What Truthers Believe

Discussion in '9/11' started by Shinebox, May 4, 2018.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NIST told everyone they didn't bother to resolve it in a footnote when they publicly released their report on the Twin Tower "collapses".

    The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” - Footnote 2, NCSTAR 1 page xxxvii, PDF page 39.

    Because you see, they're like this guy:

    They accept what NIST published on faith, despite that NIST admitted they never actually investigated the "collapse" of the Twin Towers.

    Kevin Ryan wrote:

    "The most fundamental question about 9/11 is why were the WTC towers completely destroyed and NIST does not attempt to answer it. And yet this fact is only referenced in a footnote as if it were not an essential point of the investigation? The NIST report is irrelevant if it can’t explain the “structural behavior of the tower” after the collapse began. Absurdly, the only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not explain what happened after it started, and why the collapse was total and complete. More outrageously, NIST can’t even prove convincingly why the collapse began."

    That's one reason.

    Another and even more fundamental reason is that it's impossible to create a physical and/or virtual model of a natural gravitational collapse at free fall or near free fall for a steel framed structure that is damaged by plane and/or suffers a severe fire. Simply because that never did happen and never can happen except in OCT land. So to paraphrase that same guy correctly:

    It's their fantasy, not yours.
     
  2. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they both refuse to discuss the forces at play of anything at ground level or subterranean ... instead they keep focusing on material ejections above ground when I try to discuss lateral forces at ground and below during the collapses ... they are so focused on their narratives that they can't answer simple questions (which I do for them all the time) but continuously harp on about the same tired **** over and over ... neither of them understand physics in the least bit ... they rely on their chosen experts to speak for them ... that's the totality of their physics expertise ...

    you are only committed to a paranoid delusion that thousands of people in high places were nefariously involved in the events of 9/11 ...

    and the aircraft hijackings that killed over 3000 people wasn't a crime against humanity??? ... the aircraft strikes alone would have been more than enough to justify a raid on Afghanistan (I thought the full scare war and occupation was overkill) ... why blow up the buildings and use drones and create an engineering mess of a study ... nonsensical Bob ...

    the investigation was adequate ... I would like to see the Saudi links exposed ... I never saw any need for investigations into explosives nor the named aircraft were not involved ... that's just truther nonsense ...

    meh ...

    you entered the rabbit hole when you clearly stated earlier that you don't believe their were any hijackers . ... how did you come to that conclusion? ...
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not committed to any "delusion", unlike you who's committed to the delusional OCT, I just want a legitimate investigation, one required by the Constitution and not a criminal coverup.

    It was a crime against humanity but no legitimate investigation has established beyond any doubt that there actually were any hijackings. You just bought that story on faith via phony investigations.

    There wasn't any basis for the illegal invasion of Afghanistan. The pretext for that is also faith based:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-secret-lie-that-started-the-afghan-war.541395/

    No one has ever been able to verify what actually happened via a legitimate investigation. The question is not why the above theory, the question is what really happened because the official story doesn't hold up as it makes no scientific sense.

    What's nonsensical is your acceptance of fraud as legitimate.

    Adequate for you. For those of us who know better, the details of those "investigations" (as shown repeatedly) prove beyond any shadow of a doubt they weren't legitimate in any sense and only served to coverup this massive crime.

    "None are so blind as those who will not see." - Matthew Henry

    No it's just your head in the sand nonsense.

    Exactly, you don't want any real investigation because you're terrified of what that may uncover.

    That's not a "rabbit hole", it's my opinion based on many facts. For all I know there may have been hijackers but without a real investigations that can prove it we'll never know. Unlike you I don't swallow the trash they feed us on faith.

    It's not a conclusion, it's a belief based on the evidence that I explained quite clearly. Read again for comprehension:

     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't speak for anyone else but myself. For me what's much more important are the forces at play from the moment the building(s) began to be destroyed to the point at ground level which YOU refuse to discuss. It makes zero sense to skip that part and jump to the forces at play at ground and below. You're trying to omit the entire building for some odd reason. There is no "narrative" here on anyone's part except the one fed to us by the US government. And it seems to me you have zero understanding of physics based on all your posts including this one. And it's you who's blinded by the official narrative, relying on YOUR chosen experts at NIST such that physics plays no part in your belief system, just pseudoscience and faith. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018
  5. saltydancin

    saltydancin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Doubt it needs more engineering & physics comprehension than a house of cards tumbling down :
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...D0EDE22C083DF25963D6D0EDE22C083DF&FORM=VDQVAP
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Goes to show how much you know about engineering & physics. The twin towers and WTC7 were NOT a house of cards. Your premise is that anyone can simply touch a steel frame high rise building and it would collapse just like a house of cards. For the first time to my knowledge you wrote a post in plain English but it makes as much sense as all your other posts, which is as usual, none at all.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well then you shouldn't have made the analogy. Steel frame towers don't collapse like a house of cards, never did, never will, so your analogy means about as much as the rest of your post, gibberish.
     
