Inside a Doritos™ shell! You forgot that!
We had an investigation, you rejected their findings.
Ridiculing ignorance since 1973.
Are you now talking about Syria or the WTC/Pentagon attacks?
The UN has done some investigation into Syria. Whether their answers justify actions that have been proposed is a separate discussion.
The WTC/Pentagon attacks have been thoroughly investigated and documented, nutcases notwithstanding, and it still led us into one debatably legitimate invasion while providing an excuse for an irresponsible invasion.
The ridicule in this thread has been directed at various Truthers who are more willing to ignore evidence and concoct truly stupid scenarios regarding what happened on September 11, 2001 than they are to actually look at the results of the investigations. That is merely mocking ignorance.
Oh, please! This was debunked ages ago.
You might want to read the NIST report, and you may have noticed those planes slamming into them
And your argument with this is?
at last someone has done some homework.
visit;
http://www.911dude.com/index.php
As a teacher, I have to give that dude an F, for starters he points at the “no plane hit WTC 7” so it was “pulled down”
Miserable failed crap that was debunked years ago. Right on the front page it has ‘Never forget no place hit WTC7’. Yeah, only a huge amount of flaming debris from the two main towers and then completely unfought fires raged for hours. I can’t see any problem there, no sir!
This guy didn’t do his homework. He cribbed off a guy mumbling on the street corner.
Still no debate in his own thread-yet another truther site dump.
BTW **openminder **and **georgewk10 **I can not speak for others, but for me the scorn does not come until I see that the ones pushing ignorant sites or ideas demonstrate that they do not learn about the already debunked items. To me it is when those debunked items are not acknowledged and dropped is that then the ridicule is deserved.
Acknowledging and being able to identify bad sources or ideas does not mean one should drop others ideas that are more supported, like the item that 911 was shamefully used then by Bush and cronies to justify war in Iraq.
So acknowledge and demonstrate to all that you can learn to make your position against Bush as an opportunistic creep strong. (Just not on 9/11, Bin Laden and friends were responsible for it.)
So what would it be?
Acknowledge and drop the bad points and make your other points more respectable or Double down and continue ignoring the evidence?
One of those choices leads to ridicule from others, this is not hard to figure.
Generally, when someone asks me something like ‘who are you going to believe - me or your lying eyes?’ I have to go with my lying eyes.
The buildings collapsed because the fire started by the planes weakened the remaining floor joists and they sagged. This pulled the outer support walls inward until the weight of the building above snapped them.
If you bother to look at the construction of the WTC buildings they used a technique vastly different from the much older Empire State building. That building was done modularly using much more steel per floor. Those steel girders were encased in a cement based product for fire protection.
The WTC was built as if it were a tube within a tube. This gave a tremendous amount of open floor space on each level. It also concentrated a great deal of the weight of the building on the outer walls. But unlike the Empire State Building the insulation on the steel was a blown on insulation. This was stripped off by the force of 200 tons of metal traveling at hundreds of mph. Not only was steel infrastructure exposed to the heat of the fire the primary line of defense was destroyed and that was the sprinkler system. They only had a single riser and it was destroyed. It was guaranteed that the buildings would collapse at that point.
The WTC towers may have stood longer, with significantly more survivors, because of psychological studies. Really.
In the early 1960s some elaborate studies were done to see how much floor movement (caused by building sway) people could tolerate. The results showed that the twin towers were going to sway more in their upper third than most people could stand, meaning it would be difficult to get and keep tenants for some quarter of the building or more. So the architect strengthened and stiffened the structure considerably, and this work probably helped keep the towers standing long enough to let most of those below the fire escape.
I’m not sure that’s correct. The strength of the towers was their central core, on which the floors were hung and the outer wall hung on those in sections. I don’t believe the outer wall was signficantly bearing at all.
All this twit did was crib bullshit from the equally dumb ae911.org.
If you want to see people that did homework, then try these threads:
9/11 Conspiracy Theories!
Was Bush Regime complicit in 9/11 attack?
9/11 wreckage
Give me your 9/11 conspiracy theories! And/or their debunking
So are there any pieces of evidence regarding a 9/11 conspiracy which cannot be explained?
9/11 conspiracy theories
All the silly “questions” that you have posed over the last couple of weeks have been answered within those threads. Posters, here, are not lacking in curiosity, they are ultimately tired of people wandering in here, years after the facts have been provided, asking “questions” that have already been answered, even if the person asking the question could not be bothered to find the answers, himself, (or preferred to look at CT sites without asking the relevant questions that would demonstrate how silly they were).
No, the outer walls bore a significant amount of the load: from Wiki
The tube-frame concept, earlier introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a major innovation, allowing open floor plans and more space to rent. The buildings used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure. There were 60 perimeter columns, narrowly spaced, on each side of the buildings.
A tube within a tube is not an accurate description on my part. It’s more a conventional girder structure inside a tube. The central core is needed for the infrastructure for elevators and such but the closely spaced beams of the outer wall carry the load. This is what gave it all the open space on each floor. Here’s an animation of what it looks like. The PBS show regarding the collapse of the buildings described the failure of the outer walls. This was not known until it was fully investigated. They originally thought the bolts connecting the outer walls to the floor joists failed and that was not the case.
Okay. I know what I was thinking of instead. My aluminum skullcap must have been misaligned on the Zed axis.
The real pisser is how those people refuse to look at non-CT sites we offer them on silver platters, preferring to continue in drooling ignorance and believing the worst form of hogwash.
No, that’s not it! The REAL pisser is how so many of them shit on the memories of the people who really existed and really died on Flight 77 so those little pissants can prop up their pet “theory” that no plane hit the Pentagon. It doesn’t even cross their minds that there were real people who died on that plane.
[QUOTE=dropzone;16629480/]
It doesn’t even cross their minds that there were real people who died on that plane.
[/QUOTE]
Because they don’t believe they died. Even worse, they believe they’re part of the conspiracy and thus only worthy of contempt.