10 story hole in the Truther's Arguments

[BenBurch]

Other than starting threads which go on for 4300+ posts, have the truthers contributed ANYTHING?

Has any of their JAQing asked even ONE pertinent question that needed a serious answer?

I can't think of one.

Can you?

Even one?

JUST one?

[RedIbis]

What evidence is there for the single column fire theory as the cause for the collapse of WTC 7?

Is that not a legitimate question?

[BenBurch]

What evidence is there for the single column fire theory as the cause for the collapse of WTC 7?

Is that not a legitimate question?

Nope, because you'd have to show that the collapse was not caused by fire AT ALL for there to be anything in their specious bloviations. One theory of collapse caused by fire is entirely equivalent to any other similar theory EXCEPT as pertains to building design theory; Something that is not a subject of dysfunctional Trutherism.

[RedIbis]

Nope, because you'd have to show that the collapse was not caused by fire AT ALL for there to be anything in their specious bloviations. One theory of collapse caused by fire is entirely equivalent to any other similar theory EXCEPT as pertains to building design theory; Something that is not a subject of dysfunctional Trutherism.

Huh? Forgive me for not understanding. This is not a valid question?

[Myriad]

It's a pertinent question in the context of safe building design principles, and only in that context. Which column(s) failed first on which floors is irrelevant to, for example, our historical understanding of the events of 9/11.

Is principles of structural design of buildings to withstand fires left to burn unchecked for hours what you want to discuss? If so, I'd suggest the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology subforum.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[JCM]

What evidence is there for the single column fire theory as the cause for the collapse of WTC 7?
None?

[BenBurch]

Huh? Forgive me for not understanding. This is not a valid question?

Nope, not a valid question IN THIS CONTEXT.

Next?

[LastChild]

Pretending to debunk alternative theories doesn't validate the official conspiracy theory by default.

[BenBurch]

Pretending to debunk alternative theories doesn't validate the official conspiracy theory by default.

Of course it doesn't!

The facts do that all by themselves.

[twinstead]

Pretending to debunk alternative theories doesn't validate the official conspiracy theory by default.

Nor does pretending to debunk the 'official conspiracy theory' validate [insert any number of idiotic and far-fetched theories here] by default.

[LastChild]

Nor does pretending to debunk the 'official conspiracy theory' validate [insert any number of idiotic and far-fetched theories here] by default.

An alternative theory isn't required in pointing out the inadequacies of the official version.

[tom1701]

Oh this is great, now we have an "Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11".

Since I'm new here, I was wondering if some one could post it, I have not laughed at all today and I need a good one.

What a joke an "official" theory.

[LastChild]

Oh this is great, now we have an "Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11".

Since I'm new here, I was wondering if some one could post it, I have not laughed at all today and I need a good one.

What a joke an "official" theory.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

[rwguinn]

Oh this is great, now we have an "Official Conspiracy Theory of 9/11".

Since I'm new here, I was wondering if some one could post it, I have not laughed at all today and I need a good one.

What a joke an "official" theory.

In short:
An unidentified number of radical fundamentalist Islamic people conspired to take over 4aircraft, using 19 suicide-eager volunteers.
The did so, crashing 2 of these aircraft into WTC1 and WTC2, causing massive damage to those two buildings and numerous others.
The ensuing fires caused even more damage, causing the buildings support structure to fail, resulting in collapse of those two buildings.
During the collapse, massive damage was done to other buildings, some of which also collapsed, and the ensuing fires caused massive damage to the structure of WTC7, which, afte several hours of un-fought and un-fightable fires, finally collapsed.
One of the remaining aircraft was flown into the Pentagon, in Washington DC, causing destruction and death.
Te 4th aircraft crashed in a field near Shanksville, PA, either deliberately to prevent a retaking of the aircraft by passengers, or accidentally as a result of the struggle to retake.

Does that help?

[cisco]

official conspiracy theory

That term is a double strawman.

There is no "official story." That implies 9/11 took place behind closed doors and the government told us what happened. Not so. Thousands of regular people were caught up in, participated in, and witnessed the events of that day. There is a Public (or Popular) Account.

"Conspiracy Theory" connotates a conspiracy, which implies secret conspiring. Al Qaeda openly declared war on us years before this happened. September 11th was no more a conspiracy than D-Day was.

[JCM]

Conspiracy Theory" connotates a conspiracy, which implies secret conspiring.
I'm pretty sure the funding, training, and planing, of 9/11 was secretly conspired.

[BenBurch]

I'm pretty sure the funding, training, and planing, of 9/11 was secretly conspired.

Yes, but only an ass can't see the difference between an actual, verifiable conspiracy and "conspiracy theory."

One you can prove.

The other, well, I have yet to see even ONE "conspiracy theory" that has been proven.

[Corsair 115]

An alternative theory isn't required in pointing out the inadequacies of the official version.It is if you are alleging that the U.S. government was, in some fashion, responsible for perpetrating the events of that day.

[cisco]

I'm pretty sure the funding, training, and planing, of 9/11 was secretly conspired.

The specifics of the plan were secret, just as the specifics of D-Day were secret. The fact that they were going to attack us was not secret. They had already declared war on us. No conspiracy.

[A-Train]

Other than starting threads which go on for 4300+ posts, have the truthers contributed ANYTHING?

Has any of their JAQing asked even ONE pertinent question that needed a serious answer?

I can't think of one.

Can you?

Even one?

JUST one?

Here's a legitimate question: Has the government, or anyone else, ever conclusively proven that the men who hijacked the planes were who the official story says they were-- or even that the hijackers were Arabs at all?

[SDC]

Here's a legitimate question: Has the government, or anyone else, ever conclusively proven that the men who hijacked the planes were who the official story says they were-- or even that the hijackers were Arabs at all?

Not to you. Only to practically everyone else.

And having read your messages, I can state that it's not a legitimate question. It's one more red herring.

(Can anyone prove that's a herring? Or that it's red? Hah?)

[Dave Rogers]

Here's a legitimate question: Has the government, or anyone else, ever conclusively proven that the men who hijacked the planes were who the official story says they were-- or even that the hijackers were Arabs at all?

Interesting sentence construction. Are you suggesting the possibility that the hijackers were Arabs, but not the specific ones identified?

(I know that the only possibility you are ever prepared to countenance is that the hijackers, along with the perpetrators of every other evil act in history, were Jews; I just found the sentence construction interesting.)

Dave