I need all debunkers I can get!

A W Smith said:
Are police in on the conspiacy too? Even though they lost at least 22 of their brothers?
Click to expand...


Of course they are. It's only the heroic firefighters who, so long as they don't support the official account, are not in on it.

The police are the ones who will be herding the innocents on to the cattle trucks to the fema death camps.

Such is 'truther' fantasy
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
I know these videos are painful for you to watch. Not because of the tragedy they portray. But the negative impact they have on your body of work. You will never get that time back. But it is time to face reality. They are not going away so you may as well stop avoiding them.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XelUIycaes
Click to expand...
What's important to note is that these are two separate angles of the same event, recorded by two different people on two different cameras. They're also continuous videos, not still images.

To suggest that these are fakes is an incredibly ridiculous and ludicrous idea. It would also show that the person trying to make such a claim knows nothing about cameras, special effects, or the filmmaking process in general.
 
Heiwa said:
1. Normally steel structures do not collapse due to heat. Everything else burns leaving a steel skeleton!
Click to expand...

A lot of firefighters would disagree with you. What specific firefighting experience do you have that supports this claim?
 
Heiwa

Heiwa said:
However, this thread is now so full of irrelevant garbish of signatures of limited ability that are hard to endure so I stop reading it. They failed miserably to debunk my article.
Click to expand...

You are, sir, an intellectual fraud. I have responded to your challenge to critique your article, in particular as regards the recognised susceptibility of structural steelwork under normal fire loadings, and you have failed to respond in any meanignful manner. Likewise your paper exhibits a very limited, and flawed, grasp of building construction issues. Your suggestion that steelwork is foreproofed to provide thermal insulation against solar gain is, frankly, laughable.

You have exhibited the same careless disregard for the points put to you by Newton and Myriad, amongst others.

Respond to the points put to you, or troll somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
Heiwa



You are, sir, an intellectual fraud. I have responded to your challenge to critique your article, in particular as regards the recognised susceptibility of structural steelwork under normal fire loadings, and you have failed to respond in any meanignful manner. Likewise your paper exhibits a very limited, and flawed, grasp of building construction issues. Your suggestion that steelwork is foreproofed to provide thermal insulation against solar gain is, frankly, laughable.

You have exhibited the same careless disregard for the points put to you by Newton and Myriad, amongst others.

Respond to the points put to you, or troll somewhere else.
Click to expand...

ooops Anders has a contradiction
From his web page, air cooled steel.
The wall bar is obviously fitted in the wall and cooled by external air and can never be heated very much. That is why the wall perimeter columns were not fire proofed!
Click to expand...
yet he says
Heiwa said:
Or maybe just insulation to prevent the sun to heat up the steel in the summer, more likely! Of course steel wall columns are fitted with decorative cladding of e.g. aluminium to look nice and protect the column from rain, etc. Have a friend that is in that thin plate alu business and has covered multiple buildings Doesn't change any basics in my article.
Click to expand...
Anders has a dilemma
 
Last edited:
Not one that he plans to answer in any meaningful manner, I suspect. I'm expecting some more vague handwaving and evasion.

One day - heaven knows when - we'll encounter a Truther with a grasp of the basics. Until then, we'll have to plough through these poorly formed and articulated "theories" based on an incomplete and often downright error-ridden fact set.

Sigh.
 
Hamradioguy said:
A lot of firefighters would disagree with you. What specific firefighting experience do you have that supports this claim?
Click to expand...

I have passed all Swedish Navy fire fighting courses/exercises + some marine and offshore courses to the same effect. Very useful actually, when fires have started and I happened to be there (I extinguished them singlehanded before they spread). Exercises were in steel sheds and also on real ships (wrecks actually) and no steel melted or collapsed at any time. But it was hot and dirty.
 
Architect said:
Heiwa



You are, sir, an intellectual fraud. I have responded to your challenge to critique your article, in particular as regards the recognised susceptibility of structural steelwork under normal fire loadings, and you have failed to respond in any meanignful manner. Likewise your paper exhibits a very limited, and flawed, grasp of building construction issues. Your suggestion that steelwork is foreproofed to provide thermal insulation against solar gain is, frankly, laughable.

You have exhibited the same careless disregard for the points put to you by Newton and Myriad, amongst others.

Respond to the points put to you, or troll somewhere else.
Click to expand...

But I have! BTW - did you carry out the model test I described?
 
Architect said:
Not one that he plans to answer in any meaningful manner, I suspect. I'm expecting some more vague handwaving and evasion.

One day - heaven knows when - we'll encounter a Truther with a grasp of the basics. Until then, we'll have to plough through these poorly formed and articulated "theories" based on an incomplete and often downright error-ridden fact set.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

I actually think that happens quite often, you just don't notice it. Because whenever someone with a clean and sane mind come across that have heard som CT stuff (that sometime can sound pretty trustworthy at first look if you're not "in the business") come and actively read the info and arguments they don't stay a CT for long. Many people (partially including me) was much more open to different conspiracy theories before checking out what would stay intact in a storm of evidence examination.

It's really that simple, are you ready to change your mind to reality or not? Quite a few does, and the rest like to watch Alex Jones.
 
Heiwa said:
But I have! BTW - did you carry out the model test I described?
Click to expand...


Really? A full and detailed response to, for example, the points made regarding the actual performance of steel in fire and how this has been recognised without dispute in building regulations across the globe? Really? I must have missed it. Do tell me which post you believe it to be in.

And once you've done that, tell me where you responded to my comments regarding the performance of the composite structure and interdependency of elements?

And then where you've responded to Newton's detailed posts.

And then remind us again about your detailed technical rebuttal of the points put to you by Myriad.

And then, just to top it off, show us where you showed that a bird cage is any meaningful comparison to the structure of the towers, bearing in mind the criticism of same already lodged.



You, sir, are a fraud.
 
padragan said:
I actually think that happens quite often, you just don't notice it. Because whenever someone with a clean and sane mind come across that have heard som CT stuff (that sometime can sound pretty trustworthy at first look if you're not "in the business") come and actively read the info and arguments they don't stay a CT for long. Many people (partially including me) was much more open to different conspiracy theories before checking out what would stay intact in a storm of evidence examination.

It's really that simple, are you ready to change your mind to reality or not? Quite a few does, and the rest like to watch Alex Jones.
Click to expand...

I do expert witness work at public local inquiries under the planning system and it would surprise you how often it happens, to be honest. The worsl culprits are usually quite well education but - and this is the important thing - simply not used to a forensic disection of their opinions. It's quite instructive to watch.

The example I usually quote is one where a professor of sociology (!) accused engineers Ove Arup of "lying" about the dangerous condition of a building. The solicitor for the applicant thumped down the full, 50mm thick report, and started going through each page asking him to identify the "lies".

He withdraw his entire evidence by page 8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom