at 5:33 he says "well it was an architectural defect". There's no "n't" in his words regardless of what you think the rest of what he was saying meant.Trump doesn't say it was an architectural defect,
Not by how he is describing the outer wall.Trump's "lay speculations" are surely more significant than your own.
Yeah, but you omitted the fact that he thought the bombs were on the planes.I represented Trump's quote accurately and backed it up accurately using an accurate time reference to a genuine recording.
It is exactly what he said.
It was incredibly inaccurate. He also said in the 1993 bombing that half the columns were gone, when in fact even the column that the van was parked next to did not even buckle, the damage was largely to horizontal structures and non-structural walls. He's obviously just talking off the top of his head. He remembers the narrow windows, and then extrapolated from that the exterior walls were the primary structural elements, which they were not.but what he said missed out the fact that actually the MAIN strength in the building was the central core and NOT the outer skin so his description of a Can of soup was not very accurate.
This was what Trump said on 9/11, and is a first impression. Trump is not an engineer.I represented Trump's quote accurately and backed it up accurately using an accurate time reference to a genuine recording.
It is exactly what he said.
Trump doesn't say it was an architectural defect, he says it WASN'T an architectural defect. You have to listen carefully for this but it is perfectly clear from the context that this is what he said, immediately following the remark with "they were known to be very strong buildings" and going on to expand on why he thinks they were so strong.
As a builder of huge towers, Trump's "lay speculations" are surely more significant than your own. You didn't take a tour of the buildings together with a structural engineer, did you?
I disagree, I think he's saying "It wasn't architectural defect"he says "well it was an architectural defect". i just relistened to it 5 more times trying to here a negative and he says "was an". even his accentuation in speech patterns indicate a positive, the vocal stress point is on "was". his voice goes up.
i do understand that it may seem like that, but if you listen to him around 1:30 he doesnt answer that question normally either, he starts talking about what he wants to talk about. he's weird.and Donald goes on to say how well the buildings were built and how strong they were, sort of to strengthen his statement that it wasn't architectural defect.
So?It is exactly what he said.
his original title to the thread wasA bombs on the plane theory is not something most of the "truthers" believe.
I guess it depends on his relationship to a soup can. Does he consider a soup can strong or weak? It seems like he was speaking in terms of the tower being built strong. President [elect]trump is pretty good a talking around in circles. Maybe he confused himself. It still doesn't mean that there were, in fact, bombs anywhere, just because he said it. Is that what this post is trying to say?Just because he changes thought streams after he answers is irrelevant
i should note it's not just CubeRadio, James Tracy and others are claiming this also.Cube believes Trump was saying there were bombs in the TTs
i know, i can't figure out how a soup can matches his "it was strong" speech either. a soup can is hollow inside.. maybe he didnt know there was a core at all. ??Does he consider a soup can strong or weak?
And of course Trump had not seen that footage at that time. He's talking about how the planes penetrated the outer wall. He's speculating about the cause of the hole.It's in no way conclusive from the transcript that Trump was first talking about bombs on the planes. The interviewer initially asks if bombs could have caused the destruction of the towers: Trump seems to agree that "they had bombs".
This is perfectly obvious to anyone who actually takes the trouble to view the footage of the towers collapsing, particularly in slow motion.
30 seconds later. It's not as if they were discussing something else.Certainly, later he speculates that there was something "more than just fuel" on the planes.
whether or not he said "was" (which he does) really has nothing to do with the fact that throughout the interview he is only saying he thought there might have been bombs on the plane. Youre right i shouldnt go off-topic by arguing about it, i just find it fascinating that so many people are mishearing him.It seems terribly sad to me that dierdre has wasted so much time insisting a "was" rather than a "wasn't"
I'm sure he saw SOME footage. But the point here is that he's talking about the hole, not the collapse.How do you know Trump hadn't seen the footage of the towers exploding, [...] He saw the hole, so it's reasonable to imagine he was also watching when they blew up.
The topic is what Trump said about bombs or explosives. The issue of if he said it was or was not an architectural defect pertains to that, because it relates to his understanding of the entire situation (an understanding that we can see was very poor, as it was unaware of the core structure).I love how you admit that you went entirely off topic with some quibble -- but my preceding post gets edited to remove a detail that proves there were bombs because, presumably, you've decreed that detail wasn't on topic.
i didnt edit it. and you didnt have anything that proved there were bombs.I love how you admit that you went entirely off topic with some quibble -- but my preceding post gets edited to remove a detail that proves there were bombs because, presumably, you've decreed that detail wasn't on topic.
oh good.. then ill just point out (then i'll drop it promise)... it WAS an architectural defect. Trump watched the buildings collapse to the ground, his choices were "architectural defect, aftershocks, bombs". He doesnt mention bombs or aftershocks.The issue of if he said it was or was not an architectural defect pertains to that, because it relates to his understanding of the entire situation
How does Donald Trump (Not an expert on this) saying that he "thinks" there must have been more than fuel "Prove" there were bombs? And who cares if he said that there was or wasn't a defect? HE IS IN NO WAY AN EXPERT ON THIS! Just because he has been involved with the building of buildings, doesn't mean he knows anything about structural engineering. He is a high profile New York guy that loves to be the one who is "in the know" and is speaking about something before anyone really even knows what happened. This is not evidence of bombs at all. At least that is what "I think" so it must be true, right? I blew a lot of crap up when I was a kid, so I am an expert.but my preceding post gets edited to remove a detail that proves there were bombs
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Debunked: Donald Trump Promises to Reopen 9/11 Probe [Fake News]||9/11||4|
|TFTRH #21 Donald Friedman - After 9-11: An Engineer’s Work at the World Trade Center||Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast||1|
|Explained: "UFOS" in Donald Trump's Crowd Photo on 4th of July||UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal||3|
|Claim: Julian Assange offered pardon to "Lie" for Trump||Current Events||20|
|Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before]||Conspiracy Theories||3|
|Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories||Current Events||49|
|Claim Melania Trump has a double, will the real 1st lady please stand up||Conspiracy Theories||11|
|Project Dragnet||Conspiracy Theories||2|
|Buzzfeed Reveals Billion Dollar Hoax||General Discussion||0|
|Debunked: Hillary Was Tipped Off On (and Tweeted About) Trump Wiretap||General Discussion||0|
|Explained: Trump's Secret Service Agent's "Fake Hands" [Hands Ready Position]||General Discussion||5|
|Paid anti-Trump protesters ? it's a Hoax||General Discussion||6|
|Debunked: Trump says "Republicans dumbest voters"||Quotes Debunked||2|
|Conspiracy? Trump Repeating Falsely Attributed Quote from Russian Media.||Conspiracy Theories||26|