  8. saltydancin

    saltydancin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Well there certainly aren't any rivets popping out of a house of cards as in steel frame construction since it's all supporting paper on angles, but then again every action as in a jet airliner with substantial velocity certainly has an equal & opposite reaction upon whatever glass, concrete & steel it comes into contact as within laws of physics; but then again maybe not to uneducated Islam flying carpet pilots looking for 40 virgins & Valhalla......
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
  10. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tell me something Scott? ... why should I respond to you, which I have done countless times, when you never respond to me? ... when are you going to answer something in your own words rather than pimping your bogus videos? ...
     
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,268
    Likes Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Translation: That info* has me checkmated as it's too clear to obfuscate so I'd better avoid addessing it.

    You asked about that issue so I responded. I guess all I can say is checkmate. That's some serious evidence there and a serious truth-seeker wouldn't duck it. A serious truth-seeker would change his stand on an issue if shown that he's wrong no matter how long he'd been wrong.

    I want to hear from the rest of you pro-official version posters on this.


    *
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-truthers-believe.532027/page-19#post-1069781105
     
  12. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you're a complete fraud Scott ... how many pennies per click do you get? ...

    don't suppose you have watched the Coste vids yet because you are so busy spamming boards with your moneymakers? ...
     
  13. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    9/11 truth is all about the money ... step right up and make a donation rubes! ...
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you haven't exposed any truth Bob ... you're just repeating lies from your fraudulent cult heroes ...

    so quick with the slick videos with ominous music ... wake up Bob ...
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So surely you should be able to point out all these "lies" I've been spreading and show how they are lies.

    About the 9/11 Commission Report:

