[Dual1ty]

Bump to commemorate 9/11's anniversary and to give this more visibility.

"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."

              - Osama bin Laden, September 2001

[Lord Dave]

What are you highlighting?

[Dual1ty]

What are you highlighting?

[Lord Dave]

Why are they talking like that pile of rubble is everything?  Can't they see the rubble everywhere?  Thats literally a pile on top of a larger layer of rubble.

[Dual1ty]

Why are they talking like that pile of rubble is everything?  Can't they see the rubble everywhere?  Thats literally a pile on top of a larger layer of rubble.

There was barely any rubble left and it was all at ground level or very close to ground level.

Don't make sense if it's supposed to be 500000 tons that just "fell down".

[ichoosereality]

Why are they talking like that pile of rubble is everything?  Can't they see the rubble everywhere?  Thats literally a pile on top of a larger layer of rubble.

There was barely any rubble left and it was all at ground level or very close to ground level.

Don't make sense if it's supposed to be 500000 tons that just "fell down".

From https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/ground-zero

Crews built roads across the site to make it easier to haul away the debris. (By May 2002, when the cleanup officially ended, workers had moved more than 108,000 truckloads–1.8 million tons–of rubble to a Staten Island landfill.)

Further how would not "just falling down" (whatever that would be) reduce the mass of the buildings?   Quite a large number of folks watched them fall live on television.  So just what are you claiming?

[Dual1ty]

By May 2002, when the cleanup officially ended, workers had moved more than 108,000 truckloads–1.8 million tons–of rubble to a Staten Island landfill.)

You got any proof (ok, let's say evidence to make it easier for ya) of that? I know that the trucks were working hard to remove all the evidence... but 1.8 million tons? Well, let's just say that I had a 1.8 million ton shit yesterday, you just have to believe me.

[ichoosereality]

By May 2002, when the cleanup officially ended, workers had moved more than 108,000 truckloads–1.8 million tons–of rubble to a Staten Island landfill.)

You got any proof (ok, let's say evidence to make it easier for ya) of that? I know that the trucks were working hard to remove all the evidence... but 1.8 million tons? Well, let's just say that I had a 1.8 million ton shit yesterday, you just have to believe me.

Merely claiming that every source that does not match your claims is not to be trusted is hardly credible.  Further you failed to address my questions.  Your trolling is really at a pathetic level.

[Dual1ty]

Merely claiming that every source that does not match your claims is not to be trusted is hardly credible.  Further you failed to address my questions.  Your trolling is really at a pathetic level.

Actually the question was if you had any evidence for the claim you just tried to pass as a fact one comment ago.

No? Ok, then.

I would prefer it if you didn't tarnish this thread with your pathetic unsubstantiated claims.

[ichoosereality]

Merely claiming that every source that does not match your claims is not to be trusted is hardly credible.  Further you failed to address my questions.  Your trolling is really at a pathetic level.

Actually the question was if you had any evidence for the claim you just tried to pass as a fact one comment ago.

History.com is seen as pretty reliable as far as I know.

The questions you did not answer were MY questions and are pretty basic

Further how would not "just falling down" (whatever that would be) reduce the mass of the buildings?   Quite a large number of folks watched them fall live on television.  So just what are you claiming?

[AATW]

One has to admire the way Dual1ty hops seemlessly from being an expert on the shape of the earth to being an expert on wild fires to now being an expert on structural engineering and what one would expect to experience and see when two buildings of that size collapse.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one...

[Dual1ty]

One has to admire the way Dual1ty hops seemlessly from being an expert on the shape of the earth to being an expert on wild fires to now being an expert on structural engineering and what one would expect to experience and see when two buildings of that size collapse.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one...

I know more about it than you. Which is not saying much. But that's okay, you didn't have a lot of time on this Earth to study and you have video games to play.

[ichoosereality]

One has to admire the way Dual1ty hops seemlessly from being an expert on the shape of the earth to being an expert on wild fires to now being an expert on structural engineering and what one would expect to experience and see when two buildings of that size collapse.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one...

