Why you guys trying to argue against objective facts lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Win Prizes The Essendon Board Talks 9/11
- Thread starter BrunoV
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #77
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.
You're getting closer to the age bracket of people who genuinely believe this shit.
Yes.
- Thread starter
- #80
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.
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?
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.
Have a read.
- Thread starter
- #83
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.
- Thread starter
- #84
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
Moderator
Essendon Player Sponsor 2024 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Essendon Player Sponsor 2023 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2020 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
- Oct 12, 2015
- 8,150
- 13,724
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys
- Moderator
- #86
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
AAAAAAAAAAARGH!
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!
- Thread starter
- #88
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.
NIST has changed their stance as outlined in bomberlegend2007's link that you evidently didn't read.
Go on.