    1. The Bush administration is directly responsible for the wholesale destruction of 9/11 evidence, in violation of federal and local law, thus hampering/corrupting any investigation.
    2. The Bush administration did not want to investigate 9/11, in fact they (or more specifically Cheney) asked Sen. Tom Daschle not to investigate 9/11 on several occasions.
    3. The Bush administration reluctantly yielded to investigating 9/11 due to pressure from the 9/11 families, specifically the Jersey Girls but wanted the investigation to only focus on intelligence failures.
    4. The Bush administration appointed Henry Kissinger as the chairman of the 9/11 Commission who was subsequently forced to resign due to conflicts of interest.
    5. The Bush administration stocked the 9/11 Commission with cronies, especially Philip Zelikow.
    6. All members of the 9/11 Commission had conflicts of interest and were covering for someone.
    7. The 9/11 Commission cut a deal with the Bush administration essentially allowing them to dictate who on the 9/11 Commission could see what evidence and also limited the evidence the 9/11 Commission had access to.
    8. According to the 9/11 Commission, there are 570 cubic feet of textual records, a large percentage of it classified, presumably inaccessible to the 9/11 Commission itself (see #7).
    9. Sen. Max Cleland resigned as a result of #7, labeling the 9/11 investigation a scam and obstruction.
    10. The 9/11 families or more specifically the Family Steering Committee sent over 400 questions to the 9/11 Commission and the vast majority of the questions were either unanswered or insufficiently answered.
    11. Philip Zelikow created an outline of the 9/11 Commission Report prior to the first meeting of the 9/11 Commission.
    12. Philip Zelikow admitted that most if not all of the 9/11 Commission Report relied on 3rd party relayed torture testimony.
    13. The source of over 25% of the Commission Report's footnotes is 3rd party relayed torture testimony.
    14. The 9/11 Commission were lied to by the CIA who told them they gave them everything they asked for but withheld torture tapes which they never revealed their existence to the 9/11 Commission.
    15. The torture tapes were deliberately destroyed by the CIA despite a federal court order to preserve them.
    16. The Senate Intelligence Committee on Torture report claims that the CIA's torture methods yielded NO USEFUL INTELLIGENCE (see #12 and #13).
    17. The FBI lied to the 9/11 Commission (and Congress) when they told them they gave them everything. They were discovered a decade later to be holding over 80,000 pages of documents from their PENTBBOM "investigation" that they never revealed existed.
    18. NORAD and other key Pentagon officials told the 9/11 Commission different stories that were in conflict with each other or outright lies.
    19. The 9/11 Commission agreed to interview Bush and Cheney together unsworn and unrecorded.
    20. There is no evidence that the 9/11 Commission conducted any criminal/scientific/forensic investigation in accordance with universally accepted standards appropriate for such an investigation. Especially within the vast scope required by a major historical event such as 9/11. Much of the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report is unvetted and/or unsupported by legitimate evidence (any evidence obtained via the use of torture is illegitimate/unreliable - see #16).
    21. The 9/11 Commission claimed in their report that "their aim has not been to assign individual blame", thus making a mockery of the "investigation".
    22. Eyewitnesses who were to testify to the 9/11 Commission were coached by Soviet style government "minders" prior to their testimonies, thus tampering with, biasing and corrupting the "investigation".
    23. Many potential crucial eyewitnesses were never interviewed by the 9/11 Commission. Potential whistleblowers were not granted immunity and therefore many did not testify as a result.
    24. Some key eyewitness testimonies were excluded from the 9/11 Commission Report.
    25. The 9/11 Commission failed to investigate key events and issues, such as the destruction of WTC7 (unmentioned) and the financing of 9/11, deeming it of "little practical significance" (in direct contradiction to all criminal investigation standards).
    26. The 9/11 Commission co-chairs admitted they were set up to fail, starved of funds, denied access to the truth, misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the FAA, did not examine key evidence, claimed the report was incomplete and flawed and that many questions remain unanswered.
    27. Philip Zelikow had complete control over the final edit of the 9/11 Commission Report and was responsible for keeping the classified 28 pages from the 9/11 Commission. Zelikow fired an aide who wanted to bring the 28 pages to the attention of the 9/11 Commission.
    28. The published version of the 9/11 Commission Report in general is similar to the official 9/11 conspiracy theory disseminated as fact by the Bush administration prior to the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.
    29. The 9/11 Commission Report was severely criticized by many, especially the Jersey Girls, who were responsible for pressuring the Bush administration for an investigation. "we knew it was a farce, we wanted their words, their lies down on paper" - Patty Casazza.


    About the NIST reports:

    Summary of problems with the NIST WTC Tower Report

    1. The claim that the upper part of the towers crushed the lower part of the towers violates the laws of conservation of momentum and the law that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As shown by the measured smooth uninterrupted descent of the upper portion of the North Tower.

    2. NIST claims that the floor trusses in the aircraft impact zone push outward on the perimeter columns with a force of about 80 KIPS before starting to sag and pull the columns inward to cause the building to collapse. Yet there is no evidence to support this claim. Extensive photos and videos of the towers show no outward bowing of the perimeter columns at any time during the fires before the collapse.

    3. NIST imposed unrealistic artificial 5 KIP forces on each floor truss to column connection over the 5 stories of the damage zone on the south face of the North Tower in order to make their collapse initiation model work. This amounts to a lateral force of about 750 KIPS applied artificially to that face of the building which cannot be justified by any rationale.

    4. NIST does not investigate or explain the global collapse which occurred after the collapse initiation was supposedly initiated by the column failures in the impact zone. NIST simply states, “global collapse ensued”.

    5. The NIST collapse sequence is initiated by the failure of the floor trusses in the impact zone and subsequent pulling in of the perimeter column. But the sequence ignores the fact that the core columns failed first, as evidenced by the video of the North Tower collapse showing that the antenna and hat truss resting on the core column began their descent well before the outer perimeter of the building began to fall. This fact invalidates the NIST collapse initiation theory.

    6. The NIST report fails to provide any information suggesting that the load capacity of the core and perimeter columns was exceeded at any time during the collapse sequence. NIST ignored the fact that the factor of safety of 3 in the core columns and 5 in the perimeter columns would have prevented the failure mechanism that is theorized in their collapse initiation model.

    7. The NIST global collapse theory depends upon the ASCE-published progressive collapse theory by Zdenek Bazant. His theory has been shown to have erroneous input data rendering it non-viable as an explanation for the observed behavior of the vertical propagation. ASCE refuses to acknowledge the errors in the input data of Bazant’s theory.

