Sept 11, 2001 Research & Discovery Project

Discussion in '9/11' started by Hannibal, Mar 5, 2012.

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. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nice....I was hoping someone would come along and make asinine comments. The funniest part is the free fall time. If it took 2-3 seconds longer than some should think then it means NIST's new theory to explain WTC 7 is beyond reproach........
     
  2. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you worded that wrong. You're claiming that because some idiot thinks it should have taken 2-3 seconds longer, that the NIST report is NOT above reproach. Then again, truthers make silly comments all the time. Maybe that is they way you meant to say it.

    Opinion is not evidence. I am betting good money you've never even read the NIST report on WTC 7. If you HAD, you would know that the collapse took far longer than what was visible on the outside as internal structures failed. You can even see what they are talking about in some of the videos.
     
  3. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So present them. You making claims you never back up is hardly new, but it does get old. How about you actually back up your claims like you demand others do.

    Here. I'll start.

    Source - Reflections on the World Trade Center

    His article starts on page 5. In it he discusses such things as the calculations used for the 707.

    Now, make sure you're not thinking about comments made by Skilling, the other lead structural engineer. He made claims about the calculations, but he wasn't the one that actually DID the calculations.

    Regardless, it is quite clear the towers DID survive the impacts of the planes, but not the ensuing fires that later studies showed would have doomed the towers even without the impact of the planes.

    Your turn. Man up or run away.
     
  4. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your posts are nothing but memorized cliches and full of idiocy overflowing with ignorance so please do not waste anyone's time trying to correct another's post.
     
  5. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do I have to remind you on every single thread that your opinion is completely and totally useless?
     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a false dichotomy. The SOP of the 9/11 truther.

    First, I didn't not claim what you paraphrased. I said that the ignorant claim the building fell at free fall speed, and that they are incorrect with that claim.

    Second, the NIST report is not beyond reproach. The problem is that truther criticism of the report is based on ignorance.
     
  7. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't respond when people fail to honestly quote my posts.
     
  8. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Apparently you never read the paper. They used the exact same techniques to identify and isolate the red and gray chips Jones used.

    They said they never tested for explosives because there were none of the other telltale signs that are ALWAYS PRESENT when explosives are used. You know. Things like earthshaking explosions so large they can be easily seen and identified on seismic equipment, of which there were plenty that recorded what happened at the WTC. Instead, audio recordings of the collapse show ZERO explosions before or during the collapse. How do you have a silent explosion? You don't. Why test for something all the other evidence precludes?

    Wrong yet again. A convenient excuse for truthers to parade around, but, like the rest of the truther bull(*)(*)(*)(*), it is just their opinion not backed by any evidence.

    Another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) truther claim they can't back up with actual evidence.

    See, this is so typical of the truther dishonesty. They claim no investigation was done. Meanwhile the NIST looked at the evidence, looked at the claims, and instead of forcing the evidence to fit the claims, used the evidence to come up with a theory that fit the evidence. This drives the truthers bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy! For instance. Take SS's claim it took them seven years to do the study on WTC 7. It didn't. What DID happen is the NIST studied the towers first and THEN focused their attention on WTC 7. Such blatant dishonesty is rampant when dealing with truthers.
     
  9. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And SS, when asked to defend his claim, runs away yet again. Thus, I've been proven right once again. Another victory for the truth over the truthers. Thanks for playing, SS. Come back again when you want to make a claim and then run away! I'll be here to challenge your claims and prove to everyone that reads them that you can't even defend your own claims.
     
  10. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You just did, in the standard truther way I might add. Instead of addressing the point, you changed the subject.

    Was the word dichotomy the issue for you? The dichotomy was:

    1. If greater then freefall
    2. then NIST is beyond reproach.

    If you disagree with this, then perhaps a lesson in grammar is in order?
     
  11. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Or any other time your posts are challenged. A true sign of someone completely unable to respond to the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) in his posts.
     
  12. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you want a discussion then do not edit my posts.
     
  13. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When someone worth the effort comes along I will debate in earnest. Your posts are such a joke that they actually help people doubt the official theory.....
     
  14. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whatever happened to NAB? he accepted my offer of a one on one debate and attributed claims to me but he never provided any support or the debate thread.....
     
  15. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did not edit your post. I quoted a portion of it. What I quoted did not change the meaning in any way.
     
  16. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, another tactic from the truther playbook. Ladies and gentleman I give you the conditional promise.
     
  17. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another excuse to cut and run like the rest. I've given you solid evidence. You've ran every time. Don't sit there and pretend. We all know what is going on.

    As for your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim that my posts are "such a joke they actually help people doubt the official story", BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Man is the joke on you! I've received quite a few private emails and rep points from readers who never chimed in but agreed with what I wrote. Why? Because unlike you I have the evidence to back it up. You can't even begin to refute the evidence, so why would ANYONE believe you over the evidence? They wouldn't. So try not to pretend so much. You're not fooling anybody. You're just giving us all a good laugh!
     
  18. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When you quote a post and EDIT OUT WORDS that is called....EDITING......but hey ....thanks for showing your inability to honestly post so early on.
     
  19. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When you can't even honestly quote posts.....but keep up the whining responses.....this board is proving everyday how pathetic the content and quality of discussions.
     
  20. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only from the truther side of things. You've made claims. I've proven them wrong. You run away. Low quality, but only from you. I can debate you on any aspect of 9/11. I think you know it too. That is why you're always running.

    Now run away. Again.
     
  21. SkyStryker

    SkyStryker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    10,388
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The funny part is you probably actually truly believe you are well versed on the subject....I'm only responding now because I am bored. Your dishonest posts are a prime example of what it takes to defend the OCT and instead of admitting the painfully obvious truth that your posts are useless you pretend people are intimidated. How long can you keep up that charade? I bet you will put on another fifty pounds before then.....
     
  22. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Page 7 of the truther SOP. The semantics game.

    I did not edit out words from the passage I quoted. I quoted the entire passage as it was typed. I am not going to, nor do I need to copy your entire post in every one of my posts.
     
  23. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    SkyStriker, you said that an experimental building collapse that matched the real world collapse was a possibility but very unlikely.

    Please support this position with something other than your layman's opinion. Can you support this position with an energy balanced model? Can you support it with a buckling diagram? What mechanism should have prevented the collapse?
     
  24. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Locked thread is locked.

    I went and looked and I must have attributed the tree thing with another poster. Both of you were posting in the same thread, so my apologies on that.
     
  25. Patriot911

    Patriot911 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    9,312
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    More bull(*)(*)(*)(*) posts from you. You CLAIM my posts are dishonest, yet you can't actually point out lies, can you. When I call your posts dishonest, I actually point out WHERE they are dishonest. Funny thing is you can never refute my points on why your post is dishonest. Very telling.

    So keep dancing, truther. The more you dance, the more obvious it becomes you have nothing. Posts like what you posted above is a prime example. All fluff, no substance. Previously you CLAIMED Robertson made all kinds of conflicting claims. I called you on it and gave you source documents from Robertson himself. You ran away as fast as you could. I would most certainly call that intimidated! :lol:

    We want there to be absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind about the dishonesty, lack of substance and lack of evidence in truther posts. You do an excellent job proving that to people.
     

Share This Page