Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Conspiracy v. fact 9/11 [View all]Frank_Norris_Lives
(114 posts)1. My favorite....
....is probably the footprint contradiction.
1. Always say the two towers collapsed into their own footprint.
2. Debunkers (cue screaming): "They did not collapse into their own footprint!" And the debunkers are right. In fact, the building's pieces immediately begin to splay outward and the debris field for each tower is something like almost 500 fit. wide.
3. BUT, then the debunkers rely on Bazant's "Crush Down - Crush Up" theory. A theory that ignores the loss of building material and mass.
So, we are expected to believe this splaying material had enough concentrated, downward force to burrow down the entire core, through sections of greatest resistance of thicker, more robust and intact materials.
Absolutely ludicrous.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The engines of the plane that hit the Pentagon energetically dissasembled themselves when they diges
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2013
#2
Um, the south tower core columns up to floor 50 or so are visible standing in the dust
AtheistCrusader
May 2013
#78
Luckily, there's VIDEO of that exceedingly short period of time. Remember that? nt
greyl
Mar 2013
#22
That is the 10' EXIT hole in the Pentagon E ring - not the entrance hole in the facade.
hack89
Mar 2013
#50
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place
stevebreeze
May 2013
#76
There's nothing resembling sound premises or valid logical inferences in your argument
William Seger
Mar 2013
#59