9-11 Truthers & Holocaust Deniers

Discussion in '9/11' started by Ronstar, Sep 11, 2016.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,705
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You have done no such thing. Because it rains sometimes does not mean its raining right now, your example is ludicrous on its face, since they have to be signed off by codes inspectors or everything stops.

    Oh and you want to pretend or is it that you do not know any better that there is no reason what so ever to believe its coincidence. again value engineering is irellevant, they either pass code or not.

    You presented no such thing, worse passing on misinformation is not a presentation. I have no reason to respond to anyone who are not what they claim to be.

    you arent an engineer any more than the quack sanders is an architect.
     
  2. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    oh yeah, everything is built to code and inspectors are always on top of their game and infallible to being bought off ... New York construction in the 60s and 70s was all union ... sure, everything was on the up and up ...

    I don't care about twooofers that don't believe in my credentials ... I laugh at your ridiculous theories ... I'm thinking at best, you are a Barista at Starbucks ...
     
  3. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I never said that NIST was wrong ... they gave a likely explanation for structural failure ... my point is that they didn't know if the as builts were correct or not ...

    CD is impossible especially considering your stance that a minimum of 3 people were needed to pull this off ...
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You inferred it when you said "nobody knows what caused the collapses" but NIST claimed they know and you have always indicated you agree for the most part, a contradiction.

    They did no such thing. They gave an unlikely and extremely unique explanation ("for the first time in history" - Shyam Sunder) that has been forensically proven to be impossible and based on fraudulent science:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    On paper they claimed it was a probable collapse hypothesis but publicly Shyam Sunder peddled it as fact ("the obvious stares you in the face", "World Trade Center 7 came down primarily due to fire" - Shyam Sunder). Sunder's public quotes are stated as if they were fact.

    You're contradicting yourself yet again. Your first sentence says "I never said that NIST was wrong" but you're implying their "investigation" was faulty/defective due to potential ignorance and therefore wrong.

    They missed many, many things ... deliberately. What you believe they knew or didn't know changes nothing with respect to the manner they investigated the collapses. But if you're saying that, do you believe the NIST engineers were collectively incompetent then? Are you claiming you know better than the NIST engineers? How about all other engineers (since you're the only one making that claim)?

    Apples and oranges. I had nothing to do with 9/11. The hypothetical and logically correct answer to a hypothetical question (i.e. "my stance") has nothing to do with anything, much less whether CD is possible or not. Collapse primarily due to fire is not only strictly an unproven hypothesis but an impossible one. Collapse by CD is not only possible but a known verifiable/reproducible event.
     
  5. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I do believe that NIST was incompetent and have discussed this with other engineers ... I want to know why they didn't address the foundation/piles ... all that energy from 1 and 2 coming down had to go somewhere ...
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So then do you believe the NIST reports are not valid then?
     
  7. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    yes ...
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok so then an apology is in order for consistently calling you an OCT defender. Having said that, if you believe the NIST reports are not valid, what would make you believe NIST's theory (actually their conclusion) that WTC7 collapsed primarily as a result of fire (of which there is no proof)?
     
  9. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    it collapsed Bob ... no proof of CD ... the building was an odd design considering the substation ...

    what do you think about my foundation theory? ...
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That doesn't answer my question, everyone knows it collapsed. Please re-read my question, it wasn't about CD.

    It may or may not have merit but your theory is not the issue. The issues are what caused the collapse and what caused it to be destroyed just like a CD (assuming it wasn't a CD).
     
  11. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,705
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    engineers dont talk like posers, I dont believe for one second he knows the first thing about architectural engineering.
    you are correct and he is dodging your excellent points.

    Once posers are discovered there is always a new sock to take their place lol
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He claims for the first time that the NIST reports are not valid. Virtually all OCT defenders defend NIST (or claim they are insignificant when defending them begins to sound like desperation) despite the overwhelming evidence that NIST committed scientific fraud. So on that basis, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and see if he's willing to answer the question honestly, despite what sounds like an obvious dodge.
     
  13. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm talking about structural engineering rookie ... run along and eat some more Hot Pockets ...

    - - - Updated - - -

    what am I dodging Bob? ...
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    C'mon man don't play stupid, I asked you a specific question ... twice (repeated in Post #135):

    And your answer was that it collapsed and that there's no proof of a CD, which you know very well doesn't answer the question. Are you going to post a legitimate answer or play coward and dodge yet again?
     
  15. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I don't know exactly what caused WTC 7 to collapse and neither do you ... I find some errors and omission in NIST's report but their theory is still more logical than CD ... I find it funny that you almost demand your questions get answered here but don't like to answer other's questions ...
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is absolutely true that I can't definitively know what caused the collapse of WTC7 other than by deductive reasoning and common sense. The difference between you and I (with respect to this argument only) is that I know what didn't cause it to collapse just like a CD. Another major difference between you and I is that I can acknowledge with 100% certainty that the ONLY possible way to cause a building to collapse just like a CD is a CD. Deductive reasoning says that when fire didn't cause WTC7 to collapse just like a CD (NO proof exists for such an event) and there's no known natural way a building can collapse just like a CD, what remains can only be a CD.

    The above is illogical on several grounds even for you (or at least should be).

