What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by DIDtm


His post makes much more sense than most of you truthers.You all try to put a square peg into a circle and swear it fits Seriously,do any of you really believe what you say?

I tend to stay out of this forum simply because some of the # I read is so out there. The "no plane" people are especially a good source for me if I need to laugh.

Now,I don't buy the official story..but I also don't buy half the # I read on the net than claim to be an expert

Truther: There were eye witnesses that said they heard explosions in the towers.

Debunker: You can't trust eye witnesses / They were probably mistaken / it could have been anything exploding in there.

Meanwhile in the next thread...

Same truther: The fires weren't out of control, there were firefighters who thought they could control them...

Same debunker: But the eye witness testimony from the Fire Chief said the fires were out of control.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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?"

Well you have just provided us with another classic 'debunker's' line...

"the towers had a completely different design that no other skyscraper did"

Don't most buildings have a different design?! Different architectural design or not, they still had a steel structure, and that steel still melts/weakens at the same temperatures as every other steel framed building that has not collapsed due to fires. So this classic line from you lot, carries no weight at all (no pun intended).

Why shouldn't they have fallen? Because they were designed to take a hit from a large passenger plane, and considering where the plane did hit there was no reason for the rest of the building to collapse, and no reason for explosions to be happening all over the place, especially in the basement!

Obviously the FEMA report reeks of contradiction, we believe the part about the plane not doing enough damage to bring it down because we didn't need FEMA to tell us the obvious, the designer's word is good enough for us on that, and I think physics also tells us that.

Keep trying with those repeated weak arguments! Anyone would think you'd be bored of repeating this BS!

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.

It doesn't work at all, not when the OS is one massive lie to start with!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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?

The passenger jet was no match for the towers! The fire was not that bad, even firemen have reported it was could be knocked down with a few lines of water. Many other buildings have had far worse fires that burnt for longer.

Anyway, do you not actually get the topic of this thread? If you cannot even understand the topic of the thread then how can anyone take you seriously!?!

Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by maxella1

 

And then theres the master of all the debunkers.
This guy,
GOOD OL DAVE.
Knows more about 9/11 then NIST and the 9/11 Commissioners.

From G.o.D. himself:

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?" 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?" 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?" 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?" More to the point, I ask "why is it that the only way the truthers can justify their conspiracy theories is by accusing everyone and their grandmother of lying"?

This is how you debunk people.

Even my pensioner dad, who pretty much believes the bull-crap story that was presented to him on tv that day thinks that was a controlled demolition!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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"?

As you say, all you do is 'subscribe' to the Purdue report, and you also go on to say 'I'm not arrogant enough to insist their report must be the one that's correct'

Although you are arrogant enough to insist what did, and did not happen that day?!

Too many contradictions from you, no one can possibly take you seriously.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
I have the amazing ability to sum up the OP and the author in one word;
troll.

How is making a thread like this considered trolling? Please do explain your reasoning?

It would appear that just popping into a thread and hurling off topic remarks is considered to be trolling, i think you need to go off and learn what a troll really means.

One of their classic tactics has been used in this thread by most 'debunkers' and that is going off topic in a short space of time, to lead people away from the discussion, and derail the thread.

where are the mods when you need them?!

Originally posted by maxella1

LOL. So your claim is that the firefighters on the scene suspected it would collapse, but not like that. somehow, you just know that the firefighters were expecting that it might collapse in some other unspecified way that you find more plausible. But then the building fell down "all at once". Which did not conform to your post-hoc preconceptions, which somehow proves bombs. THAT is a fabrication. Your story that the firefighters obviously expected some other type of collapse is just a made up story. See, that's how you point our that truther's claims are lies and fabrications. This one was obvious though. Whenever someone claims to know the thoughts of another without citing any evidence, they're just blowing smoke 95% of the time.

"I turned to Tommy and I said,Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse. In my opinion, I didn't think there was going to be a catastrophic collapse, but from the fire load, there was no way.”

FIREFIGHTER RICHARD CARLETTI

Try again.

it was probably about 9:15 at this time, there was a good 20 floors of fire in the south tower. I mean, it was pushing red on at least 20 floors from what we could see. I turned to Tommy and I said, Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse.

He was clearly not talking about building 7, but the south tower. You dishonestly quoted the fireman to support your opinion on building 7. Just a flat out lie.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by maxella1

LOL. So your claim is that the firefighters on the scene suspected it would collapse, but not like that. somehow, you just know that the firefighters were expecting that it might collapse in some other unspecified way that you find more plausible. But then the building fell down "all at once". Which did not conform to your post-hoc preconceptions, which somehow proves bombs. THAT is a fabrication. Your story that the firefighters obviously expected some other type of collapse is just a made up story. See, that's how you point our that truther's claims are lies and fabrications. This one was obvious though. Whenever someone claims to know the thoughts of another without citing any evidence, they're just blowing smoke 95% of the time.

"I turned to Tommy and I said,Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse. In my opinion, I didn't think there was going to be a catastrophic collapse, but from the fire load, there was no way.”

FIREFIGHTER RICHARD CARLETTI

Try again.

it was probably about 9:15 at this time, there was a good 20 floors of fire in the south tower. I mean, it was pushing red on at least 20 floors from what we could see. I turned to Tommy and I said, Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse.

