Short video: "I Was A Deluded 9/11 Truther"

by bohm 141 Replies latest jw friends

  • bohm

    OK, well you started the thread. Show me another building which has colapsed the same way without help and I'll agree with you.

    oh, so because WTC was the first building to be on fire and there therefore cannot be any example to show you then you are automatically right? cool...

  • ProdigalSon

    I don't know but in my opinion for the building to have collapsed the way it did all the beams would have to have reached melting point all at the same time.

    Thank you very much!

    It ain't rocket science, is it?

    evidently bohm never had an erector set as a child. He doesn't know its just a little bit different from a house of cards.

    Maybe they just use really cheap steel in NY.....

    Somebody mixed in some Betty Crocker cake mix to save money....

  • cofty

    Steel beams are strong in compression. As soon as the building begins to tilt the remaining beams are put under extreme stress they are not designed for, they would fail in a domino effect and the building would begin to fall vertically. I just heard a structural engineer explain it in detail on TV. The film of the collapse is exactly consistent with the facts.

  • badseed

    I didn't say I was right. You are the one claiming that. I'm just saying it's highly illogical that a building would fall straight down. Like I asked, please show me the computer models you're talking about, what are other scenarios? How many different scenarios are there? And why do they all look like they came down demolition style? Don't you find that odd?

  • badseed

    sorry cofty, but the video claims that the inside collapsed first leaving the four outer walls standing. If that's the case, they wouldn't fall vertically.

  • bohm

    Badseed: You are making more claims than i do. I claim:

    • I dont know what to expect when a building like WTC7 collapse after intense fires and structural damage.

    You claim:

    • I dont know what to expect when a building like WTC7 collapse after intense fires and structural damage, BUT i know it would not come straight down.

    You are the person who is making a claim of knowledge, you are the one who need to substantiate it. I merely claim the obvious, that i am not a structural engineer and dont have any expectations as to what would happend in a fire.

    As for computer simulations etc: I merely stated it was the kind of evidence you could use to substantiate the claim you made regarding how you expect buildings of a particular type to collapse under fire.

  • strymeckirules

    a few more votes for the governments explaination!

    cofty, leolana, newchapter, leavingwt trust the governments explaination.

    wontleave hasn't chosen a side...

    how many JWN members outside of the usofa believe in the "official" government story?

    how many JWN member inside the usofa believe the "official" government story?

    what would be the opposite of a 9/11 deluded truther?

    wouldn't it be a 9/11 factual lier?

    so everyone who believes in the governments explaination is a 9/11 factual lier.


  • bohm

    badseed: If that's the case, they wouldn't fall vertically.

    that is something you claim to know. the rest of merely say: we dont have a lot of intuition about how buildings collapse.

  • bohm

    it is an honor to be grouped amongst liars such as leolaia and leavingwt.

  • strymeckirules

    i was specific when i posted 9/11 factual lier.

    this is a specific topic. not a blanket statement on individual integrity.

    you called yourself a lier. i just coined the term. you embraced it.

Share this