At this point you’re either doing a horrible job of reading, or you’re trying to avoid answering questions. This is not going to end well for you if it continues.
I am now convinced that you are deliberately misinterpreting any point being made, and are just saying random shit to fuck with us.
Good day, and enjoy your game.
This short post exemplifies your methods beautifully - deliberate misinterpretation and mocking of strawmen seems to be all you have.
Do you want to have a mature, adult, free and open, two-way, intellectually honest discussion, Mozart, or do you want to keep stomping your feet, playing games with us, and engaging in logical acrobatics, and get the banhammer?-- at which point you’ll have no further opportunity to convince us of your hypotheses.
You lose.
I am not stomping my feet, and I defy you to show any evidence that I am. I am also not playing games. But the suggestion that the building was as hollow as the wooden structure in the video is ridiculous.
And since I do not think inside the tiny boxes you guys seem to be locked into, I’m sure it won’t be long before I am banned.
But, to ensure that no one’s feelings are hurt by my refusal to accept the governments obviously flawed explainations, I will give up on this argument.
However, next time someone asks “How could they get away with such a huge conspiracy?” This is how they do it.
So you’re saying you don’t want to have an intellectually honest debate?
That one’s too tall.
That one’s too short.
That one’s made of wood.
That one’s not the right kind of metal.
That one’s too solid.
That one’s too hollow.
You hit it too high.
You hit it too low.
You hit it too soft.
You hit it too hard.
You hit it off-center.
You hit it dead on.
I’m actually stuck in a lot of boxes, labeled “logic”, “reason”, “facts”, “science”, “honest debate”, and “reality”, among several others. And the intersection of all those boxes is rather limiting, true. But I see that as a feature, not a bug.
It’s certainly true that the tiny box you occupy is not the same as any of mine. And your avoidance of some of these boxes (notably the second-to-last listed) could easily get you banned, yes, assuming you don’t open the “directly insult other posters in GD” box too far first and get tagged for that instead, like many of your ilk do.
Now that you’ve abandoned this particular moronic argument on the grounds that reality has a liberal/conspiratorial bias, do you have any other theory in particular that you’d like to discuss?
How? What are they doing?
Tell you what, don’t answer that. Answer Post #442 instead.
If you won’t, I’ll just assume you’re doing the exact same thing every truther I’ve talked to does: insisting they have the explanations and answers, promising to provide said explanations and answers, yet the next time I hear from them none are forthcoming. They just parrot out the same “you’ll believe anything the government tells you” type lines that they were before. Never anything of substance.
They get away with things like this by ridiculing anyone who questions the “official answer” and thretening to “silence” anyone who won’t fall in line (See Kennedy assasination)
Why do you think anyone who says the word “conspiricy” gets labeled as a nutcase?
Because they can’t even spell the word correctly?
Have you ever been inside a building? You do realize that the whole point of a building is the empty space inside, right?
The notion that a skyscraper is mostly solid steel and concrete is ludicrous. It is a structure of steel and concrete designed to enclose empty space so that humans can walk around inside those spaces.
And so I present this:File:World Trade Center Building Design with Floor and Elevator Arrangement.svg - Wikipedia
Note that the floor plan of the WTC wasn’t solid, but contained mostly empty space that could be filled with desks and chairs and filing cabinets and computers and suchlike, rather than solid concrete and steel beams.
Everyone believes that there was a conspiracy of extremist muslim terrorists to organize a number of terrorists to near-simultaneously plow a bunch of airliners into notable buildings.
It’s only the nutty conspiracies that get their believers called nutcases, particularly after some time has gone by and the facts have been examined.
yes you are stomping your feet.
I don’t think you have an understanding of just how much open space was on each floor of the WTC towers. There was a central core, and the outer walls. That’s it. everything else was wide open. No columns, no other support. All wide open space.
A feakin huge open hollow space.
Now now people. He already shrank back when his latest attempt to defend the “solid building” idiocy was instantly met by an unmitigated wall of intelligence and mockery. So let him “concede” the point and move on to/back to some other stupid reality-denying argument if he wants; variety is the spice of the thread.
Doing a quick back of the envelope calc each floor has about 43,000 square feet. The central core is about 12,000 square feet. that leaves 31,000 of wide open space. So close to 2/3 of each floor is empty hollow space.
<Stewie> Victory is mine! </Stewie>
Okay, so as to contribute something in this post…
It looks to me like the wooden stick model is closer to the construction techniques used in the Empire State Building (what do you call that, steel cage construction?) while the WTC was framed tube–meaning that the stick model tower would actually be more robust in design than a framed tube, i.e. tougher to bring down with the impact, since its structural support is not concentrated in one or two areas. But it still came down.
So…what you are saying here is that it’s all a conspiracy, yes? 
Because, you know, no other Truther has followed this exact same trajectory in every freaking thread on this stupid subject that has ever been started on this board. Gods…SO predictable.
The trouble is, that next person asking will probably be a nut case, just like most conspiracy theorists are. Huge conspiracies are basically impossible, human nature being what it is. Conspiracies that actually work rely on very few people, because every person that is in on the conspiracy increases the odds that it will be found out. As the 9/11 conspiracy was eventually found out. Oh yeah…there most certainly was a conspiracy. And the folks who did it admitted they did it…hell, they crowed about doing it. They video taped the folks who did it giving their last wills and testaments for the gods sake! But Truthers simply ignore all of this. No amount of proof or evidence, no amount of evidence or logic will ever be enough to convince the faithful. I mean, in the end, you can’t say Clunkity Clunk 100+ times in 10 seconds, right?
You’ve been lied too. You’ve been deceived. You’ve been manipulated. Sadly, it’s the Truth movement who has done all these things and more to you, and you simply can’t see or accept that. I feel more sorry for you and your kind than anything else. You don’t see what fools you are being made of, or how ridiculous your claims really are. You think of yourselves as rugged individualists, bravely fighting conformity and struggling against the official stance and official statements. In generally, this is actually admirable…you SHOULD distrust the government, and question closely whatever they say, since in general if their mouths are moving they are lying to you. And there is plenty of CYA going on in the ‘official report’, plenty of things about 9/11 that are less than stellar (such as telling the folks in the second tower to go back to their offices and that they would be safer there than going home…IDIOTS!). But that only goes so far, and it’s not going to stretch to the government being knowingly involved in 9/11, or to the buildings being brought down by a secret cabal of inner circle government officials and real estate scammers using magical explosives. And that’s where these silly CTs derail off the tracks of reality and spin off into fantasy.
-XT
Why do I bother.
You clearly do not have the first clue why that video was presented. Hint: it has to do with very tall structures collapsing instead of toppling, and illustrates that no extraordinary efforts must be made to prevent a very tall structure from collapsing almost straight down.
This was to show that your intuitive concept that a very tall structure *must *topple like a tree unless professionals intervene to control the demolition is mistaken, and thus to encourage you to re-examine that premise.
You also do not know how to present an argument, or how to understand an opponent’s argument well enough to counter it. Another hint: implying that your debate opponents are government stooges is not a rebuttal.
But I believe this is useless, as you have no interest in learning how to follow or present evidence.