT):
CT: "That's Wrong"
Moderately intelligent science thinker(MIST): "How is it wrong?"
CT: "The (Loads/direction/time/displacement/acceleration) is incorrect!"
MIST: "How are they incorrect?"
CT: "They made false assumptions. It can't happen that way!"
MIST: "In what way are the assumptions false or incorrect?"
CT: "They're wrong!"
et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum

Engineering 001: If you cannot define the problem, you don't have a chance in hell of solving it.
 
MicahJava said:
He has his injuries as evidence for what he remembers. So we know for sure that somehow there was some kind of a fiery explosion on the ground floor.
Click to expand...


Obviously nothing to do with explosives because no one heard explosions due to explosives as the WTC buildings collapsed which is why there is still no CD evidence after 16 years. The 9/11 CD claim was a fabrication and truthers took the bait and ran off with it.

Who was the person who'd said: "There's a sucker born every minute?"

.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
No, I've brought this up before and nobody, NIST nor any photographic expert, even a layman, has brought forth evidence that WTC 7 or the tops of either tower were leaning. The reports of leaning that day were all most likely half-truth rumors.
Click to expand...


Let's take a look and see if you are correct.

9/11 cops saw collapse coming

The World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground, scientists probing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster said yesterday.

In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.

Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tilted as it came crashing down.

http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040619.html


The WTC Buildings are Leaning and Buckling

• At 9:30 am, a FDNY Chief Officer inside WTC 1 feels the building move and makes the decision that the building is no longer safe.

• At 9:49 am, NYPD helicopters provide a radio report stating that “large pieces” are falling from WTC 2.

• At 10:07 am, NYPD aviation units warn that WTC 1 may collapse.

• At 10:20 am, NYPD aviation unit reports that WTC 1 is leaning to the south.
http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives2.html
Click to expand...


Just goes to show that you are incorrect.
 
MicahJava said:
Do you think jet fuel had something to do with it?

Sent from my NeXT Computer through sadomasochism
Click to expand...

Why do you continually ask questions in answer to questions poised to you? You did that once to me before I understood your MO. You are one of the most stubborn individuals I have seen. Repeatedly shown to be incorrect on your layman's opinion on scientific/technical descriptions of the event of 9/11. Fires burning uncontrolled on several floors of a weakened by falling debris from WTC 1 caused the structural steel members to loose necessary strength to sustain their design rigidness. The building collapsed due to fires, get over your unsubstantiated CT belief of a CD.
 
bknight said:
Why do you continually ask questions in answer to questions poised to you? You did that once to me before I understood your MO. You are one of the most stubborn individuals I have seen. Repeatedly shown to be incorrect on your layman's opinion on scientific/technical descriptions of the event of 9/11. Fires burning uncontrolled on several floors of a weakened by falling debris from WTC 1 caused the structural steel members to loose necessary strength to sustain their design rigidness. The building collapsed due to fires, get over your unsubstantiated CT belief of a CD.
Click to expand...

To give him credit, he did invent the ventriloquist sound suppressor.
 
skyeagle409 said:
Let's take a look and see if you are correct.

Just goes to show that you are incorrect.
Click to expand...

Perimeter columns bending inward could cause an illusion that makes the top look like it's slightly leaning. There is no photographic evidence that the entire tops of either tower were leaning.
 
MicahJava said:
Perimeter columns bending inward could cause an illusion that makes the top look like it's slightly leaning.
Click to expand...


True. Kind of like when splinters of shattered shin bones protruding through your skin causes an illusion that makes it look like you've broken your leg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom