another kook for you guys to 'debunk'

[excaza]

An o-ring failing from a simple cold snap never happened before 1986, therefore it's not terribly credible that such a failure happened. Right?


How on earth do you not realize how incredibly retarded that 'logic' is?

 

[Dog Town]

Someone has some 'splainin to do, and they have not properly done it.

Sticking your fingers in your ears, and singing LA LA LA, does not change the facts. BAD for you.

 

[ergo]

An o-ring failing from a simple cold snap never happened before 1986, therefore it's not terribly credible that such a failure happened. Right?

How on earth do you not realize how incredibly retarded that 'logic' is?

It's your own logic that's flawed, excaza.

 

[BasqueArch]

I guess you DO need it repeated.

YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN A SINGLE OTHER EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETE BUILDING COLLAPSE BY FIRE.

Does anyone need that translated into bee dunker??

You have not shown a single example where a building was struck by a passenger jet and did not completely collapse.

You have not shown a single other example of a complete building collapse by therm*te.

You have not shown a single other example of a complete building collapse by CD where no evidence of explosive,therm*te or other demolition method was found.

Do you need that translated into Bee liever??

 

[excaza]

It's your own logic that's flawed, excaza.

An o-ring failing from a simple cold snap never happened before 1986, therefore it's not terribly credible that such a failure happened. Right?

This is using your logic and well poisoning. Do you agree or disagree, and why?

 

[triforcharity]

A steel-framed house?

You didn't say steel did you?

Here is the quote, just in case you forgot.

YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN A SINGLE OTHER EXAMPLE OF A COMPLETE BUILDING COLLAPSE BY FIRE.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's your own logic that's flawed, excaza.

His logic is fine, but perhaps you explain what you believe to be wrong with it.

 

[aggle-rithm]

His logic is fine, but perhaps you explain what you believe to be wrong with it.

He'll say that the space shuttle disaster is not a perfect analogue to the WTC towers collapsing.

 

[aggle-rithm]

We are simply pointing out that the complete collapse of a major steel-framed structure from fire has no precedent, and that three major steel highrise collapses on a single day from minor fires is therefore not terribly credible.

Can you think of anything else that happened that day, which had no precedent?

Think hard. It'll come to you.


PS: It never fails to amaze me how truthers are unable to keep two thoughts in their heads at the same time (fires AND plane crash damage). That would explain why cognitive dissonance doesn't seem to be a problem for them.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

PS: It never fails to amaze me how truthers are unable to keep two thoughts in their heads at the same time (fires AND plane crash damage). That would explain why cognitive dissonance doesn't seem to be a problem for them.

It amazes me what their definition of "small" and "minor" is.

 

[Edx]

Your points have been made about the capacity of steel to weaken from fire. I understand that localized collapses and roof collapses can occur from fires.

We are simply pointing out that the complete collapse of a major steel-framed structure from fire has no precedent, and that three major steel highrise collapses on a single day from minor fires is therefore not terribly credible. Someone has some 'splainin to do, and they have not properly done it.

According to some nobody on the internet and a bunch of fringe incompetents.

There have been hundreds of papers published in legitimate journals about the collapses since 911 and there have been many independent studies conducted about various aspects of 911.

Truthers in nearly a decade have only amassed around 1300 architects and engineers in the entire world that have officially signed their petition (including software engineers) with no one noteworthy (Anders "CGI planes" Bjorkman is a nobody). To put this in perspective in nearly 10 years there have been approx 153,000 engineers newly qualified just in the US alone. Truthers have had to create their own fake in-house journals just like Creationists do because they cant get their papers published any any legitimate ones. They cry academic conspiracy and suppression, just like Creationists do. They finally get a single paper in a journal resembling something more respectable and it ends in Bentham, which had a bad reputation for spamming scientists and shoddy practices long before Jones/Harrit got their paper published in it. Where the editor quit for not knowing anything about the paper being published, where another Bentham journal's editor also quit because they accepted a fake computer generated paper. This is the absolute best the truth movement have come up with in nearly a decade and I bet you're still proud of it anyway.

So if you want to claim just like Creationists do that are shown a myriad of transitional fossils that its "just not good enough" then please do go through proper channels and submit to legitimate journals, conduct yourself in the same way legitimate scientists are expected to conduct themselves. I think it was Ryan Mackey said recently: show up on the playing field. Youtube videos, radio shows and community centre presentations does not count. But just like Creationists I know you dont give a damn about that, you are trying to appeal to the ignorant masses that know nothing about any of this. It doesnt matter to Creationists they have absolutely no academic support, they will claim there's a controversy anyway, just like you guys do.