Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ANOK

---

I have to assume you're just being dishonest at this point. One of the reasons why I don't engage with the Truther community is that I find that they behave like ideologues. They are guided by their beliefs, not their logic or common sense.

Here's an example:

You said the floors were "ejected".

They were not.

A lot of rubble fell in many different directions, as we all saw, but to leap the conclusion that entire "floors were ejected" is complete nonsense and not based on ANY evidence.

So, when we say that's not true, it's because there's no evidence of it.

You take that very specific poitn and turn it into:

- We disagree with FEMA
- We think all the rubble fell in the foot print of the building (which doesn't even happen in Demos, btw)

And on and on.

That's so frustratingly dishonest and childish and makes it impossible to have a sane discussion with you.

I could go through most truther threads and find thousands of contradictory truther claims, in fact there's many in this very thread. I could then use that info to mock all truther beliefs. In fact many do this exact thing.

BUT

That's not a discussion and it benefits no one.

If you want to have a discussion, act like an adult, otherwise I won't waste my time.

The molten steel has never been proven, it is debunked by a lack of evidence.

The "iron spheres" were identified only in samples that no one else has access to. There's no control group to determine if iron spheres may have other sources if they do exist. Debunked again.

Nothing is missing except an understanding of the physical world. This again falls into a "default debunk" because there is no evidence that would support it as a fact.

Gravity works in a straight line here on Earth. Always has.

Your use of the word "flawed" does not constitute a fact that requires explanation.

Plenty of heat and chemical reactions within the rubble to cause reactions.

A) Estimated

B) Limited duration.

Opinion of a group of unqualified and bias group with one off samples that no one else has access to. Default Debunk.

First some evidence has to be given in their support.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ANOK

---

This is EXACTLY the kind of nonsense that truthers pass off as science and logic.

As I explained (and as anyone with a bit of common sense and knowledge understands immediately) the buildings got progressively less rigid and able to sustain the downward pressure as the collapse bit destroyed more and more of the outer shell. I'm not sure if you guys are wilfully misunderstanding the nature of the towers or if you actually just don't understand what a large role the shell had in keeping them upright...?

On top of that, if you watch those french demo vids, which are done WITHOUT explosives, you can see that a much smaller number of floors CAN and DOES destroy a larger number of floors. And it doesn't take much to make it happen.

Other issues with your beliefs:

- Welded/bolted steel is only as strong as the welds and bolts. The debris didn't have to go straight down through steel, but simply wreck the welds and bolts enough to make the structure, (not the beams them self) collapse.

- You're belief is predicated on a mystery technology. That's extremely silly. Those French vids show EXACTLY the same behaviour as the WTC, with no mystery tech.

- As the OP said, the collapse accelerated up to free-fall. In a demo, even one using your exciting new mystery tech, the collapse is essentially immediately at free-fall. In other words, there's no gradual acceleration. So unless the bogeymen in your fantasy have used their mystery tech in a way which gradually speeds up the collapse, your theory is false.

- There's no evidence of any of this exciting new mystery tech in any of the videos.



---

Again, one of the big problems with the whole truther world view is the circular nature of the logic. When you start pulling calling out the little bits of nonsense (mystery technology, unexplained demo techniques, dismissing other rational explanations, the buildings "looking like demos," etc etc) the whole thing falls apart.

The truther house isn't strong except for a few bricks; it's a house of cards. Each silly belief is just as silly as each other silly belief. None of it is backed up by evidence or common sense.

For the record, Bush and Cheney should be in jail, the neo-cons should be hunted down and ... a best locked up for ever... but... none of that changes ANY of the evidence.

Evidence:

No witnesses saw/heard the hundreds of TIMED explosions necessary to bring down a building. None of the these hundreds of explosions are visible on ANY video.

There is however lots of examples of buildings collapsing straight down, without explosives. Those collapses are started by removing ONE floor from buildings.

What's more likely?

- Accelerating collapse with NO evidence of how it's been accomplished, based on a belief in some mystery technology.

- Accelerating collapse caused by the removal of a floor of the buildings, exactly as the French do, which looks exactly like the French demos.