He was clearly not talking about building 7, but the south tower. You dishonestly quoted the fireman to support your opinion on building 7. Just a flat out lie.

That cannot be legitimate, how can 20 floors be on fire? This conflicts with other firemen stating the fire was smaller. If this isn't a piece of disinfo i don't know what is!

reply to post by 4hero


You mean the chief who had reached the very BOTTOM of the impact area? And reported the fire on THAT floor wasn't all that bad? That fireman?

reply to post by 4hero


No, it's a prime example of a so-called truthers (you) not looking or comprehending ALL of the evidence. That simple.

Originally posted by ANOK

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...

Yes ANOK, please show me another building that uses exterior columns built from column trees and interior columns from which floors suspended in between them via light-steel trusses. yes ANOK I look forward to your response.

FYI: "Tube-in-tube" simple is another construction type, but it has its own sub-categories of how it is executed. WTC Towers are nothing like the Sears Tower. Why is that ANOK? You really gotta do some research into this. Show me the floor truss only supported floors of the Sears Tower.

Not that I expect one since it is almost a year since I asked you to provide evidence of nonsense you put out about the mass being ejected outside the WTC.

Originally posted by maxella1

LOL. So your claim is that the firefighters on the scene suspected it would collapse, but not like that. somehow, you just know that the firefighters were expecting that it might collapse in some other unspecified way that you find more plausible. But then the building fell down "all at once". Which did not conform to your post-hoc preconceptions, which somehow proves bombs. THAT is a fabrication. Your story that the firefighters obviously expected some other type of collapse is just a made up story. See, that's how you point our that truther's claims are lies and fabrications. This one was obvious though. Whenever someone claims to know the thoughts of another without citing any evidence, they're just blowing smoke 95% of the time.

"I turned to Tommy and I said,Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse. In my opinion, I didn't think there was going to be a catastrophic collapse, but from the fire load, there was no way.”

FIREFIGHTER RICHARD CARLETTI

Try again.

My favorite thing about truthers? Their utter failure of reading comprehension.

I read the quote in context:

When we turned the corner west on Liberty,
figure it was probably about 9:15 at this time, there
was a good 20 floors of fire in the south tower. I
mean, it was pushing red on at least 20 floors from
what we could see. I turned to Tommy and I said,
Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse. In my
opinion, I didn't think there was going to be a
catastrophic collapse, but from the fire load, there
was no way.

Ok let us see what he was talking about. He mentions how 20 floors are an inferno. He turns to his friend and says this building is in danger of collapse. In his opinion, he didnt think there was going a total collapse, but from the fire load and stuff burning there was no way (and here is where you have to be good at reading comprehension) this building was NOT going to come down. You really have to understand the english language to pick up on what he saying. The way he says it is that he didnt think the building was going to come down but due to the amount of combustibles and fire, there was no way it was NOT going to come down. That is like saying: "I think there was no chance of getting hit by that tornado, but by the size and shape of it, there was no way." Key word here is "but". It is pretty much saying "I dont think its going to happen BUT due to the damage, there is no way....... " and it is understood that the use of the word "but" means that it is going to happen due to the damage.

Originally posted by 4hero

That cannot be legitimate, how can 20 floors be on fire? This conflicts with other firemen stating the fire was smaller. If this isn't a piece of disinfo i don't know what is!

Did you even look at a photo of the WTCs burning?

I can see that a majority of "truther" arguments are based off of ignorance. Sheer ignorance. It is stunning.

I can only assume that you are referring to the reports from firefighters that managed to reach the lowest affected floors of the South Tower, and that they had small pockets of fire in this particular area. This part is true. The lowest affected floor had the least amount of fire. However, the floors above, the building was burning furiously as fire likes to climb and spread toward more fuel. Not one firefighter on that day believes the fires were small. Not one. It is typical that you and fellow truthers require to take quotes of context to continue the ignorant assumptions and arguments based solely off ignorance and personal incredulity. So unless you can come up with with factual sources that the fires were small, you are just poorly misinformed.

When we turned the corner west on Liberty, figure it was probably about 9:15 at this time, there was a good 20 floors of fire in the south tower. I mean, it was pushing red on at least 20 floors from what we could see. I turned to Tommy and I said, Tommy, this building is in danger of collapse. In my opinion, I didn't think there was going to be a catastrophic collapse, but from the fire load, there was no way.

Pushing red on 20 floors at least? None of the videos of that day actually show 20 floors pushing red, so how could he have seen that from the ground, and with all the smoke, if camera's from a side angle didn't show it?

If anyone can show me footage that shows 20 floors redding up then please. If noone can, I'll treat this story as untrue.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by 4hero

 

No, it's a prime example of a so-called truthers (you) not looking or comprehending ALL of the evidence. That simple.

You're entitled to your opinion, but please explain how I am a 'truther'? I'm just interested in 9/11, and am an individual, not part of any group or movement.

I have looked at pretty much all info available that I know of, and after weighing it all up, I happen to disbelieve the OS because there are way to many flaws in that story for it all to be correct.