    All assumptions below, which were used in the NIST WTC7 report, have been shown to be erroneous, and correction of these assumptions invalidate the report's conclusions.

    1. A girder bearing seat width of 12 inches not 11 inches at column 79 would prevent girder walk off.

    2. The omitted stiffeners on girder A2001 at column 79 would have prevented the flange from folding and eliminated any chance of walk off.

    3. The thermally expanded girder A2001 could not move past the column 79 side plate.

    4. There were shear studs on girder A2001 and this would cause the beams to buckle before pushing the girder off its seat.

    5. All west and south girder connections to column 79 were not broken down to the 6th floor.

    6. A northeast corner floor failure could not cascade down eight floors so there is not enough energy to break through the girder connection on the next floor down.

    7. There were lateral support beams framing G3005 and they would have prevented it from buckling.

    8. Beam and girder notching to simulate their buckling due to the fire in the model is not consistent with the time phased weakening fire would produce.

    9. Evidence of temperatures high enough to melt steel as documented by FEMA was ignored.

    10. The NIST model shows radical deformation of the upper exterior as the east side interior collapses but this is not observed in actual footage of the video collapse.

    11. A simultaneous free fall of all four corners of the roofline does have implications.

    Deficiency Categories in the NIST WTC Reports and ASCE published Theories

    FirstDefective collapse initiation theories in the NIST twin tower and WTC7 reports

    SecondUnjustified assumptions and errors in the NIST twin tower and WTC7 reports

    ThirdOmissions and alterations of construction details in the NIST WTC7 report

    FourthErrors in the calculations of the ASCE published theories

    FifthInternal contradictions in the NIST WTC7 report

    Sixth – NIST ignores FEMA evidence of high temperature exposure of structural steel from WTC7

    Seventh – NIST and the ASCE refuse to respond to peer criticism


    Neither the 9/11 Commission nor NIST are a cult or a bunch of heroes. You are thoroughly confused. Perhaps they're your heroes, for me they all need to be indicted for criminal fraud, that much I will agree with you on.

    And where in those videos did you find lies? Was it the music? Please point to the lies in the videos if you can and show how they are lies. Perhaps it was somewhere in the contents of the links I posted. Did you hear "ominous music" in those links?

    If I were sleeping you wouldn't be commenting on my post that I wrote in my sleep and posted them in a couple of nanoseconds. Perhaps you've been in a deep coma for the last 17+ years, you don't seem to have been awake long enough to see who is really profiting from 9/11.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2018
  17. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have already commented on your alleged "facts" and how they are taken out of context and when taken as a whole, they show only an intelligence cover up ... do you want to start with #1 yet again? ...

    I am not naive enough the to think that the military industrial complex is not profiting immensely from 9/11 ... I just don't believe the pretext happened prior to the events ... you have so far failed miserably as showing that 9/11 was staged as a pretext ... at best, you have circumstantial evidence and even that fails the scrutiny test ...

    where's the bombshell Bob? ... are we still awaiting the mythical Hulsey Report? ...

    you and your cronies boast that you have an airtight case so where's the meat? ... it's been over 17 years and the truthers still have nothing ... nada zip zero ...
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So in your world all the 29 FACTS listed surrounding the 9/11 Commission and the 18 FACTS listed about the NIST reports are all "out of context" and only show an "intelligence coverup". Not only that but even if that's true, you said the official 9/11 investigations were "adequate" despite that in your world they were a coverup. And furthermore, you said these are all lies. So which is it, adequate, lies or coverup?

    That's your call but there are 47 of these listed, why is #1 your only issue? #1 is FACT, this was a federal crime of massive proportions no matter how much of an apologist you desperately want to be for the Bush administration. In all federal crimes, the Executive branch of the US government is fully responsible to conduct a legitimate investigation, which always includes the preservation of evidence. And the Chief Executive at the time was of course Mr. "My Pet Goat" Bush. But no matter who you want to hold responsible (maybe no one), the FACT remains that the 9/11 evidence was deliberately prior to any investigation.

    I haven't even tried to show 9/11 was staged as a pretext nor do I need to. It's always up to those who are fully aware of the facts to decide for themselves what the circumstantial evidence points to. My objective is expose the facts for those who are not aware so they can educate themselves about 9/11 because many of these facts will never be published by the US government or the MSM. And as much as you want to claim these are all lies and/or "out of context", the fact is that virtually all of them are verifiable and you can't even show how any of them are "out of context". It's just something you need to say because you have nothing real to say.

    The rest of your post is the usual denial garbage, not that what I quoted isn't denial garbage but the rest is just plain childish silliness.
     
  19. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    when did I say that #1 was my only issue Bob? ... you make **** up all the time to further your agenda ... please stop doing that ... it's disingenuous ...

    any open minded individual can see the spin employed in everything that you post ... but that's what truther nation is right Bob? ... spin ...

    why do you no longer post in larger volume conspiracy sites but stick to this petty forum where you feel you have control? ... have Mick West and Mark Roberts gotten into your mind that much? ... is the Gravy too thick for you Bob? ...
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't but you never brought up any other, you always seem to be stuck at #1. Could it be because you can't show how any of these are false besides making some silly generic statement about them all being "out of context", which you also can't seem to back up. I'm still waiting for you to show in detail how ANY of these are lies.

    Nothing I posted is an invention and the only agenda I have is what I posted it is. Like I said show how any of the FACTS I posted is made up if you can, not just say it is. Even better, show how they're ALL made up or lies as you claim.

    As always describing yourself. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    Someone who is so glued to the OCT wouldn't know what open mindedness is.

    I don't post in ANY "conspiracy sites", I am not part of any conspiracy, are you? Why do you post ONLY in this site and ONLY in this section of the forum?

    I don't give 2 ****s about these people, they have zero to do with 9/11. On occasion, I do point out their arguments for the benefit of those who might want to read other points of view, especially when they haven't been mentioned by in this forum by the usual OCT worshippers (e.g. the "bouncing" theory). Just as I use YOU to explain the fallacies of your point of view. At the end of the day, it's always up to the individual to decide for themselves.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Do you know what safety factors for structures actually mean Bob? Do you understand them?
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. It's pretty simple for any non-expert to look up what it means, even for you. It isn't rocket science.

    https://www.google.com/search?sourc....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i131j0i22i30.gDh3tCBGxok

    2. Whether I or anyone else has intimate knowledge of what it is is irrelevant as it changes nothing about #6 (that you quoted) or any other of the 47 facts listed, any of which seriously challenges the legitimacy of the official "investigations" and together (along with many other facts) makes it quite clear that these were not legitimate investigations by any stretch, never mind "adequate" as ridiculously described by another poster.

    3. Why are you questioning me about such a singular and minor detail (in context with the entire picture) when you should be questioning the official investigation with respect to these many facts? Denial much? Evasion and sidetracking much? Trying to make it about me much?
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Aren't you the one who challenged Shinebox to "So surely you should be able to point out all these "lies" I've been spreading and show how they are lies."? So I'm showing you how this point is a lie.

    Did you figure out that the "safety of 3 in the core columns and 5 in the perimeter columns would have prevented the failure mechanism that is theorized in their collapse initiation model." as stated in #6 or did you get that from someone else?
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    When you post a claim that "the factor of safety of 3 in the core columns and 5 in the perimeter columns would have prevented the failure mechanism that is theorized in their collapse initiation model.", either YOU figured that out or someone else did.

    So if YOU are making the claim that the factors of safety should have arrested the collapse, then you have no idea what you're talking about and I can prove it with simple questions and answers. Unless you got this claim from someplace/someone else.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2018
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even if somehow you're able to challenge this point, showing that it's a lie is a whole other matter and showing that I've been spreading lies is yet another matter on top of that.

    The statement comes from a video narrated by Roland Angle and endorsed by well over 3,000 architects and engineers. Also note the highlighted key point.



    See above but feel free to knock yourself out trying to prove the statement is incorrect with "simple questions and answers". I'm completely open to your attempt if you should decide to try it. But I do have to say your approach is already suspect. I can also post "simple questions and answers" that via deductive reasoning point very strongly to the 3 towers being control demolished on 9/11. However, I can honestly say that it wouldn't be proof. Can you honestly say your "simple questions and answers" prove nothing and simply constitute your personal opinion, never mind prove lies and never mind that I'm spreading lies? And can you honestly show that ALL (or even most of) those points I listed are lies and that I'm spreading lies (that actually was the posted claim)?
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2018

Share This Page