Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories!

Discussion in '9/11' started by rickmullenax, Apr 14, 2014.

  1. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not only were the raging inferno fires undermining the strength of the skyscraper, but the fires acted UNIFORMLY
    you see if the fires had heated the structure in a non-uniform manner, then one side ( be it north, south, east or west ) would
    have given way first and caused a cascading failure down one side of the building without totally destroying the skyscraper.
    so how is it that these fires acted so uniformly?
     
  2. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You don't even know how the collapse progressed and you're arguing against the NIST report?

    That is the nadir of stupid. You just waste time with excessive amounts of 'dumb'.
     
  3. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    wow .... how dare U argue against the NIST report .... oh well ....
    exactly HOW did the collapse progress in such a manner as to cause the total destruction of said building?
     
  4. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, if you don't know how the collapse progressed then your position is ludicrous.

    Read the NIST's report and get back to me with your data that discredits what you've read. Don't bother me with idiotic sh*t until you do, as I have no tolerance for your particular brand of stupidity.
     
  5. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The NIST report alleges that the complete and total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 were the product of Fires and for the towers also the damage caused by alleged airliner crashes, HOWEVER in the case of total destruction of a skyscraper, this is VERY suspicious, when ever is it that by any sequence of actions not specifically designed to destroy said building that a building is totally destroyed?
     
  6. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, it is up to you to disprove the NIST report. Please do and show me the data sets you used. Fallacious arguments are common from 9/11 truth and they can be ignored owing to their very nature.
     
  7. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so, you really can not address the issue
    "when ever is it that by any sequence of actions not specifically designed to destroy said building that a building is totally destroyed?"
    this is a question that can be answered by anybody with a bit of research on the web, if you can find an example, please post it.
    otherwise concede that the total destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 was at the very least highly suspicious.
     
  8. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course I can, I just can't be bothered as you aren't even interested in my response.

    Veiled argument from incredulity.

    Junk.
     
  9. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So we are to believe that 3 times, a completely unprecedented event happened, that is the complete and total destruction of a skyscraper,
    without there being controlled demolition, and people are expected to believe that this sort of thing "just happens" because, what, it was a
    TERRORIST attack and therefore special conditions apply?
     
  10. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another fallacious argument. You guys really need to revise the use of fallacies.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
     
  11. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Given that
    A: there is no precedent for buildings collapsing as was observed without there being CD
    B: scientific experiments conducted, can not duplicate the phenomenon of a building collapsing in said manner,

    Therefore there is no basis for belief that on 9/11/2001 3 skyscrapers did what was observed without it being caused by CD.
     
  12. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Immaterial, and ignores the other 'firsts' of the day as previously pointed out.

    Citation required, because I've only seen amateur nonsense against the science as presented by the NIST, and that was easily debunked.

    Conclusion reached fallaciously.
     
  13. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would offer this up to anyone who fancies themselves to be a student of engineering
    produce a free standing structure, be it made out of leggo blocks or chicken wire, whatever ...
    and said structure should be the same aspect ratio as the towers that is the same proportion height to width
    and given some asymmetrical damage and fire, have it duplicate what WTC1, 2 did by collapsing straight down
    and at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity. Can U do it?
     
  14. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why should I? You don't even have the common decency to answer just ONE of my questions. If that is how you play, go to hell.
     
  15. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It would be all the same to me if ALL of the regulars here ( and you know who you are .... )
    simply stopped responding to my posts and give somebody else a chance to join in the discussion and really,
    if there are no others, so be it, why the F* am I here?
     
  16. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Anyone is free to join the discussion in a public forum. Why the fu*k are you here? A good question.
     
  17. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I could ask the same question, why for all these years, have you been continuously at it, that is "truther" bashing as you do?
    what is in it for you, do you consider yourself patriotic to do this? what?
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,161
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Based on the way he spells some words, I don't believe he's an American.
     
  19. DoctorSmith

    DoctorSmith Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2016
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    It should be totally common knowledge that 9/11/2001 was a FALSE FLAG

    Big Brother can eat (*)(*)(*)(*)!
     
  20. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,525
    Likes Received:
    2,303
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IMO the public perception is changing in that regard. As long as it is just a somewhat confidential conversation, most folks will admit when questioned that the 911 story does not ring true, that once again, the government is deceiving the public.

    It is still true that you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
     

Share This Page