In the CT version all of the missing explosions and top down acceleration is accounted for with a bunch of "mystery tech," supposition and guesses.

In the real world, all of that mystery is removed by simply looking at the video and listening to the witnesses.

YouTube Link

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by hooper

---

The molten steel has never been proven, it is debunked by a lack of evidence

Refer to the OP..

I did, that's why I said what I said. The OP does not provided anything but unscientific wild-eyed conspiracy speculation.

The "iron spheres" were identified only in samples that no one else has access to. There's no control group to determine if iron spheres may have other sources if they do exist. Debunked again

Denying reality is not debunking, debunking would be accurately proving something false. You just gave an opinion that the iron spheres were invalid, that is not debunking..

Scientific process - invalid. No control group.

I'll debunk them for you: The iron spheres were formed during the construction of the Twin Towers when torches were used for welding.

Can't even prove they exist and no control group - no science, no facts.

Etc., etc. etc. SSDD. Challenging the world to debunk your opinions.

I did, that's why I said what I said. The OP does not provided anything but unscientific wild-eyed conspiracy speculation.

The molten steel has never been proven, it is debunked by a lack of evidence.

Can't even prove they exist and no control group - no science, no facts.

I know hooper, no control group, anti-American mormom agenda to sell books, yadda yadda yadda. Where was NISTs control group during their top-notch investigation?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Rafe_

---

Don't forget that the OPs video was repeatedly debunked and that if there was anything like definitive proof these conversations would have stopped years ago. ALSO don't forget that Steven Jones was busted forging evidence. Hardly the behaviour of a trustworthy individual.

If you want to have a discussion, act like an adult, otherwise I won't waste my time.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

---

The concrete floors were only 6" thick. Even if you stacked them perfectly neatly one on top of the other it would only be 55' high. The empty space between the floors was "ejected" during the collapse.

Actually the concrete was 8" thick from what I've seen, making that 88' high, plus the steel and the trusses that would be between each floor. There was no 88' stack of floors in the footprints of the towers was there?

But regardless IF the dropping floors caused the trusses to fail on the floors they fell on,

then the floors themselves would have also been destroyed, because it would take more force to cause the trusses to fail than to destroy and eject the concrete.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by TupacShakur

---

I would like to point out ot the members of this website that hooper's posting has been limited to the 9/11 conspiracies forum, and he passionately defends the official story despite being pounded with evidence.

The same goes for GoodOlDave, another strong supported of the official story, both of them have been restricted to 9/11 threads in which they bash the truth movement. See for yourself, look at their posts in their profile, and scroll down the list of the most recent 800 posts. They are all related to 9/11.

I'll just come right out and say it: Hooper, I think you are a dis-info agent who comes here to muddy the waters of the truth movement. Same goes for GoodOlDave.

TrickOfTheShade is another strong official story believer, and just like GoodOlDave and hooper, his posts are restricted to the 9/11 thread.

I think we've found some dis-info agents people.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

---

They did, there is no "if" about it.

Wrong again! The trusses didn't have to fail, just the truss support connections and it takes a lot less force to shear a couple of bolts then to break up the concrete so the remaining energy from the falling sections was used up breaking the concrete floor sections. As for dispursement. Don't forget about the arc of descent.

Originally posted by ANOK
I am still waiting for you to address the equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws,bla bla bla... an increasing path of most resistance.

What I meant was the whole construction that had to fail, not just the trusses obvioulsy.

You are not making sense.

If there was enough energy to break all the bolts then the energy would be enough to break up the concrete and shift the mass horizontally out of the footprint.

I don't know why you are still arguing this, proof is in the fact there were no stack of floors in the footprint.

There should be the remains of the roof and hat truss, and antenna at least, because being at the top of the structure there was nothing to crush them.

The arc of descent? What? If your floors are falling vertically as you claim, there is no arc in their decent.

I am still waiting for you to address the equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws, in context with your hypotheses.

I am also still waiting for you to address the core structure of 47 massive box columns, that got progressively smaller and lighter as they went up, and what caused it to fall vertically through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance.

Until you do that you have not explained a single thing worth listening to.