TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
And of course there's always Trouts lack of knowledge of anything beyond fishing.
(not trying to be a provocateur) but it is September 11th
- Thread starter NAOS
- Start date
And of course there's always Trouts lack of knowledge of anything beyond fishing.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Nice post, and retract Pearl..... lol
A) This is an example of cherry-picking authority
B) You do realize you don't have to actually turn the steel into liquid to weaken it right?
C) Why is the fact that he got fired a qualification of expertise?
The Truther's have never been able to accept "There's no there there" as an answer for the WTC #7 towers. I'm half waiting for someone to allege that because most people only think of the main two towers and forget about #7 entirely that obviously the main towers were just a way to cover up the true plan to take down #7.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Not particularly, I just mentioned an educated group on one side of the fence that actually asks questions and provides scientific factual information.
Weaken it to the point of a free fall collapse? Come on now.
You do realize that there's only 3 cases of a skyscrapers completely collapsing due to fire right?
And all 3 of those cases occured on 9/11/2001.
It's not a qualification, just an interesting happening of circumstance.
All so-called "truthers" want is an actual investigation of the facts.
The 9/11 commission report barely even mentioned building 7, and I find that interesting.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I've got a lot on my mind right now, but if I'm remembering things correctly, the anti-conspiracy explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 is based on wreckage from the main towers + fires from diesel generators weakened one of the trusses, thereby compromising the other two, thereby creating the conditions for the building to collapse on its own footprint.
I don't know enough about architecture to disprove the logic of this statement, but I do know that a careful excavation and examination of the rubble on the site could have gone a long way to prove that point. And, I think it's fair to say that investigation never happened.
So, all of you who find this thread obnoxious.... what do you find wrong about the italicized statement?
I don't know enough about architecture to disprove the logic of this statement, but I do know that a careful excavation and examination of the rubble on the site could have gone a long way to prove that point. And, I think it's fair to say that investigation never happened.
So, all of you who find this thread obnoxious.... what do you find wrong about the italicized statement?
NAOS
Well-Known Member
says the King of Alts
What's wrong is that no invesitgation would have been thorough enough nore carful enough to convince people that want/need to see a conspiracy behind the events. Americans can't even keep a break-in at a hotel secret. We can't get out SEAL team members to stop talking. We can't truly safeguard diplomatic cables. Yet a conspiracy of a thousand people has no major leaks?
You and I rarely agree on, well, anything, but this is without doubt 100% true. If this was an inside job it would have been well known years ago. To date, not one single person that would have been involved has stepped forward to corroborate the insanity being tossed about here. To me that speaks volumes about the inside job conspiracy theory.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Thirded. Onebrow, Scat, I concur.
Is it your position that those on the "other side of the fence" do not actually ask questions or provide any scientific information? I think your descriptive use of the word "actually" is your latent bias coming out.
I believe that is a claim that you read somewhere. It's not particularly true. Where people get really caught up in defining this is in what constitutes a skyscraper vs. a simple steel frame structure and what constitutes a collapse. If you move those goalposts enough you can find some narrow parameters justifying the Truther viewpoint.
There are any number of steel structure collapses due to fire of varying heights. The McCormick Place Fire, Mumbai High North Platform Rig, the Thailand Kader Toy Factory Fire etc etc.
Of course the WTC buildings are also the first comparable collapses to get hit with a gigantic plane and/or be hit with falling debris as a result but somehow I suspect that you don't believe that makes a damn bit of difference with respect to how we should treat them.
Other examples are illustrative. We know, for example, that part of the reason that the Kader Toy Fire was so vicious was because they didn't propertly insulate the steel frame because of Thai building codes. Models that suggest the WTC towers could not have fallen due to fire uniformly assume (either stated or unstated) that the insulation of the frame was in no way affected by the direct or indirect impact of the initial crash. We can see that this is untrue and that the impact on fireproofing, particularly on the steel beam connection points, can be determinative of collapse based upon the case of WTC Tower 5, which suffered a partial collapse because the fireproofing only failed on the upper floors.
You can find anything you want interesting, that doesn't mean it's warranted. I spent 30 minutes reading about the Aokigahara suicide forest the other day, that doesn't mean it has any broader meaning outside of my own perceptions.
9/11 Truthers want an investigation to their satisfaction. That's a big difference from claiming there has never been an investigation. You just can't prove a negative and they'll never actually be satisfied. We could spend $1 trillion on an investigation and web videos would still exist on the internet saying there's a cover up and that everyone is being lied to.
The second sentence.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
It's not a question of whether or not we should validate the conspiracy theories. It's a question of whether we have an adequate explanation for why things happened as they did. These conspiracy theories blossom on the edges of poor data. That's what we have here.
Also, your statement about "what wrong" is pretty weak.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
..... go on .....
What I said to Silencer above. An investigation happened. Some small segment of the population doesn't think it was good enough. That doesn't mean it's "fair" to think that.
This is an instance where it's exactly what it looks like. Not everything is a clever Danny Ocean ruse to get you to look elsewhere while someone commits the real crime.
One Brow is completely right. Dozens of books from ex-CIA operatives and other government officials with security clearance concerns get published every year. This is not the most perfectly concealed conspiracy in American history.
We need to blow up a Wal-Mart in protest.
No, they blossom quite well even in the face of overwhelming data. Despites hundreds/thousands of frames of the time in and around the JFK assassination, people believe in a second gunman who never appears on the film. Facts do not matter to conspiracy theorists, uless they can be spun to support the conspiracy.
The thing is, if there is an organization that faked 9/11 and has managed to keep it under wraps, why do they need to employ such crude and complicated measures such as flying planes into buildings? They must just like the secret aspect of what they do because they have surely demonstrated the capability to just take over. I for one know I have no desire to oppose them, they're just too damn tricky.
Dr. Jones got fired because he's certifiably bat **** crazy & sees FEMA camp prison conspiracy inside every white rail car sitting empty somewhere in America (this literally is one of his endless conspiracies). BYU was kind enough to release him privately & take care of him for the rest of his life. Of course the loony crowd predictably saw that as a payoff & admitting he's right.
Nothing really. It's more that I think the truther/birther/endofed/Skull&Bones crowd should be institutionalized & reeducated. They're a danger to society & themselves. It is for their own good.