Perhaps.  Though their MO seems to be to demand proof of anything claimed by established sources while blindly accepting random cruft on the internet.  A from of extreme trolling for lack of a better label.  Such would not require that they actually believe that they are correct but that they enjoy claiming that everyone else is wrong.  Which seems to be a pretty dominant theme among FEers generally.  Oh well.

[Dual1ty]

Perhaps.  Though their MO seems to be to demand proof of anything claimed by established sources while blindly accepting random cruft on the internet.  A from of extreme trolling for lack of a better label.  Such would not require that they actually believe that they are correct but that they enjoy claiming that everyone else is wrong.  Oh well.

So you won't provide any evidence for the claim you cited from the "established source" because belief is good enough for you. That's fine, but this is a serious thread. I didn't ask if history.com is an "established source", I asked you to provide evidence for the ridiculous claim that you tried to pass as a fact. Won't do it? Okay, I suggest you move on then. Your opinion about me or "they" is not required AND not welcome, and it only tarnishes the thread. Not to mention that it doesn't look good for you when you also believe making empty claims makes you right.

This is the second time I tell you. Will you behave or not?

[ichoosereality]

Perhaps.  Though their MO seems to be to demand proof of anything claimed by established sources while blindly accepting random cruft on the internet.  A from of extreme trolling for lack of a better label.  Such would not require that they actually believe that they are correct but that they enjoy claiming that everyone else is wrong.  Oh well.

So you won't provide any evidence for the claim you cited from the "established source"

If you do not accept the established count of truckloads removed from the site, what evidence would you accept?

Since there is no doubt at all that the buildings did indeed collapse, where would the mass of the buildings end up other than in the debris pile?

[Dual1ty]

If you do not accept the established count of truckloads removed from the site, what evidence would you accept?

Oh, you established that count, did you? How did you establish it? Or did gov. and history.com did that for you?

Are you capable of thinking for yourself little buddy?

Can you explain why it's exactly 108,000? Why not 177,999 or 108,001? Why not 169,876 or 111,755? Damn, what a coincidence that it was exactly 108,000 truckloads needed for 1.8 million tons. Not less, not more.

"Established count" LOL

[ichoosereality]

If you do not accept the established count of truckloads removed from the site, what evidence would you accept?

Oh, you established that count, did you? How did you establish it? Or did gov. and history.com did that for you?

Yes I let history.com and their sources establish it for me. 

Are you capable of thinking for yourself little buddy?

I was not present at the site counting the trucks, were you?

Can you explain why it's exactly 108,000? Why not 177,999 or 108,001? Why not 169,876 or 111,755? Damn, what a coincidence that it was exactly 108,000 truckloads necessary for 1.8 million tons. Not less, not more.

"Established count" LOL

What difference does it make if its +/- a few truckloads?  The loads were certainly not uniform either so the 1.8M tons is also just an estimate. 

AGAIN: Where would the mass of the collapsed buildings go if not into the debris pile?

[Dual1ty]

You don't say that it's an estimate that someone pulled out of their ass? But I thought your whole argument was that it was an "established count" lmfao. Not anymore, I guess.

Maybe you're learning something after all. Baby steps...

[ichoosereality]

You don't say that it's an estimate that someone pulled out of their ass? But I thought your whole argument was that it was an "established count" lmfao. Not anymore, I guess.

The count may well be exact but the tonnage is clearly an estimate (I thought that was obvious).  Even if the count is approximate, again (which of course you will not answer) what difference does it make?

and the key question for which you obviously have no answer is:
Where would the mass of the collapsed buildings go if not into the debris pile?

[Dual1ty]

The count may well be exact but the tonnage is clearly an estimate (I thought that was obvious).  Even if the count is approximate, again (which of course you will not answer) what difference does it make?

It's not about the estimate, it's about how much was actually removed.

Are you learning yet?