Win Prizes The Essendon Board Talks 9/11

[dank420_]

Why you guys trying to argue against objective facts lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[BrunoV]

Why you guys trying to argue against objective facts lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

You don't argue against objective facts, genius. You argue about conclusions reached to explain the occurrence of facts.

We are not arguing about whether the 3 buildings collapsed at freefall speed, we are arguing about how that happened.

I'd hope my 5 year old could understand the difference.

 

[dank420_]

I'd hope my 5 year old could understand the difference.

You're getting closer to the age bracket of people who genuinely believe this shit.

 

[bomberlegend2007]

They did?

Yes.

 

[BrunoV]

Why doesn't someone read what is said to have caused the collapse by the official investigation?

Isn't that where the smart people would start, with the conclusions they are defending? If you're not defending the conclusions, what are you defending?

NIST produced a report of hundreds of pages, having been engaged to do so by the 9/11 Commission / government investigation and not one of these responses has cited a singled NIST conclusion.

 

[dank420_]

Why doesn't someone read what is said to have caused the collapse by the official investigation?

Isn't that where the smart people would start, with the conclusions they are defending? If you're not defending the conclusions, what are you defending?

NIST produced a report of hundreds of pages, having been engaged to do so by the 9/11 Commission / government investigation and not one of these responses has cited a singled NIST conclusion.

Where are your citations?

 

[bomberlegend2007]

Why doesn't someone read what is said to have caused the collapse by the official investigation?

Isn't that where the smart people would start, with the conclusions they are defending? If you're not defending the conclusions, what are you defending?

NIST produced a report of hundreds of pages, having been engaged to do so by the 9/11 Commission / government investigation and not one of these responses has cited a singled NIST conclusion.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: The World Trade Center

Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

www.popularmechanics.com

Have a read.

 

[BrunoV]

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: The World Trade Center

Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

www.popularmechanics.com

Have a read.

I'm familiar with it but it is NIST that produced the official report.

 

[BrunoV]

Where are your citations?

You were all supposed to be providing the explanation of how 3 gigantic buildings, at least 2 of which had 200,000 tonnes of structural support, collapsed at freefall speed which you're all so confident about.

As I see it, the burden rests with you.

When you guys get to jet fuel and steel beams you will have at least understood my initial troll.

 

[dank420_]

You were all supposed to be providing the explanation of how 3 gigantic buildings, at least 2 of which had 200,000 tonnes of structural support, collapsed at freefall speed which you're all so confident about.

As I see it, the burden rests with you.

When you guys get to jet fuel and steel beams you will have at least understood my initial troll.

I didn't post that Bruno. Are you ok?

Do you need me to teach you how to cite properly since you're the one demanding it?

Are you just ignoring everything that everyone else has posted that has cited more than any of your posts?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Why doesn't someone read what is said to have caused the collapse by the official investigation?

Isn't that where the smart people would start, with the conclusions they are defending? If you're not defending the conclusions, what are you defending?

NIST produced a report of hundreds of pages, having been engaged to do so by the 9/11 Commission / government investigation and not one of these responses has cited a singled NIST conclusion.

Instead of having an "Explain Things to Bruno" thread, have you considered offering up your own thoughts on the matter? Perhaps inform us what you've found NIST claimed the full cause of the "freefall" collapse to be and why you think their findings are bunk?

 

[jannissary]

Yeah, it's called a plane crashed into it

you mean to say that a plane, travelling with likely great speed caused a few towers to collapse upon the force of the plane hitting it? i’m shocked!

 

[BrunoV]

Instead of having an "Explain Things to Bruno" thread, have you considered offering up your own thoughts on the matter? Perhaps inform us what you've found NIST claimed the full cause of the "freefall" collapse to be and why you think their findings are bunk?

Call it a strategic failure.

Here I thought that someone would be honest or smart enough to admit they have no idea, despite having such a strong view, and then look it up.

But we can't even clear that hurdle. For example, there is no reference to jenga in the NIST report and yet this is the rubbish that is supposed to pass for serious consideration.

Do you know that NIST specifically says that the force of plane striking the building of itself was not sufficient to cause a collapse. It's not even that there were fires. There is another key piece of the puzzle which, despite underpinning the conclusion, is essentially baseless speculation. So you need speculation to create a scenario for a collapse which doesn't even try to explain the speed of the collapse.

 

[dank420_]

Do you know that NIST specifically says that the force of plane striking the building of itself was not sufficient to cause a collapse.

NIST has changed their stance as outlined in bomberlegend2007's link that you evidently didn't read.

admit they have no idea, despite having such a strong view

Go on.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Call it a strategic failure.

Here I thought that someone would be honest or smart enough to admit they have no idea, despite having such a strong view, and then look it up.

But we can't even clear that hurdle. For example, there is no reference to jenga in the NIST report and yet this is the rubbish that is supposed to pass for serious consideration.

Do you know that NIST specifically says that the force of plane striking the building of itself was not sufficient to cause a collapse. It's not even that there were fires. There is another key piece of the puzzle which, despite underpinning the conclusion, is essentially baseless speculation. So you need speculation to create a scenario for a collapse which doesn't even try to explain the speed of the collapse.

Section 5.4 of NIST volume 1-6D attributes the collapse to a combination of the structural impact and the intense heat of the fires on areas of impact-damaged insulation. There is no mention of any other factor in the discussion or the collapse sequence that I can see. What is this "another key piece of the puzzle" and where is it underpinning anything, as it is definitely not listed in the abstract or the discussion of the document?

If you know more than me can you please let me know, so I don't have to go digging through the FEA models myself?

 

[Old Campaigner]

You were all supposed to be providing the explanation of how 3 gigantic buildings, at least 2 of which had 200,000 tonnes of structural support, collapsed at freefall speed which you're all so confident about.

As I see it, the burden rests with you.

When you guys get to jet fuel and steel beams you will have at least understood my initial troll.

It didn't collapse at freefall speed though

 

[Nicholas61]

It didn't collapse at freefall speed though

Sunder and the NIST report say the top part of the towers came down at "essentially freefall".

 

[dank420_]

Sunder and the NIST report say the top part of the towers came down at "essentially freefall".

A 7 year old youtube video huh?

Well it's better than nothing i suppose.

 

[Nicholas61]

A 7 year old youtube video huh?

Well it's better than nothing i suppose.

Yeah with the guy who led the review saying it was freefall and containing citation to the NIST report. So with that logic should we downplay all videos from 20 years ago showing the tower collapse??

 

[jannissary]

Yeah with the guy who led the review saying it was freefall and containing citation to the NIST report. So with that logic should we downplay all videos from 20 years ago showing the tower collapse??

i never saw a plane wreckage at the site when i visited therefore it didn't actually happen if i'm being honest

 

[dank420_]

Yeah with the guy who led the review saying it was freefall and containing citation to the NIST report. So with that logic should we downplay all videos from 20 years ago showing the tower collapse??

As explained earlier in the thread, NIST have changed their stance. So yes it pays to be up to date.

 

[boncer34]

As explained earlier in the thread, NIST have changed their stance. So yes it pays to be up to date.

I.e. government told them to fall in line.

 

[Nicholas61]

As explained earlier in the thread, NIST have changed their stance. So yes it pays to be up to date.

Two buildings a quarter of a mile high dropping in 9 and 11 seconds is as close to freefall as you will probably get

 

[boncer34]

Two buildings a quarter of a mile high dropping in 9 and 11 seconds is as close to freefall as you will probably get

9 and 11?

Insensitive mate.

 

[faible]

I'm impressed at the amount of engineering expertise some posters in this thread must have to argue against experts without providing any real citations.