It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by theability
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
Due to the Facts: three steel framed buildings collapsed on 911, and 911 only. Well so far its not happeend again, nor will it.
Originally posted by theability
And we have the prrof of 911 diversonary tactics once again!
For that matter, two 100+ story skyscrapers had never been hit with jets flying at full speed, then burned for an hour either. And the third 50+ story building had never before had its front face ripped off by flying chunks of flaming debris. Indeed, it was a day of firsts.
Originally posted by jprophet420
You really sound like an tool when
Originally posted by jprophet420
For that matter, two 100+ story skyscrapers had never been hit with jets flying at full speed, then burned for an hour either. And the third 50+ story building had never before had its front face ripped off by flying chunks of flaming debris. Indeed, it was a day of firsts.
Thats always my favorite place to start the 911 debate. The NIST report says that is irrelevant to what happened to the building. It really puts most debunkers between a rock and a hard place as the NIST report is the backbone of their information arsenal, so they must admit that either the NIST report is incorrect or their story is.
You really sound like an tool when you say "I agree with everything in the NIST report except I think there was massive structural damage to building 7, damage which they said was not relevant to the collapse." Therefore most people wont say it, they will use a diversionary tactic instead (sic).
Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
reply to post by iamcpc
Hey now, the McCormick building didn't collapse, it was the roof, there were not any spectacular "pancaking" floors blowing out in sequence...now THAT would be something...show a steel framed building that collapsed anything like BOTH world trade centers...
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by theability
Due to the Facts: three steel framed buildings collapsed on 911, and 911 only. Well so far its not happeend again, nor will it.
For that matter, two 100+ story skyscrapers had never been hit with jets flying at full speed, then burned for an hour either. And the third 50+ story building had never before had its front face ripped off by flying chunks of flaming debris. Indeed, it was a day of firsts.
The big problem here is the belief you express that the laws of physics were broken on 911. I guess you never really applied critical thinking skills to the claim that the laws of physics ever could be broken. Apparently your reasoning skills haven't been in tip top shape since you've been making this argument.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by jprophet420
You really sound like an tool when
Likewise, you sound like a tool when using "an" instead of an "a" when prefacing a word starting with a consonant. I love when the irony presents itself instantly.
Originally posted by theability
There was only a hand full of individuals that spoke out about WTC 7 and being trapped by explosions, now one is dead
Originally posted by jprophet420
What theory am I unable to support? What have I said that is incorrect or "hard to fathom"?
After all not citing what you are posting about when you can quote it in a few seconds is rather ignorant.
Originally posted by jprophet420
Do you really believe a typo makes someone sound like a tool?
You really sound like an tool when you say "I agree with everything in the NIST report except I think there was massive structural damage to building 7, damage which they said was not relevant to the collapse."
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
This is sort of the point I'm making, albeit perhaps more gently. Jprophet seems to think that if you don't subscribe to a basket of Truth Movement narratives about phantom planes and controlled demolition, then you must be able to defend every word of the NIST report. This is nonsense.
Originally posted by LieBuster
To make things simple lets agree all the fule had been burnt off after 210 seconds and the building had been weakened by 10% on the seventy second floor shell we because the crash only took out 1% of of the outer columns and the inner core was built like a brick you know what and i'll even thow in all the fire protection had been striped from the suport beams on the celling due to the explosion.
Now we are left with a fire and several floors are only at 90% strength and we have one huge fire buring and the flames are being fanned because all the windows have been broken.
Would you like to lead on from here and tell us just how the buildings fell over and why the first building to be hit was the second one to fall and just as a faviour would you also cover the side blasts as seen on TV and the eye witness reports about bombs going off in the building not only from the general public but also TV crews and firemen and in return i'll forget the buildings had just been brought and the double insurance on the buildings.
That is, making up things and claiming I said them. That is the trademark of dishonest, diversionary tactics: the topic of this thread. You are only fulfilling the stereotype. Good job.
In the first post you claim that just because debunkers have been able to refute, one by one, 9/11 Truthers' claims, it doesn't make the "OS" true. I was merely pointing out that it's hardly a cause for celebration. Essentially you seem to be saying that everything the Truth Movement has come up with may have been shown to be false, but still the "OS" isn't true.
This strikes me as rather sad, if that's your measure of success. Especially since the "OS" is in many facets a straw man that the Truth movement themselves invented, a standard to which you like to hold "debunkers" even if they don't themselves ascribe to it.
You unwittingly showed that this is indeed what you do in your subsequent posts. In these you implied that you expect me to fully support your notion of the "OS" if I am seen to disagree with various standard Truther myths. I pointed out that one doesn't have to sign up to a lot of crackpot theories about CD and Pentagon missiles to think that 9/11 may have been subject to a cover up, or that Bush might be a bit of a dick.
Originally posted by jprophet420
That is, making up things and claiming I said them. That is the trademark of dishonest, diversionary tactics: the topic of this thread. You are only fulfilling the stereotype. Good job.
I did not accuse you of anything at all;
You made mention that Barry Jennings is dead in a not too well veiled attempt at dropping innuendo, and it has since been shown Barry Jennings was middle aged, overweight and almost certainly at risk for a heart attack.
Originally posted by theability
Your refer to this man with such little respect.....