Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Are you aware of the fact ...

Once again I try to reason with a 9/11 "truther."Below is my YouTube message exchange with "natetruth":

My message to him:
Sent: October 23, 2007
Read: October 23, 2007
Subject: Are you aware of the fact

Are you aware of the fact that the very thing David Ray Griffin points to as a sign of a fire induced collapse actually happened? Trusses DID sag and columns DID bend well before the buildings collapsed.

GOOGLE: "The very thing that Griffin points to as a feature of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos of the World Trade Center."

His reply to me:
Sent: October 23, 2007
Subject: Re: Are you aware of the fact

yaya, you guys always start messaging me every time I load a video. I am aware of what Griffin says. Griffin is nothing to me, I don't fallow what one person says, mostly this guy. I have been involved with the studies of this for years buddy. I'm sure you have your points and I've watched your videos before. I am at ground zero every Saturday talking to people, come if you are ever around. But I don't have time to start a debate with another person out of the dozens that I have. I'll waist valuable time and you will also,


Nate E

My message back to Nate:
Sent: October 24, 2007
Subject: Re: Re: Are you aware of the fact


Why is it every single time I contact one of you guys, you can't defend or even attempt to defend your theory?

At this point I can cut and paste from my own arguments and notes so I am not "wasting time." Are you telling me you don't have anything already written to refute my point?

If we are to have a functioning society, we should be able to respond logically to people and especially if we insist on advancing a particular theory.

Griffin believes in "controlled demolition" (like you I am assuming)

Griffin writes, "in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes."

But contrary to what Griffin claims, there were indeed signs of bending or sagging. Witnesses reported it and photos document it!

9/11 conspiracy people are still at it

Do you deny that trusses were sagging and columns were bending well before the collapse of the buildings? Apparently the reason the "controlled demolition" crowd believes what they do is because they are ignorant of the basic fact that well before the buildings collapsed, Trusses DID sag and columns DID bend.

If I take the time to go down to the WTC site, are you going to stare silently when I make the above point? Be honest with yourself, your theory doesn't make sense and the evidence debunks it.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory


Nate's message back to me:
Sent: October 24, 2007
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Are you aware of the fact

I recieved three of the same message, you are cut and pasting

Now debate online all day with someone else who has the time or no job. I told you where I'll talk and when I have the time, have a good one,

Nate E

No comments: