What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat
Don't forget "Truthers are all scammers out to rob you blind..."


No they're not. Just the ones specifically asking for money.




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Oh, I almost forgot- to the "no other steel building fell from fires" crowd, I point out the towers had a completely different design that no other skyscraper did, and then I ask "Why shouldn't they have fallen the way they did, especially after being hit by a passenger jet?"

Plus, to the ones who bring up the FEMA report observation that says the plane impacts didn't cause critical damage to the towers.. I ask "if you don't believe the findings of the FEMA report then why are you accepting their finding that the plane impacts didn't cause critical damage?"



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





I ask "if you don't believe the findings of the FEMA report then why are you accepting their finding that the plane impacts didn't cause critical damage?"


Bizarre logic.

Are you saying that FEMA's conclusion on that is wrong?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NormalBates
reply to post by liejunkie01
 





It really is simple that a structure consists of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of connections that all have a job to do within their operating specifications. If the piece or part is subjected to any stresses or forces outside of their specifications the piece or part can fail. A building is not a magical entity, they have certain guidlines that must be followed to be structurally sound and perform it's duty without any problems.


Are you suggesting that piece A at the height of the impact zone was somehow responsible for holding up the complete structure, floors and colomns well below that section?

I don't think so, buddy. There is no reason whatsoever for the collapse of the structure, below the impact zone anyways.


This is exactly the type of repy I was referring to.

Does the weight of the debris not fall on other connections on the lower floors? Each floor is not a solid foundation within itself. It is held up with truss and beam connections. All of these connection you are reffering to below the impact zone try to absorb the load from the stresses either falling, or the added stresses on these connections brought on by the failure of other important load bearing connections.

It is simple really, if connections above fail then all of the stress that those connections were properly withstanding are spread out over the other connections, this could lead to joints or connections that are over stressed and are trying to operate outside of their design specfications, which in most cases this causes fatigue and eventiually failure.

You have to take into consideration, the weight of the above floors, and when this weight is in motion(falling down) the other floors below it are trying to absorb the impacts at multiple connections or areas and these connections are not designed for this purpose. The weight of the falling debris will not be distributed equal in all parts of the floor structure, thus adding more streeses to certain connections than other connections.

I once was hanging some duct work for a building, I was told to cut a couple of x braces connecting the floor joists above. After I cut the last one an Iron worker came over and started raising hell. I only cut out a couple of braces but they called in the engineer and the architect to make sure this would be structurally sound.

Now take that and multiply the results by a factor of whatever and you have the twin towers. Certain key areas were affected to the point where the structure was unable to operate to the designed specs. This resulted in the failure that we all know of today. We are talking about a super heavy structure that is sticking almost a quarter of a mile in the air. Everything has to work in unison to remain structurally sound.

I hve beat this dead horse until there is literally nothing left of the carcass.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
My favorite tactic is to point out that most of the claims of 9/11 truthers are simply lies and fabrications.

Works pretty good too.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
My favorite tactic is to point out that most of the claims of 9/11 truthers are simply lies and fabrications.

Works pretty good too.


Works even without pointing out what claims are lies and fabrications?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I point out the towers had a completely different design that no other skyscraper did...


But Dave, that is not true and just shows the extent of your research.

Almost every skyscraper has been built using that same design since the 60's.


The first building to apply the tube-frame construction was the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building which Khan designed and which was completed in Chicago by 1963.[5] This laid the foundations for the tube structural design of many later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis Tower, and the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.

en.wikipedia.org...

The old WTC was a unique design argument...



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NormalBates
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





I ask "if you don't believe the findings of the FEMA report then why are you accepting their finding that the plane impacts didn't cause critical damage?"


Bizarre logic.

Are you saying that FEMA's conclusion on that is wrong?


I myself subcribe to the findings of the Purdue study, and both the Purdue study and the NIST study contradict the FEMA study, so it's absurd for the truthers to be accusing everyone of "goosestepping to the official story" when in many cases there really is no "official story" for anyone to be goosestepping to. Not even any of the report authors are insisting their findings are absolute.

So what exactly is so "bizarre" about weighing the numerous explanations and supporting the one that sounds the most logical? I don't know if FEMA is wrong, but I do know they're not the only ones who took a stab at trying to explain what happened.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
facts
reason
logic



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

The old WTC was a unique design argument...


All right, fair enough. How many of them has large passenger jets deliberately crash into them, and how many of them had major fires of the scale that the towers had?

You're not deliberately trying to avoid that little detail every time you people pull out your "no other steel building collapsed from fires" comparisons, are you?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



To the "WTC 7 fell mysteriously" crowd, I like to use the eyewitness accounts of people who were physically there, like Deputy Chief Peter Hayden who reported the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control and were causing massive deformations in the structure...and then I ask them "why is he lying?"

He's not lying. But he also is not saying that they expected the whole building to come down in one shot.


To the "no plane hit the Pentagon" crown, I mention the numerous people who were physically there from immigrants from El Salvador watering the lawn to programmers packign to move who saw the plane hit the Pentagon..and then I ask "why are they lying?"

I agree with this one.
Side issue (just my personal curiosity) do you think that Lloyd England really pulled the light pole out of his windshield with help of only one other person and didn't scratch the hood?


To the "phone calls can't be made from the planes" I like to point out how flight attendent Renee May called her parents to report the plane was hijacked...and then ask "why are her parents lying?"

But isnt it true that In the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, the FBI showed that there was only one phone call from Barbara Olson, and that it was an unconnected call lasting zero seconds. Why is Ted Olson lying?


To the "there's no such thing as al Qaida", I point out the courier that was arrested in Vienna with documents showing Al Qaida was responsible for the 7/7 attack...and then I ask "Why is the Austrian government lying?"

Where did it come from? Why are we supporting them in Libya or is it Syria? And why oh why did we dump bin ladens body into the ocean?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
reply to post by GoodOlDave


Not even any of the report authors are insisting their findings are absolute.


 






NIST made a good job of turning a blind eye to certain effects that were present at ground zero, or just ignoring it.

I don't debunk often, I am a good listener, for both good info and the brown stuff, (ask the fork and knife)


So, I don't really have dodgy debunk tactics. The 'No men on the Moon' theory is stupid though, almost literally chasing shadows, with a whole mainstream documentary made by 'smashed in the face' (it's easy to see why mainstream took it on..pure entertainment, but rubbish and they would know it) That documentary debunked itself in the making, by showing the Apollo 11 picture of the whole earth, from many thousands of miles distance, on their way to the Moon, a picture that could only have been taken that day and time.
edit on 20-5-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Plus, to the ones who bring up the FEMA report observation that says the plane impacts didn't cause critical damage to the towers.. I ask "if you don't believe the findings of the FEMA report then why are you accepting their finding that the plane impacts didn't cause critical damage?"


I'm confused now, is FEMA right or wrong?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by maxella1
 


And the FBI also testified that it was most likely Barbara Olson who made the calls from the AIRFONE to her husbands office. Those calls did go through.




In other words, Ted Olson isn't lying.
edit on 20-5-2012 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 



I once was hanging some duct work for a building, I was told to cut a couple of x braces connecting the floor joists above. After I cut the last one an Iron worker came over and started raising hell. I only cut out a couple of braces but they called in the engineer and the architect to make sure this would be structurally sound.


Was that building built the same as WTC? And did the engineer say that It could collapse all the way down to the ground floor ?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1

He's not lying. But he also is not saying that they expected the whole building to come down in one shot.


Irrelevent. From the abnormal damage and from the creaking noises everyone was hearing, the firefighters said they knew it was inevitable the structure was going to fall. That IS what the truthers keep bringing up when they say "how did the NYFD know the building was going to come down before it did", isn't it?




I agree with this one.
Side issue (just my personal curiosity) do you think that Lloyd England really pulled the light pole out of his windshield with help of only one other person and didn't scratch the hood?


The possibility that Lloyd England may or may not have embellished his activities in no way refute the fact that a plane hit the Pentagon...which actually brings up *another* tactic I use- I ask why can't there be a lot of people lying through their teeth about what happened AS WELL AS the 9/11 attack really being an attack by Islamic fundamentalists? One doesn't cancel out the other.

If you want to claim Lloyd England actually lost his control when the plane flew over and ran into the light pile instead, and he's lying to cover up his bad driving, go right ahead. Heck, I might even agree with you if you have proof to back the claim up.




But isnt it true that In the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, the FBI showed that there was only one phone call from Barbara Olson, and that it was an unconnected call lasting zero seconds. Why is Ted Olson lying?


...to which I ask, "why are you consistantly ignoring all the blizzard of OTHER calls made from the hijacked planes and analysing this one individual call exclusively?" Besides, Ted Olson's testimony essentially mirrors what Renee May's parents said, so unless Ted Olson has ESP I'm going to need to believe the claim that "Barbara Olson's call lasted zero seconds" is incorrect.


Where did it come from? Why are we supporting them in Libya or is it Syria? And why oh why did we dump bin ladens body into the ocean?


For the same reason why the Russians buried the Czars' and his family in secret, for the same reason why the British buried Himmler's body in an unmarked grave and the same reason why the allies cremated Goering's body and scattered his ashes- to make sure their flunkies couldn't memorialize any gravesite and turn them into martyrs. I have no issue with that and it isn't as if this hasn't happened before.

Why do you ask? Are you claiming that's some part of a sinister secret plot to take over the world, too?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
My favorite tactic is to point out that most of the claims of 9/11 truthers are simply lies and fabrications.

Works pretty good too.


Like the NIST never specifying the total amount of concrete in the towers.

Like they never discuss the center of mass of the tilted top 29 stories of the south tower.

How as any so called physics supposed to be analyzed about those buildings?

psik



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
I'm confused now, is FEMA right or wrong?


I cannot say one way or the other becuase it is one explanation among several explanations. All I can say is that I myself subscribe to the Purdue report, but I'm not arrogant enough to insist their report must be the one that's correct and all the other reports are correct becuase that's the scenario I want to believe.

You're the one who's asking for our "favorite debunking tactics", aren't you? Isn't it germaine to the topic to point out this "official story" slogan the truthers are relying on is nonsense because in many cases there's too many legitimate answers for what caused the towers to fall for any of them to be "official"?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





So what exactly is so "bizarre" about weighing the numerous explanations and supporting the one that sounds the most logical? I don't know if FEMA is wrong, but I do know they're not the only ones who took a stab at trying to explain what happened.


The bizarre part is that you act like it is "not fair" for that poster to qoute that part of the FEMA report.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




Irrelevent. From the abnormal damage and from the creaking noises everyone was hearing, the firefighters said they knew it was inevitable the structure was going to fall. That IS what the truthers keep bringing up when they say "how did the NYFD know the building was going to come down before it did", isn't it?

Irrelevant hah?

Saying that the building is unstable and in danger of collapsing does not mean that it will collapse entirely to the ground at once. And you know it. And that's why it's irrelevant in your mind. Again you lie and say that the firefighters were expecting what happened to the WTC 7. but the truth is they only said that it was unstable and in danger of collapse. Not that the way it did collapse was normal and expected. Stop making things up !



The possibility that Lloyd England may or may not have embellished his activities in no way refute the fact that a plane hit the Pentagon...which actually brings up *another* tactic I use- I ask why can't there be a lot of people lying through their teeth about what happened AS WELL AS the 9/11 attack really being an attack by Islamic fundamentalists? One doesn't cancel out the other. If you want to claim Lloyd England actually lost his control when the plane flew over and ran into the light pile instead, and he's lying to cover up his bad driving, go right ahead. Heck, I might even agree with you if you have proof to back the claim up.

I have no disagreement with you in the case of the Pentagon. Lloyd England is irrelevant, it's just my personal question which has nothing to do with the issue of airplane hitting the Pentagon.

My question is why was it allowed to hit the Pentagon in the first place. You do remember that in 1994 a guy crashed into the White House on purpose right? So the argument that nobody could of imagine it is out the _ They not only imagined it but they also had drills with this scenario.


...to which I ask, "why are you consistantly ignoring all the blizzard of OTHER calls made from the hijacked planes and analysing this one individual call exclusively?" Besides, Ted Olson's testimony essentially mirrors what Renee May's parents said, so unless Ted Olson has ESP I'm going to need to believe the claim that "Barbara Olson's call lasted zero seconds" is incorrect.

So in this case the FBI is incorrect because you say so? OK !


For the same reason why the Russians buried the Czars' and his family in secret, for the same reason why the British buried Himmler's body in an unmarked grave and the same reason why the allies cremated Goering's body and scattered his ashes- to make sure their flunkies couldn't memorialize any gravesite and turn them into martyrs. I have no issue with that and it isn't as if this hasn't happened before.


Where did it come from? Why are we supporting them in Libya or is it Syria?

Are you ignoring the first two questions on purpose?


Why do you ask? Are you claiming that's some part of a sinister secret plot to take over the world, too?


It's against the law to dump garbage into the oceans.
MARPOL 73/78
Why couldn’t they cremate him? And more importantly why didn't they take him alive like Saddam Hussein? He wasn’t armed, or was he?





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join