9-11 Truthers & Holocaust Deniers

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

  1. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18

    ???

    You aren't making any sense. Which in view of your latest comment about intelligence in another thread, is ironic.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,185
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps not to you, I can see that. You said:

    Implying there isn't any such evidence. So if you don't believe 9/11 was committed by a lone gunman (I know the term confuses you) it had to be a conspiracy by definition (the one I posted). But you know of no evidence it was a conspiracy, ok. Now I understand why you believe I'm the one not making any sense.
     
  3. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I see that you want to go with juvenile games and pointing out the actual definition of "conspiracy" without addressing how many people it would take to pull of your grand scheme(s) ... you just dodge and play with words ...

    try to answer a simple question ... very simple ... "how many conspirators do you think it would take to CD WTC7?" ... if it is so obvious to you that is was a CD, you should be able to put some of your deductive reasoning skills to come up with a ballpark number ...

    don't be a slippery coward Bob ... just answer the question ...
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,185
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's a "juvenile game"? The definition of CONSPIRACY includes how many at minimum TWO (2). I don't have any "grand scheme(s)" and the definition of conspiracy has nothing to do with any "grand scheme(s)", it's just a definition, one that many in this section of the forum have no clue about.

    I didn't dodge anything or play with any words, I was being quite specific, unlike you with most of your responses.

    Why should I accommodate you when I asked you a simple question ... very simple? Why should I accommodate you when you fail to answer many of my questions and dodge MOST of the time? I don't owe you anything. Answer my questions that I asked you first and I will answer yours.

    I asked you several questions you are very capable of answering and based on your alleged background are right up your alley. OTOH you're asking me a question I couldn't answer in a million years. If you want to know how many it takes to CD WTC7, it was answered for you generically by Danny Jowenko in the video I provided ("a team of experts"). I have never claimed I'm a CD expert, you're barking up the wrong tree.

    It's apples and oranges. One does not need to speculate on any specific number to be able to deduce WTC7 was CD'd. It is elementary deductive reasoning.

    Don't be a ****ing hypocrite Shiner, just answer my questions, they are simple ... very simple, especially for a man of your claimed background.
     
  5. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I have answered your questions Bob ... answer one of mine for once and quit trying to steer the conversation like a well trained truther ... ask me any question you like and I will give you an honest answer ... but one at a time and not framed with truther nonsense ... if you want to add a vid to your question,kindly reference the time mark so I don't have to sit through hours of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) I have already seen ...

    I have already blown Jowenko out of the water with his insincere reposnse to not knowing about WTC 7 coming down until years later ...
     
  6. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    and you keep asking me questions without answering any of mine ...
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,185
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm good man, I asked you several questions just recently. Anything I ask you will be "framed with truther nonsense" in your world, even a question about a brick wall. The question about the brick wall was a serious question that you didn't take seriously. It has a very simple answer for those who have studied elementary physics. For you Mr. Engineer, it should be a breeze. You should also know why I asked and I don't doubt you do. You didn't answer because you don't have the stones Mr. Engineer. Honesty and you is an oxymoron. I thought there was something to you when you said the NIST reports were invalid. I told Koko I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt only because you posted that. You know what? Koko is 100% right about you.

    Yeah I'm really impressed. A nobody who posts the **** you post claims he knows better than Jowenko, not to mention literally hundreds of verifiable experts in many fields.
     
  8. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    a brick wall is a solid mass rookie ... it has no empty space or cross lateral supports ... let's say any of the WTCs were made out of solid brick with no open space ...take your argument there truther boy ...

    answer my questions or (*)(*)(*)(*) ...
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,695
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83



    hmm.... an engineer that doesnt even know anything about bricks. your doing a great job shine


    [​IMG]


    unless you are talking about structural air....:roll:
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,185
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never asked you what kind of structure a brick wall is Mr. Engineer. All you have to do is go back a few posts and you can find the exact question, it's really not very difficult:

    This is just another example of your BS dodging. You fool no one.

    Yeah let's talk about something else because like I said, you don't have the stones to answer an elementary physics question Mr. Engineer that any high schooler should be able to answer. Calling me "truther boy" and providing a pretend answer sounds to me like you are either not at that level yet or you are what Koko says you are, right Mr. Engineer? I'm personally more inclined to the latter but I could be wrong.
     
  11. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    what are the dimensions and the mass of the brick wall and how the hell are you going to set it on fire? ... I fail to see what your point is Bobby ...

    ( won't even respond to Sparky's decorative bricks ... )
     
  12. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,185
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah right. Who do you think you're fooling? There are ONLY 2 possible answers to the question (YES or NO) and only one of those is the right answer. Keep on dancing Mr. Engineer.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,185
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand, you won't ever answer my questions either. For the same reason(s).
     
  14. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm not asking what the definition of a conspiracy is ... I have plenty of dictionaries at my disposal ... who's dancing Bob? ... just answer the question(s) Bob and put down the dictionary and try and use your own words ...

    what's the answer to the brick wall question? ... no, it cannot collapse into it's own footprint but perhaps (depending on the heat source, which you never specified) collapsing into a mound but you never gave any dimensions or ask how are you going to keep bricks on fire now did you? ... the brick question is just another dodge to not answer any other relevant questions which you never any of, including from other members ...

    I must hand you this though, you're very good at steering conversations in other directions ... typical twoofer tactic ...

    - - - Updated - - -

    I have answered all of your questions ... you have answered none of mine ...
     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,695
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Do you have even the foggiest notion how utterly over the top out to lunch loony that sounds to a mind gifted with the understanding of even rudimentary reason?

    A conspiracy requires 2 or more.
    A conspiracy means 2 or more did something in violation of law.

    Dropping the towers was not lawful and if you purport to claim its not a conspiracy then do tell us which individual managed to do that feat by themselves.

    Geeebus you need to stop posting (*)(*)(*)(*) off poser sites and use your head.
     
  16. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    we all know it was a conspiracy and what the definition of a conspiracy is ... we know of at least 20 behind the plot ... it's finding the rest that is a vexing problem ...
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,185
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Irrelevant, your post in the other thread indicates you haven't been following the discussion.

    Congratulations, it took you that many posts to answer the question and you deliberately didn't qualify your answer correctly even though I posted the question twice. Here it is again:

    If you note, there are 2 significant qualifiers to the question (highlighted above). The first you ignored in your answer (and you know why) and the second is an additional qualifier that I didn’t mention. In order to come down in its footprint, it would have to come down through its own bricks, but you failed to mention that. Instead, you supplied your own qualifier. Not a biggie but just sayin'.

    Not at all, it's an extremely relevant question that has nothing to do with conspiracy theory, it's about collapse fact and theory, something that should be right up your alley. Your question is strictly conspiracy theory based and requires speculation. You would think someone with your background would be very interested in a discussion on structural collapses. Certainly more interested in that than in conspiracy theory, which you always seem to ridicule.

    Not either, I'm focusing on one issue right now, one that I find worth discussing and elaborating on. Why should I leave a discussion I want to have and haven’t finished in order to engage in a discussion you want to have? You are of course free to drop out any time you like.

    Do you still believe that silliness is an intelligent way of enhancing your argument? WTF is a "twoofer tactic" (don't bother, it's what I said it is).

    That's not completely true, you haven't answered many of my questions and I told you I can only answer a question that makes sense to me, if I can answer it. You asked me to speculate on "how many conspirators do (I) think it would take to CD WTC7?" and I answered it (see post #154).

    In the next post I will go over why I asked you the brick wall question. I’m sure you know so it’s really not for you, it’s for those who want to know why the NIST report (the one you claim is not valid but also claim is "more logical than CD"), is completely false. All based on fact, expert opinion, logic, common sense and deductive reasoning, among other things and none of it on conspiracy theory. You are of course welcome to discuss it, preferably without the silliness, if you are capable.
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,185
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the question once again is:

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

    And the correct answer is NO. It doesn’t matter what the dimensions of the brick wall are or how long and how hot the fire is, it cannot happen, ever. And the reason has to do with elementary physics, specifically Newton’s first law of motion:

    An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

    If the heat from the fire and the length of time were sufficient to cause the brick wall to begin to destabilize, the force necessary for the brick wall to cause it to come down would of course be gravity. The brick wall cannot come down at the rate of gravitational acceleration (or any constant acceleration) because the bricks cannot go through other bricks (an additional force) without slowing down the rate of accelerating descent (assuming the bricks could be weakened enough to begin to smash through the lower bricks). There’s one thing NIST spokesman Shyam Sunder got right:

    “free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it”

    So what does that have to do with WTC7?

    According to NIST (and often parroted by other posters), they claim the interior of WTC7 collapsed first, followed by the walls, all 4 of them in unison, at a rate of descent equal to gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds (for the first 100 feet or 8 stories) from the moment the roof line began to descend. And the descent of the 4 walls continued to accelerate, nearly straight down and minimally slowing down its accelerating rate for a total period of 5.4 seconds (according to the NIST report) to ground level.

    So in effect, what NIST claims is that the 4 brick walls essentially came down at free fall acceleration all in nearly perfect unison. In technical terms, they claim “The exterior columns then buckled as the failed building core moved downward, redistributing its loads to the exterior columns. Global collapse occurred as the entire building above the buckled region moved downward as a single unit.”

    Chapter 4, Page 48, Paragraph 1 (PDF Page 90): http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

    So the exterior columns at a low point of the building (about the 12th floor) somehow destroyed the bricks all around the building at the very same instant. Or the only other possible way would be if the bricks around the 12th floor, all around came down through its own bricks at the exact same moment.

    In other words, all 4 walls descended at free fall despite that there were lower bricks in the direct path of the higher bricks. Note that there are photos of WTC6 that show a majority of the entire interior portion scooped out but all 4 walls remained standing. But for NIST, WTC7 was a “unique case” where all 4 walls could collapse in nearly perfect perpendicular symmetry.

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

    (continued)
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,185
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    (continuing)

    The videos of the allegedly collapsing 4 walls minus the interior do not show that the lower bricks are being destroyed by the higher bricks at any time. So what kind of event could cause the 4 walls to come down at an accelerating rate of descent? The following video shows 3 different but similar examples of how that can be achieved.

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

    Ignoring WTC7 collapsing on the left, the 3 buildings shown at the right that were CD’d all share the same characteristics. All 4 walls come straight down in unison at an accelerating rate. The foundation and the bricks at lowest part of the buildings are destroyed (not seen with the 3rd building), allowing the entire building to come down as one unit. None of the buildings are on fire. Now looking at WTC7, it looks nearly identical, the 4 walls come straight down in unison at an accelerating rate but the lowest part of WTC7 is obscured. No fire is visible, however we do know from other videos that the part of the building not shown (the south side) seems to be pouring out an abundant amount of black smoke. However if only that side of the building were on fire and it would cause collapse, why would the other 3 walls come down with it in unison?

    What NIST theorizes (besides the forensically proven to be impossible column 79 scenario) is an event that could only happen in a Hollywood movie.

    So the logical choices to determine the cause of collapse are either a proven common event for a building collapse or an event that can only happen in a Hollywood movie or a different miracle.

    Note that none of the above has anything to do with conspiracies, conspiracy fact or conspiracy theory, just the facts, science, expert opinion, logic (including deductive reasoning) and plain old common sense.
     
  20. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Is that it? ... a steel/pan/pin/pour building has nothing in common with a brick wall ... idiotic comparison ...
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,185
    Likes Received:
    1,122
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Idiotic non-response to the NIST theory you espouse where the interior of the building collapsed first leaving the 4 walls standing, then dropping in unison at free fall.
     
  22. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    you don't see an interior collapse that later pulled down the curtain wall? ... it wasn't a brick wall Bobby ... I have no idea where you are trying to go with this ... brick wall???
     
  23. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It is a trend in your mind about the people YOU call "9/11 Truthers".

    If it is just a physics problem then conspiracies are irrelevant.

    psik
     
  24. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,503
    Likes Received:
    3,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have not been on too many 9/11/01 forums, however, as someone that was at Ground Zero on 9/11/01, at the WTC, and witnessed the destruction, and the collapse of Tower ll almost killing those of us involved in the rescue effort.

    The intense discussions about the events that took place then seem to be more about theory and Googled information and less about those that were there and those that perished in those related events.

    I fail to understand why there is more interest in fictional accounts by People that were not there, and mere conspiracy theories backed by no facts.

    Is there anyone here discussing this topic that was actually present on 9/11/01 or any time after ?
    An eyewitness ?
     
  25. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    32,331
    Likes Received:
    34,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    At least 9/11 truthers can point to some evidence such as the collapse of Tower 7.

    By contrast, note all the far right haters who engage in Holocaust denial in this video from You Tube:


    [video=youtube;K-KqxRrXpjI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KqxRrXpjI&lc=z13ntpgybxq3szxs1224jrhicou 3xdsq304[/video]





    Right wingers on this forum pretend that it is the political left that engages in this outrageous claim that Jews were not persecuted when, in fact, it is the far right that does so. This because of their endless and unrelenting hate and self projections.
     

Share This Page