911 CONGRATULATIONS!! - Truthers Force NIST to Change Final Report on WTC7!

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Aug 14, 2011.

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.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting Fraud... Have your meds upped to "literate" levels.

    Fraud said, in no uncertain terms, that the building falling at "free fall" speed ABSOLUTELY PROVES demolition and/or "prepping" the building for collapse.

    His logical fallacy.
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,827
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I said that, prove it.
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Produce any controlled demolition that exhibits free fall speed.
     
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,827
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Trophy Points:
    113

    video 3

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,848
    Likes Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's what's called begging the question. Yet another example of a truther's lack of ability to put together a cohesive logical argument.

    Is that why it took you so long to "find" these videos?
     
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope that didn't do it.

    The 'truthers' failed, after all.

    Again.
     
  7. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From what part of your simple imagination did you conjure up this conclusion?

    The video/s are conclusive, that building fell square to the ground
     
  8. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not from my imagination, directly from NIST report on WTC7, and from what Chandler himself said in the videos linked in the OP.

    You have looked at the evidence, haven't you?

    The building fell square to the ground? From what part of your simple imagination did you conjure up this conclusion?
     
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Looking back over the draft report, I see that the portion of the NW corner that Chandler refereed to was already in the draft, just not as fully elaborated on.

    Seems he didn't 'force' them to do anything other than clarify what they had already reported and released to the public.

    The data in the draft (for public comment) that Chandler responded to did not change. (Specifically the data that went into and came out of the model.) What Chandler did was have them break down what they already had into individual segments of the total collapse. NIST treated it as one event, "truthers" wanted to focus on one aspect and view it in isolation. NIST obliged and broke it down (in the final) into 3 segments and elaborated on the middle (free-fall) more.

    Whoops. Not much of a 'truther' victory there is it?
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,827
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    proving freefall


    [​IMG]




    It is still a fraudulent chart but they nonetheless admitted freefall.


    TRUTHERS WON!
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the first draft, before Chandler's pleas to make it more layman friendly.

    Whoops. Another 'truther' claim shown false.
     
  12. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, right, there was another time you said it...
    Which of course is a fallacy. Closest to the fallacy of false dichotomy.

    You assume that free fall can ONLY take place after "demolition or prepping," when in reality there's absolutely nothing supporting that nonsensical claim.

    "Proving" that, for a couple of seconds, a building came down at close to free fall speed proves nothing.

    Moreover, it ignores EVERY piece of evidence supporting the generally accepted theory. In the constant fashion of 9/11 Deniers, you focus on something that you perceive as an anomaly (which isn't really at all) and dismiss the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

    You discard 999 pieces of evidence regarding the generally accepted explanation, so you can focus on the one that (in your limited mindset) doesn't.
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,827
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No rebuttal so you move the goal posts to change the subject matter!

    Let me put you back on track.

    IT FREEFELL!

    FREEFALL = "NOT NATURAL" = DEMOLITION!

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,827
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Trophy Points:
    113

    nist admitted that freefal can only occur when there is no structural support. review the videos.

    you need to proof that a building can globally fail naturally.

    Naturally means without demolition or prepping.

    Failing that you fail.

    TWOOFERS WIN!
     
  15. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Freefall means to fall at the speed of gravitational acceleration. The fact that you say it's "not natural" to fall at the speed of gravity shows you know nothing of the physics you proclaim to rely on.
    Ok... And even if they did, there are other ways to remove structural support besides a planned demolition.
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,827
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Trophy Points:
    113

    nice contradiction.

    now you wanna explain how global failure can occur in a natural collapse.

    Stop jaw jacking and put up some data.
     
  17. Hunter Rose

    Hunter Rose Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dr. Judy Wood, PhD. has the answers you seek.
     
  18. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    (1) There wasn't a "global" failure. Just another 9/11 Denier lie.
    (2) It wasn't a "natural" collapse. It was a collapse after an entire day of unchecked raging fires. It's not "natural" for buildings to be on fire for entire days.
     
  19. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,827
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    fire would cause a natural collapse.

    Do you know the difference?

    Only global failures comes strait down. Do you deny the building came straight down?
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,827
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I dont seek answers I give them

    In fact I think AWD is having problems getting the twists out of his undies about now LMAO
     
  21. Hunter Rose

    Hunter Rose Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Apologies, that was no directed at you. Who is AWD?
     
  22. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes. I deny the building came straight down. Because it didn't come straight down.

    Here's where you link me to a clumsily-made Youtube "proof" that it came straight down, right?
     
  23. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes...you don't believe clumsily made actual video. You only believe "officially" produced presentations. Looked pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) straight down to me.
     
  24. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,848
    Likes Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One of the things that I always laughed about about Richard Gage's argument is that he always makes two diametrically opposed assertions right next to each other in his speech.

    First he claims that the buildings came straight down into their own footprint.

    Second he claims that steel was ejected laterally at speeds that could only be accomplished by explosives.

    Which is it? Did the building fall into its own footprint, or was steel ejected laterally?
     
  25. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't doubt it "looked" straight down to you. Your confirmation bias will make it "look" like anything that will support your preordained conclusion.

    How about those directed energy weapons? You're one of those believers, right?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page