    1. You've acknowledged that NIST's theory is invalid so logically, NIST's theory is illogical. I don't see how NIST's theory can make sense to you based on your own claims.
    2. It has already been forensically proven by verifiable credentialed experts that NIST's theory is not only impossible but based on fraudulent science.
    3. There is no precedent for NIST's theory, not real world, not by experiment and not by computer modeling and has never been successfully duplicated.
    4. CD has many real world and experimental precedents and can readily be duplicated.
    5. It is illogical to say that NIST's theory (which is still ONLY a theory) is more logical than a provable event that has real world precedents.
    6. I'm sure there's more to the logic but the above are just the highlights and quite sufficient IMO.

    Please show me if you can what may be incorrect with any of the above.

    1. I "demand" nothing of anyone, I ask.
    2. I can't answer questions that are illogical, silly or require an answer I can't supply or that are irrelevant to a discussion on 9/11 (or irrelevant period). I don't believe my question to you falls into any of these categories.
    3. As to anything that doesn't fit those categories in #2, please give me an example if you can.
     
  17. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    and that is strictly opinion, not knowledge ... I came up with my foundation compromise through deductive reasoning ... the collapse of WTC 7 doesn't not show a classic CD by any menas either through film of eyewitnesses ... the interior started coming down prior to the curtain wall ... the lack of major squibs and concurrent explosive digress is not claasic CD ... you're 100% certainty is way over the top ...

    you don't even read debunking sources do you? ... it's probably painful for you to hear facts ...

    why don't we move on from WTC 7 and look at some of the more impossible theories ...
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a combination of expert opinion, many, many of them in many appropriate disciplines. Experts you aren't in the same ballpark with, probably not even in the parking lot. It also includes knowledge, history, fact, logic, deductive reasoning and common sense. You haven't stated one thing I posted that I asked you to show is incorrect. Just saying it's "strictly opinion, not knowledge" doesn't mean anything.

    1. It's strictly YOUR theory, no one else I ever heard of has ever come up with that.
    2. It's irrelevant to the cause and/or the manner of the collapse of WTC7. No foundation (other than none at all) could cause the free fall collapse of a 47 story steel structure. But if there was no foundation, the building could have never stood in the first place.

    I don't know about how your eyes and your brain operates but a side by side video of WTC7 collapsing with known CDs show a collapse that is nearly identical, every time. I'm not sure why you would deny what's incredibly obvious. Furthermore a CD expert was 100% sure it was a CD upon first look. Are you saying you know better? I'm not sure what you mean by eyewitnesses but they would be irrelevant with respect to what it looks like.

    [video=youtube;D7Rm6ZFROmc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc[/video]

    [video=youtube;877gr6xtQIc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc[/video]

    You're back to NIST's nonsense, the very same entity you said you believe their reports are not valid. You can't have it both ways. Either you accept an invalid report as true or not. Why would you cite a good portion of NIST's theory when you claim it's not valid?

    I read all the ones I know about, please don't tell me what I've researched. I've been doing this for well over a decade nearly daily. They have nothing to do with what happened on 9/11 and what's so obvious.

    Yeah that's gotta be it. Always making **** up, I post facts all the time. Self-professed "debunking" sites are not about facts, they're about attacking/criticizing everything and everyone who doesn't bend over to the OCT and never, ever questioning any of it. There's nothing legitimate about these mostly anonymous sites. That you hold any candle to these sites says a lot about you.

    Like the OCT? I already said on many occasions that I'm not interested in every cockamamie theory out there because they don't mean a thing. What is crucial is the OCT because it is the officially accepted theory, officially accepted as fact. And it is the pretext for the ensuing genocide and other human rights atrocities as well as the decimation of the Constitution and the rule of law. Why do you so readily want to give the OCT a pass when you already declared a good portion of it to be invalid. Are you that scared to criticize it?
     
  19. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    taking my words out of context and once again attacking my credibility ...
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I should know better than to try to have a reasonable discussion with you. No answers, no details, no context, a deliberate avoidance of specific issues, just vague generalities and blatant contradictions and oh yeah, no credibility. I tried only because you claimed for the first time that you believe the NIST investigation was not valid.
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just a few tidbits to note, no response required.

    (NIST mythology 101)

    Yet WTC6 had its entire interior gouged out down to ground level allegedly by debris but all 4 walls stood.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html

    If you construct an unsupported brick wall and set it on fire, will the wall come down at free fall through its own bricks Mr. Engineer?

    Yet Danny Jowenko claimed without hesitation and with certainty it was a classic CD. He never mentioned the "lack of major squibs and concurrent explosive digress" (whatever that means). Mr. Engineer is also a CD expert who apparently knows better than Jowenko.
     
  22. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    This is the problem. You've been doing this daily(wtf??) for 10 years and cannot see there is no basis to the 911 conspiracy movement. At the best, it was a misguided anti war effort; at worst a deliberate fraud.

    If there was anything evidence to support 9/11 conspiracies, you'd bet your ass the Democrats would have used it to drive Bush out of the White House.
    If there was any basis, people like Dylan Avery and Craig Ranke wouldn't have drifted away. Avery has pretty much distanced himself from the truther fraud. Ranke is trying to pretend it never happened or something, though I don't see how since he still has a forum full of "OMG we're risking our lives to tell the truth!!!1!111!1!!" woo. Whatever the case is, he's no where to be seen.

    Ask yourself why that is. And why you're carrying the water for these so called "truth" experts. Isn't it there job to defend their theoried? Not con trusting folks into making excuses for them? Which is all it is right now....

    Dude, ask yourself: how has 911 truth changed your life? For the better or for the worse?
     
  23. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    and yet more truther whining and out of context BS ... brick wall? ... pffft ...
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The symbolism is uncanny.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,196
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No there's no evidence 9/11 was conspiracy, it was the act of a lone gunman.
     

Share This Page